Recommendations for current 35mm Tri-X, soft light scenes only...

[Sirius Glass]

Box speed, ISO 400, normal development in XTOL or replenished XTOL and you will get plenty of shadow detail. Shoot at EI 640 and your negative will be thin and harder to work with.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

That's a very good point, Craig...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Box speed, ISO 400, normal development in XTOL or replenished XTOL and you will get plenty of shadow detail. Shoot at EI 640 and your negative will be thin and harder to work with.

Hi Sirius,
I'm not sure about that: Tri-X is often used above 640... Well used, I mean...
And about shadow detail, when there are no shadows, things are different...
For soft light, for example, Diafine gives 1250 with clean tone... That developer would allow me to use my system at f/11 all the time, not f/8, which I'd like a lot, because my 35mm Leitz Summaron is a double gauss and has no difraction even at f/16... The reason I'm not trying to go there, is 1250 is too much for the very ocassional situation of needing to use that camera for an unexpected direct sunlight scene... That's enough problem at 640, so I'll stick to 640... Below that, I can`t use my system in the street at f/8 all the time...
What has surprised me is, a lot of people use Tri-X at 200, at 400 and at 1600, but nearly nobody talks about 640-800, which seem correct EIs for soft light...

 

[Lachlan Young]

One more fact by Photrio members: it's been said that undiluted D-76 can blow highlights easily, compared to diluted D-76...

1. There's not really such a thing as a 'blown highlight' with regular film - it's just slower to print for those with underpowered enlargers, and may have worse tonality if the highlights have ended up on the shoulder.

2. Claims to the propensity of a film to get denser than expected highlights almost always have to do with two inter-related factors: bad/ inept process controls; and a lack of understanding of how development rate varies quite significantly with dilution. Understand these, and everything else works fine. The choice of development tanks and their fill/ empty rate is something that is important in this as well.

If you want to squeeze TX to 650, Microphen is the obvious place to start. And a lot also depends on exactly how much you want to stretch the exposure - are you wanting to place 6 stops on G2, or 5 stops etc? And if you place 7 stops exactly on G2, 5 stops should drop nicely on G4.

 

[MattKing]

What has surprised me is, a lot of people use Tri-X at 200, at 400 and at 1600, but nearly nobody talks about 640-800, which seem correct EIs for soft light...

If your light is soft, there is no reason to reduce exposure (EI of 640 - 800).
Just expose normally, and boost contrast by increasing development.
Then print longer, for darker shadows.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

The sad thing is I agree with you, Lachlan, and I agree with you, Matt...
Lachlan: Microphen is the developer I use the most... But recently I saw some comparisons I did, and my conclusion is it's wonderful for taking ISO400 film to the 1600 region, where a standard developer makes a film's tone and grain suffer... But Microphen changes grain and fine detail severely anytime it's used, no matter if the push is very slight, so that's why I'm trying to make it with a standard developer...
Matt: even though you're right, at 400 I'd be using my sytem with a fix f-stop of f/5.6, and that's not enough for me as I prefocus as it's usual while doing street quickly... I need 640...
But I'm sure it can be done: I've done it with HP5 and with TMY-2, yes, with Microphen and with FX39, but at 1600 and 1000: I can`t believe it`s not possible at 640 with D-76... 640 is not a fast speed... It's distance to 1000 and 1600 is clearly the distance between speed enhancing and standard developers...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

1. There's not really such a thing as a 'blown highlight' with regular film - it's just slower to print for those with underpowered enlargers, and may have worse tonality if the highlights have ended up on the shoulder.

2. Claims to the propensity of a film to get denser than expected highlights almost always have to do with two inter-related factors: bad/ inept process controls; and a lack of understanding of how development rate varies quite significantly with dilution. Understand these, and everything else works fine. The choice of development tanks and their fill/ empty rate is something that is important in this as well.

If you want to squeeze TX to 650, Microphen is the obvious place to start. And a lot also depends on exactly how much you want to stretch the exposure - are you wanting to place 6 stops on G2, or 5 stops etc? And if you place 7 stops exactly on G2, 5 stops should drop nicely on G4.

