tri-x @ 1600 in flat light

My usual combo for street photography is tri-x @ 320 in xtol.

Recently I've had to rate at 1250/1600 due to the heavy overcast skies. For tri-x at this speed I have had good results using diafine (only done a few rolls though), however that has always been in more contrasty conditions and I have heard diafine is not good for flat light at all.

I'd like to minimise grain if I can, I tried pushing tri-x in xtol and the grain was really huge even in 6x7!

What are my options? Is HC110 dil. B worth a try? Will diafine be OK printed on a harder paper grade?

I only use Xtol and various films. TriX often gives me nice results and for some time now. Neopan 1600 in Xtol although only available in 35mm, which I'm sure you're aware of and Delta 400 is also nice in Xtol. My favourite was Agfa APX 400 which sadly is no longer in production. I'm not sure if any of this helps but I can only encourage you to keep trying until you find the right mix that suits your own style.
Kind regards, Nicole

Although I no longer push TX, I use Tmax or Delta 3200, TX in Dinafine has good shadow detail and grain but it can rather flat and you may need to print on harder paper, I print my old dinafine negatives at grade 4. You can also push in Microdal X or D 76. For best grain I found that Tmaz or Delta 3200 rated at 1600 in DDX works best for me.

If you're pushing Tri-X in Xtol, you should develop it in stock solution. That'll help your grain. I've had great results with Diafine at about 1000 ISO, but higher my shadows fall apart. Grainy, though (which I like), but as you say not so good for flat light.

I'd like to add that Tri-X in Pyrocat HD is absolutely gorgeous, but if you want no grain then it won't work very well for you.

I still think the Xtol stock is the best solution.

- Thom

I would stick to xtol or DD-X. Tri-x looks great at 800-1000.
After that I switch to Delta3200@1600.

Here's a print from Tri-X 320 pushed to 1600 in fairly flat light, developed in good old Tmax. There's definitely grain, but it's pleasant and doesn't overwhelm the image. I'll have to ask you to excuse the lousy scan, particularly the weird stuff on the bottom left.

What "works" is really so subjective. As Nicole says, keep playing until something jumps out at you.

- CJ

Experiment until you find it

Ditto the experiment until you find your formula idea. I worked for years with every camera meter set to 1600 all the time - shooting Tri-X and HP5.
Diafine is probably a waste of money more common developers work just as well.
What dawned in me after years of experimentation:

Faster working developer = higher contrast, less shadow detail, more highlight blocking
Slower working developer = lower contrast, better shadow detail, less highlight blocking
More agitation = higher contrast, less shadow detail, more highlight blocking
Less agitation = lower contrast, better shadow detail, less highlight blocking

Try this on a test strip or clipping - D76 dilute 1:4, 18 minutes @ 68F, very gentle agitation after the initial. HC 110 comparably diluted should work out about the same but I think it tends to higher contrast and less shadow detail than the D76.

For the general principals read Adams' "The Negative" on the subject of alternating water bath development.

Good luck with your quest.

For flat subject/pushed film I would stay away from compensating developers, such as diafine, and away from stand development.

You don't have deep shadows so the 'shadow detail' issue is moot: well,
not really - what are dark greys in the subject are now deep shadows as you are under exposing Z-IV [dark grey] to Z-II [slight shadow detail]. If any part of the scene is more than one stop down from average exposure at 3200it will come out dead black and all the pushing in the world won't rescue any detail.

What were highlights are now to the film dark greys. White highlights will be a skin tone. So blocking highlights are a non issue as well.

Pushing won't give you more detail, just more contrast and a higher D-Max. The up side to pushing is it keeps you away from a #5 contrast filter where grain and scratches really show up.

So: a developer that has good shadow detail, slightly energetic, reasonable grain. [TTH: I know of no developer with a reputation for 'lousy shadow detail' - Kodalith, I suppose].

If it were me I would use a normal developer, D-76 for instance.

I wouldn't push more than a stop (~15% increase in developing time) or grain starts to get to be a problem. I would resign myself to normal-grain but thin negatives an a #3 1/2 contrast filter.

If you want to push the development 3-stops then Kodak recomends one of the T-Max developers.