Tri-X @ 1600 developer sharp and dirty.

I know there are plenty of discussions about this and I've searched through them but just wanted some more thoughts. I had stopped my film for a little while and had been shooting digital but came back to film, and acquired a Leica M6 with a 50 summicron. Arista has the rebranded tri-x for such a great price and I always used to love it so that's the route I want to take.For the world I like to shoot 1600 is the perfect iso, I tend to like dark bars, cantinas, strip clubs etc. So I'm looking for developer ideas. The main goal is sharpness. I really love a razor sharp face. I may use flash sometimes as well. Grain is not an issue, good tonality would also be nice. In the past I used HC110 at 1:100 in a semi stand setup but am not sure if that's for me. I also used Xtol but rarely to 1600. The other day I tried rodinal just agitating the first minute then stand for an hour, and thought it was Ok. Does anyone really love 35mm trix at 1600 in Rodinal? I loved Pyrocat when i used to use it but will it do 1600?

So to simplify the question: Favorite developer for 135 Tri-X pushed to 1600 with emphasis on Sharpness.

P.S. I'm mostly scanning now but plan to get back into printing soon.

I've been very happy with my results pushing Tri-X to 1600. Have tried souping a couple different ways.

D76 1+1

Crushing the American Spirit by Leighgion, on Flickr

1:100 Rodinal Stand

Girl on a Boat by Leighgion, on Flickr

What about Diafine ? It gives the best results (IMO) at 1250 but i think it's ok at 1600. Especially with Tri-x (and arista of course)

And, it's is a very flexible developper.

I'd suggest giving Xtol another try. I like it 1:1 for 13.5 minutes with the standard Kodak recommended agitation.

It's a little offbeat, but I've had good luck with D-23 1:1 at 16 minutes, 68ºf. The negs are denser than those from X-tol or Diafine, but print well.

Xtol 1+3 makes a mighty sharp negative. At EI 1,600 I would recommend starting somewhere around 18 minutes, agitating every 2 minutes for ten seconds, fully inverting and twisting the tank two or three times. This combination gives a huge amount of shadow detail, and almost normal looking negatives in spite of two stops underexposure.

Yep, Xtol gets you great speed. When I found out that Arista was TriX I started buying it in bulk rolls, what a bargain! I've completely standardized on Xtol now, 1:1 at 'normal' speed, 1:3 at 1600, almost fool-proof

Rom said:

What about Diafine ? It gives the best results (IMO) at 1250 but i think it's ok at 1600. Especially with Tri-x (and arista of course)

And, it's is a very flexible developper.

Click to expand...

Agree with most of this and I use it regularly with Arista/Tri-X but I don't think it's as sharp as most of the other suggestions here. Sharp enough for me but if sharp is what you want I think Xtol will easily best it especially at 1+3.

I shoot Tri-X at 1600 and 3200 more often than I shoot it at 400 or 200.

A lot more often. I like to use straight D-76, or straight Acufine, or DD-X 1:9, with lots of agitation.

For even more fun I use a Red 25 on my lens (either a 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, or 105/1.8)

It's an acquired taste. You've been warned.

I was kind of shying away from Xtol because I really love the easy to mix one shot syrup of HC110 or the similar one shot ease of Rodinal. I develop in a home bathroom so I didn't want to get in to the whole 5 glass bottle thing, but I just discovered this wine bladder idea and now I'm reconsidering.
Anyone else have any thoughts on D76 vs Xtol for 1600 try-x?

mexipike said:

I was kind of shying away from Xtol because I really love the easy to mix one shot syrup of HC110 or the similar one shot ease of Rodinal. I develop in a home bathroom so I didn't want to get in to the whole 5 glass bottle thing, but I just discovered this wine bladder idea and now I'm reconsidering.
Anyone else have any thoughts on D76 vs Xtol for 1600 try-x?

Click to expand...

If you don't want to get into Xtol, then D76 is a lot more accessible being available in smaller packets. The difference you are likely to see between the two is that Xtol will give you more shadow detail and slightly finer grain. D76 will give you more apparent sharpness, and the advantage of only needing to mix one liter.

With the wine bladder idea I'm accepting the 5 liter situation. I recall when I used Xtol I liked it as a standard developer for pretty much every film. A lot of my friends have been having me develop their negs and I think Xtol would be perfect to keep it simple for them too.

So is xtol 1:3 the consensus for 1600?

Thanks so much for the replies.

You'll have to pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand what about XTOL is so complicated. It's two bags, mixed in a 5L jug, and then poured into the tank for developing. Doesn't it only get complicated when you start mixing it at anything other than stock? Stock has seemed to work for me this far, but then my work probably isn't near the caliber of everyone else's, and as I said you'll have to pardon my ignorance on the matter.