That's precisely the personal experience with Tri-X and D-76 I've been asking about from forum members... Sometimes I tend to think 1+2 is the route, but sometimes I think undiluted is the right way... Of course I'm blocked because I haven`t received my Tri-X, but in a few days I`ll be testing and seeing clearly...
Thanks a lot for caring!

 

[Craig75]

If your light is soft, there is no reason to reduce exposure (EI of 640 - 800).
Just expose normally, and boost contrast by increasing development.
Then print longer, for darker shadows.

If anything i personally would be overexposing a stop or two to get the shadows off the toe so i can force up the shadow contrast in the print but thats just one way to skin the low contrast scene cat.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If anything i personally would be overexposing a stop or two to get the shadows off the toe so i can force up the shadow contrast in the print but thats just one way to skin the low contrast scene cat.

That can be done when one's field is tripod photography, or if in the street you want to focus every time, in front of your subject...
I can not.
That's what Tri-X is for: to reach 640 with great tone.

 

[Craig75]

That can be done when one's field is tripod photography, or if in the street you want to focus every time, in front of your subject...
I can not.
That's what Tri-X is for: to reach 640 with great tone.

You can shoot with a wider lens and open the aperture up another stop while keeping the depth of field, keep the shutter speed and overexpose a stop. Obviously that depends on how you like to shoot in the street, whether you prefer a wide or normal lens but thats a pretty common solution to the problem of dof + shutter speed in the street.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Box speed, ISO 400, normal development in XTOL or replenished XTOL and you will get plenty of shadow detail. Shoot at EI 640 and your negative will be thin and harder to work with.

Are you talking about direct sunlight? Tri-X at 640 in overcast has no shadow detail problem...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

You can shoot with a wider lens and open the aperture up another stop while keeping the depth of field, keep the shutter speed and overexpose a stop. Obviously that depends on how you like to shoot in the street, whether you prefer a wide or normal lens but thats a pretty common solution to the problem of dof + shutter speed in the street.

Even with my 35 and my 28 I need f/8... It's not just about depth of field: angular lenses require that because the corners of the image tend to show elements that are located out (behind or in front) of the field curvature... I you add to that the naturally softer corners in angular designs, you'll see we need depth of field not because we want crazy aspherical sharpness in the corners, but because we need to at least show the elements of our image so they can be recognized... 28's and 35's are, when double-gauss, wonderful at f/11 and f/16... I'm OK with f/8.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Youre going to be nowhere near the shoulder in whats probably going to be iso 400 1/400 f5.6 / f8 light with a contrast scene of probably between 4 to 6 stops in diffused sun on a film that can probably capture 12 stops.

If it's not the shoulder, and it seems it can't be, what has made some forum members say, after wet printing from soft scenes in Xtol, "adding development time doesn´t help its flat tone in some types of light"?
It's hard to imagine Kodak replacing D-76 with something that different...
Or maybe there are differences and that's why D-76 exists yet...

 

[Craig75]

If it's not the shoulder, and it seems it can't be, what has made some forum members say, after wet printing from soft scenes in Xtol, "adding development time doesn´t help its flat tone in some types of light"?
It's hard to imagine Kodak replacing D-76 with something that different...
Or maybe there are differences and that's why D-76 exists yet...

test it yourself with your camera, your enlarger lens, your enlarger. Ultimately, they are your images being printed on your equipment, in your style so your eye is the ultimate authority.

personally i'd
a. bracket a shot at f4, 5.6, 8, and 11 to see if you can see any differences in the prints. Even if your lens say vignettes a bit at f2 and is soft in the corners but sharp in the middle that can be a good artistic tool just as much as the image being sharp all across the frame at f8.
b. bracket a scene and develop it at n, n+1, n+2 and see which time produces the contrast you like.

