Tri X 400 in vicious direct Australian summer sun

[gregmacc]

Hi all,
We are heading down to the local swimming hole today and I will be taking the Nikon FM and Nikon f1.8 50mm loaded with Tri X. It will be in the middle of the day, the sun will be blazing, and given the odd small shady tree at the location, contrast levels will be huge. With my limited experience with this film I've noticed shots taken in that type of light, and processed and printed with my standard procedures just don't look so good. I can't explain the "look". A bit "flat" or "murky" maybe. I understand that any film will be struggling to deal with that sort of contrast extreme, but are some better than others? Is Tri X a poor choice?
Thanks

 

[markbarendt]

Some of this is about choice. Do you need all the detail in the shadows to tell your story?

 

[Pinholemaster]

Yep, mad dogs and Englishmen shoot in the high noon sun. Grin. Tri-X can work for you if you find the correct development time to create the contrast range you need to made a unique style or look to the image. It is really about 'seeing' the scene in a way that matches your gear and film.

But in this situation perhaps a slower ISO film would work better. At least it would give you more f/stop choice. Good old Plus-X might be worth testing.

Good luck. Without a specific example, it is hard to be too detailed with advice.

 

[polyglot]

Your images probably look flat if you've done a big contrast-reduction either by reduced development or printing at low grades: the reduction in global dynamic range will also kill your local contrast. It would be better if you could find a scene that us either all-sun or all-shade or dodge/burn as necessary.

 

[Krzys]

First of all. How did you find Tri-X in Australia? Queensland is 100% devoid of this film.

When it comes to shooting at 9am-4pm on a day with little clouds then I rarely shoot faster than 125asa. There really isn't any need for a fast film unless you specifically want the look of tri-x.

 

[Loren Sattler]

I like Tri-x in bright contrasty sun. I adjust development time. For normal contrast scene, I develop with D76 1:1 for only 8:15 minutes at 68 degree with vigorous agitation (6 inversions every 30 seconds).

With bright contrasty light, I reduce this to 7:00 minutes, and still usually print with a 1-1/2 grade filter on RC Ilford or Adox variable contrast paper.

This approach works well for me. For some reason I feel I get better results with Tri-X than Plus-X which is less forgiving.

 

[Loren Sattler]

Forgot to mention, I shoot Tri-X at ASA 200 for these processing times.

 

[Larry.Manuel]

My experience in shooting Tri-X in full sun is that the negs are fairly contrasty and not that easy for me to print. But that's because I haven't learned to develop for those conditions. I've read that many people, for blazing sun, use a medium yellow filter [probably 1.5 to 2 stops' effect on exposure] and rate the Tri-X at EI 200, then pull back on developing time. More agitation will give more contrast, and vice versa.

 

[gregmacc]

We've just returned from the swimming hole. Pinholemaster and Krzys ... I'm using Tri-x 'cause it's what I have ... and it's not EXACTLY Trii-X ... It's Arista Premium 400 ... which apparently is re-branded Tri-X ... I figure if I post referring to it as Tri-X I might get more responses. I purchased a big bunch of it from Freestyle. Worked out to be $4.50 AUD/roll which is half the price of local Tri-X. Anyway ... I'm shooting it at 400iso, so maybe a little less development than normal will reduce the contrast a little.
Thanks for the responses people.

 

[edtbjon]

First time I tried this (I still remember it very well, as it was some kind of revelation to me.) I reduced the developing by some 20%. I did expose at 200, but don't let that stop you. Just reduce your dev.time for now and for the next roll of film in direct sunlight, remember the "rules": "Overexpose/underdevelop and vice versa". Btw, I think TriX is a good choice for "taming contrast". I'd rather use that than PlusX/FP4/TMX, as I find those films more contrasty to begin with.

//Björn

 

[Tony Egan]

If I was able to choose any film for those conditions it would be tri-x. Same rules as always. Expose for shadows and develop for highlights!

 

[john_s]

If I was able to choose any film for those conditions it would be tri-x. Same rules as always. Expose for shadows and develop for highlights!

Hear hear!

I got some good shots in blazing sun in archeological ruins in Mexico by exposing very generously and making sure I didn't develop to the point of excessive contrast. It all depends on how much shadow detail you envisage in the print.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

If I was able to choose any film for those conditions it would be tri-x. Same rules as always. Expose for shadows and develop for highlights!

Yup. Plenty of latitude, and very forgiving. Underdevelop. You'll be fine.

 

[hoffy]

I'll be interested to see how you go Greg!

 

[BetterSense]

In Texas sun, I rate the film at 200 (or lower), use a K2 green filter, and develop 7.5 minutes in D23, with minimal agitation.

 

[Ross Chambers]

I'm using Tri-x 'cause it's what I have ... and it's not EXACTLY Trii-X ... It's Arista Premium 400 ... which apparently is re-branded Tri-X ... I figure if I post referring to it as Tri-X I might get more responses. I purchased a big bunch of it from Freestyle.

I'm fairly sure that this will be Foma. I've been following the "rebranded" stories about Arista for a few years now, and it's been rumoured as Kodak, Ilford and a few others.

The standard development for Arista is the same as Foma.

Foma can achieve good results, reciprocity is extreme and I have one shot which has a bordering moment of halation.

Tri X from Freestyle is such a good buy (compared to Oz prices now) that I use it mostly, Foma/ Arista is for experiment.

Regards - Ross

 

[Leighgion]

I'm fairly sure that this will be Foma. I've been following the "rebranded" stories about Arista for a few years now, and it's been rumoured as Kodak, Ilford and a few others.

There are two lines of Arista-branded films, the "EDU Ultra" and "Premium."

The EDU Ultra, labeled clearly as being a Czech product, is Fomapan. I've shot both it and brand-labeled Foma and if it's not exactly the same, it's close enough. Dev times between Ultra and the appropriate speed of Foma are identical in my experience.

The Premium line is labeled as being USA product, which can only mean Kodak. I've shot a lot of genuine label Tri-X and if Arista Premium 400 isn't Tri-X, it's too close to make a difference. Development times between Tri-X and Arista Premium 400 are identical. Premium 100 is generally believed to be Plus-X, and dev times appear to match as well.

Getting back to the OP's question though... am I the only one that sees the terms "muddy" and "flat" and thinks the problem isn't too much contrast, but rather too little?

 

[Ross Chambers]

There are two lines of Arista-branded films, the "EDU Ultra" and "Premium."

Thanks for the clarification.

And then they sell labelled Foma film as well, just to confuse us.

Regards - Ross