I don't really think it's that complicated. A lot of people worry about it going bad without warning so like to keep it in 5 1 liter amber glass bottles to keep it from contacting air. That's not complicated either, though a little bit of a hassle.

If your shooting and developing, why would it have time to go bad though? Mayonnaise would go bad too if it weren't consumed.

Good point, and that's kind of my thoughts. I'm still going to put it in a wine bladder to be safe and I feel like drinking 5 liters of wine. You can usually smell mayonaise and tell if it's bad but Xtol just goes bad with no indication. Though simple film strip tests can help check for it.

So I guess the point is you're right, Xtol's no big deal and I just ordered some.

Anyone else have any comments on 1600 with xtol or other developers?

Good point, and that's kind of my thoughts. I'm still going to put it in a wine bladder to be safe and I feel like drinking 5 liters of wine. You can usually smell mayonaise and tell if it's bad but Xtol just goes bad with no indication. Though simple film strip tests can help check for it.

So I guess the point is you're right, Xtol's no big deal and I just ordered some.

Anyone else have any comments on 1600 with xtol or other developers?

One thing you might want to bear in mind with Xtol is the minimum amount of developer recommended per roll (I think it's 100ml). This may come into play at the higher dilutions depending on what sort of tank you use.

michael stevens said:

One thing you might want to bear in mind with Xtol is the minimum amount of developer recommended per roll (I think it's 100ml). This may come into play at the higher dilutions depending on what sort of tank you use.

Click to expand...

That applies to all developers.

mexipike said:

Good point, and that's kind of my thoughts. I'm still going to put it in a wine bladder to be safe and I feel like drinking 5 liters of wine. You can usually smell mayonaise and tell if it's bad but Xtol just goes bad with no indication. Though simple film strip tests can help check for it.

So I guess the point is you're right, Xtol's no big deal and I just ordered some.

Anyone else have any comments on 1600 with xtol or other developers?

Click to expand...

mexipike

the xtol sudden death thing you are talking about
happened a long time ago, not really something that happens currently.
it happened with some of the 1L packets of developer, AND because it used to be
recommended that xtol be used in a variety of very dilute ways ...
when used very dilute the developing agent got used up, and the developer died
when used as it is currently recommended, it doesn't die.
i haven't used xtol in a long time, i never liked it and at the time it seemed like
it underprocessed all my film no matter how much i over developed it ...
looking back at my old film it didn't really do that bad of a job ...

if you can get your hands on sprint film developer ...
i would use that ... it is easy to use, lasts a pretty long time and works great ...

if you want to do something out of the ordinary ...
contact the photographer's formulary, and get some ansco 130 ( pf130 )
dilute it 1:10 and process your film in it for 8.5mins at 72º,
you might have to tweek the development time to fit your needs ...
people also dilute dektol 1:7 /7mins for normal development, you will have to tweek it
to get a workable time for your 2stops push ...

you could always mix a batch of caffenol c ... it is a great, and often times overlooked but works better
than most every developer i have used since i started processing film in 1981
http://caffenol.blogspot.com/

i add about 15cc of ansco 130/1L into it, and stand develop my film ( even 10year old drawer stored tmz )
for 30mins and get great results ... you might have to agitate in your 30mins
since you are pushing your film, again, you will have to test + tweek ...

i don't use anything but coffee+130 for my own-stuff and it has been my developer of choice for close to 6years.
i roast my own coffee beans ( robusta not arabica ) and currently use them 50/50 with green robusta beans
( i just make a pot of coffee ) ... i eyeball measure my other ingredients ( washing soda and vit c ) ...
20 cups of coffee lasts 3-6 months and for 150-200 rolls/sheets of film or prints without replenishment
--- it works out to about 4¢/development ...

good luck !
john

I may have to give caffenol a try. Does anyone have any experience using it as a push developer. I ordered some xtol from freestyle and just received it this morning so I'm going to give it a shot first. Anyone have any secrets they like with xtol and trix at 1600?

Chris,

Nice blog and website -- you've much to be proud of!

Anyone used Tri-x at 1600 with DDX?

I have used TriX and HPT at 1600 in DDX, but found that I get better shadows with TM3200 rated at 1200 in DDX or TMX developer. Other option is Tri X in Dianfile at 1200 or 1600.

I found DDX to be pretty similar to Xtol in regard to sharpness and shadow detail. It does work out more expensive per roll though (if that's a concern to you), but—as it's a liquid—more convenient if you're not using it frequently.