Pushing Tri X to 3200 - which developer and for how long?

Hello - I am a 1st time user on this forum and would appreciate some tips .......
I've shot a roll of Tri X @ 3200 and am not sure how to process it. I have D76, a v small amount of once used Microphen stock and Rodinal - and can't find any developing times on any of the fact sheets - which would be best to use and for how long?

IMHO, Rodinal.

1+100. 2 hour semi-stand, 2 gentle inversions at 40 min, 2 gentle inversions at 1 hour 20 min.

6400 using the above method:

Tri-X 6400 Test #1, Night Street by athiril, on Flickr

Ethol UFG developer is designed for "push" processing without extensive developing times. The UFG in the name refers to ultra fine grain. It was developed for pushing miniature formats while retaining acceptable grain where large blow-ups are to be made.

Rodinal 1+100. ATMO.

1600 - 2 hours. 3 initial inversions, tap on palm of hand to dislodge bubbles. 1 very gentle inversion every 30 minutes followed by a gentle tap to dislodge bubbles.
3200 - same, but for 2.5 hours.
6400 - same, but for 3 hours.
12800 - same, but for 4 hours.

Learned this 30 years ago and have done it the same way since for many hundred rolls.

____________________________________________________________________________

If you want a lot of grain, this works as well:
Rodinal 1:50.
30 seconds inversion, than 1 every 5 minutes.

@800: 18 Minuten
@1600: 23 Minuten
@3200: 30 Minuten
@6400: 39 Minuten
@12800: 51 Minuten

It is an interesting way of doing it, with severely reduced agitation and dilute Rodinal. For what it's worth, I have had uneven development with 120 film, but not so much with 35mm. But it does work, and in my opinion it works better than normal push processing, because the extremely long development time helps shadow detail to have sufficient density. Normal push processing might add something like 20-50% development time, from say 8 minutes to 12 minutes for two stops underexposure, and it is generally accepted that it's at the sacrifice of shadow detail.
But to increase it something like ten-fold makes a big difference and will bring back shadow detail that some people find impossible to believe.

Try it. It will surprise you.

I still think that using normal exposure index, longer shutter times on tripod, and developing normally gives a much better negative. But sometimes that isn't possible, and this is a great technique to compromise with.

- Thomas

Thomas Bertilsson said:

[snip] For what it's worth, I have had uneven development with 120 film, but not so much with 35mm.[snip]
- Thomas

Click to expand...

Yes.

This has been a problem for me as well.

When developing 120 film use a 4 or 5 x 120 tank, load the two middle reels and leave the 2 outer ones empty.
It may have to do with a temperature gradient with little/no agitation that becomes apparent on 120, but not on 35 - I don't know. And I am way too utilitarian to really care.

Using the empty reels has solved the issue for me. YMMV.

PS: Thomas, I have learned a lot from your posts over the years - Thank you!