You have 200 feet so you can load some 6 or 12 shot rolls up to test ideas quickly, play around with different ideas of exposure and development, then go and out and enjoy shooting knowing how you want your negatives to be when you take them into the darkroom.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

test it yourself with your camera, your enlarger lens, your enlarger. Ultimately, they are your images being printed on your equipment, in your style so your eye is the ultimate authority.

personally i'd
a. bracket a shot at f4, 5.6, 8, and 11 to see if you can see any differences in the prints. Even if your lens say vignettes a bit at f2 and is soft in the corners but sharp in the middle that can be a good artistic tool just as much as the image being sharp all across the frame at f8.
b. bracket a scene and develop it at n, n+1, n+2 and see which time produces the contrast you like.

You have 200 feet so you can load some 6 or 12 shot rolls up to test ideas quickly, play around with different ideas of exposure and development, then go and out and enjoy shooting knowing how you want your negatives to be when you take them into the darkroom.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Haven't you seen the difference? Or was that a joke?
And the image isn't sharp all across the frame with a 35mm by using f/8... Far from it!
Get serious or do some testing...
This is not personal at all.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If it's not the shoulder, and it seems it can't be, what has made some forum members say, after wet printing from soft scenes in Xtol, "adding development time doesn´t help its flat tone in some types of light"?
It's hard to imagine Kodak replacing D-76 with something that different...
Or maybe there are differences and that's why D-76 exists yet...

It's usually indicative that the claimant is doing something wrong and needs to double check their procedures - or that they are adding way too little time when using diluted forms of Xtol.

People tend to make all sorts of claims without having done simple things like ensuring that their agitation intervals/ cycles are carefully controlled - which is (I've found) a classic way for people to get seemingly errant contrast - they are usually agitating nowhere near enough because of repetitive myths spewed all over the web by the profoundly ignorant/ incompetent - they seem to fear surge marks (which is more a deep tank/ misusing the dev tank as a cocktail shaker issue) more than severe underdevelopment.

 

[Bill Burk]

What shutter speed are you trying to hold onto? It sounds like you are trying to use 1/500 at f/8 most of the time.

Are you using a rangefinder? Do you have f/2? I ask because as soon as your friends come over with a bottle of wine you will want a picture of that... And it’s going to be dark. You’re going to need f/2 and 1/15 second.

 

[Bill Burk]

If you can get XTOL it’s supposedly superior to D-76. A friend of mine develops Tri-X 320 4x5 in XTOL 1:1. His normal time is 6 minutes, and I think 8 minutes would give the 640 you are looking for.

Another friend uses HC-110 1+63 for 9 minutes and 13 minutes would give him around 640.

In other words depending what’s normal, you should develop a little longer to get a little more speed. Tri-X should have no trouble at 640, and on the same roll you could be outdoors in sunshine and shoot at 1/500 at f/8 even though it’s overexposed, it can handle it. Plus you can turn around and take a picture in the shadows without changing the settings.

Contact prints will look awful but each and every shot should print fine

 

[Craig75]

Haven't you seen the difference? Or was that a joke?
And the image isn't sharp all across the frame with a 35mm by using f/8... Far from it!
Get serious or do some testing...
This is not personal at all.

I use a zeiss 21mm distagon. By 5.6 its basically hit its peak performance

https://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/446-zeisszf2128ff?start=1

I also use a pentax 43ltd in m mount. By f4 its hitting its peak performance.

https://www.opticallimits.com/pentax/125-pentax-smc-fa-43mm-f19-limited-review--test-report?start=1

If your images arent sharp across the frame by f8 then something's wrong. Modern manual focus lenses designed for digital sensors (which you can mount in film cameras) are utterly brutal. They reach peak performance way before f8 and are designed for 24mp or 40mp sensors that way outresolve film.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I really think you should get Dr. Henry's book Controls in Black and White Photography as I believe you will just love it. And yes, I am very skeptical guy towards grain level evaluations, especially in 35mm format. And that is how I read your question: tinker, tinker ... bonker, do it again.

We are all kings of our own domain, whatever pleases you is no business of mine. I comment on it because a lot of people think too much about irrelevant detail, especially in 35mm. What applies to LF use most of the time is a waste of time in 35mm.