tri-X @ 800: Rodinal vs HC110

[brucemuir]

Here's a timely post:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/01/same-old-disease.html

Haha, love it.
I usually rate my film lower than box speed not higher although I will admit I am quite pleased with Neopan 400 in D76 1:1 @ 800.
I think it's because NP400 is pretty close to box speed so one stop under is acceptable.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Here's a timely post:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/01/same-old-disease.html

That's a great article. The author managed to articulate what I have felt a long time. I figure as long as the people pushing film keep buying film, they'd contribute to keeping the craft alive a bit longer, so I don't care very much.

 

[ntenny]

Yes, I agree, we come close to developing all the shadow detail in a normally exposed negative. No argument there. "Pushing" film by underexposing a "normal" negative will give you empty shadows. It's just plain underexposed, and there's no magic potion that will fix that - all you can do is salvage as much information as you can.

Well, I suppose it depends on what range you consider to be "the shadows", as well as on the film. At the extreme, where the density of the latent image is really low, of course those regions will develop to completion in the blink of an eye, and more time in the soup gets you nothing but some fog. But how far up the exposure curve do those conditions obtain?

Presumably the answer is different for different films, and when we say that a film pushes well (in terms of recoverable shadow detail), we should be saying that a comparatively short exposure gets you shadow detail in the latent image that isn't activated under normal development; that is, it doesn't take too much exposure to get the film "activated enough" that it doesn't develop to completion under a normal regime. (In other words, if you looked at the "intrinsic" characteristic curve of the film---exposure vs. activated grains, without taking any development into account---the toe would be steep.)

Futzing around with Tri-X has led me to believe that it has that kind of "pushes well" property, because sufficiently extreme development (e.g., Donald Qualls's "Super Soup" concoction) produces shadow detail that seemingly "shouldn't" be there. See the attachment for an example---that's TX400, metered fairly carefully at EI 3200, and I don't look at it and see "dead vacant shadows". Obviously there's some loss of detail, but, for instance, you can see the contours of the drawers in the cabinet at right, and the grain in the table under the shadows of the subjects' arms. I haven't done spot metering and densitometry to validate this impression, but experientially, I think there's quite a lot more detail being dragged out of the shadows here than in normal development.

The OP was asking about using a developer that wouldn't help much at all. HC-110 and Rodinal are not the best for retaining shadow detail in a push-process situation. X-tol, T-Max developer, Acufine, Diafine, some of the Ilford developers will do a better job.

I'd agree certainly with all that. I've seen some pretty impressive results claimed for Rodinal and stand or semi-stand development, but not being a member of the cult myself, I have no real way to judge how typical that is.

I did once try an experiment in really long semi-stand development in HC-110, with TX400 exposed at 3200, and while the results weren't in any technical sense *good*, they were unquestionably *interesting*. No great increase in shadow detail, but lots of contrast and completely absurd amounts of grain---some people have said they really liked the images, but most just get a funny look on their faces and try to avoid saying anything insulting.

-NT

 

[baachitraka]

I like that mantra from the article: Halve the ISO and develop 20% shorter than recommended time.

I follow the first half of the mantra, halving the ISO for Rodinal 1+50 but I am not sure about the dev times still.

 

[mgb74]

Lots of good discussion here; which I appreciate.

The Online Photographer article makes a good point, in the sense that (my words) pushing film is a compromise unless you are specifically seeking the "look" of pushed film. But my little Canonet GIII gives me a f1.7 lens in a compact package. I don't have that size/speed combination in any other package - analog or digital. I might have been better off with Delta 3200 or Neopan 1600 but sometimes you just have to use what you have.

And I agree that testing to see what works best given my technique and my preferences. But I value the collective knowledge on this forum and prefer to use that as a headstart on testing - too many options in terms of developers. I've found that while you get very varying opinions, as the discussion continues you tend to see some convergence. But if I'm limited to HC-110, it absolutely makes sense to run a test first.

 

[Roger Cole]

I generally agree with the article too but it's too strongly worded for my tastes. Can't get 5000 out of any film? Depends what you mean. You certainly won't get a "true" 5000 as in Zone 1 at .1 over film base plus fog, but you can get very workable results with TMZ at 6400, at least. Digital is better - maybe. You will get less noise/grain at a far higher effective speed from a decent DSLR, but the lenses tend to be slower, and the cameras bigger and heavier than many 35mm options (like the Canonet mentioned above) and the look is different. For some stuff, I just like the look of pushed film, even rather severely pushed film.

Like many others I pushed like mad back in the day because it was the only way to get many shots, and I also had the common new photographer's aversion to flash, even when flash made sense and would work. Now, well, I don't even have a DSLR, so either I'm part of the 2% the article dismisses or, more likely, they over estimate the percentage of film photographers who do, though I may get one.

I recently - well, a few months ago, but just got around to developing the film - shot a night street arts festival in Atlanta, on 35mm. It would have been a great place for TMZ or Delta 3200 but I was out of the former and don't stock the latter in 35mm and my (one, fixed) medium format lens is slower than my 35mm and the camera not as easy to use quickly or in low light. So I shot it on Tri-X at 1250 and developed in Diafine. I have some negatives I think are going to make good prints for the subject matter, and some others that are ok exposure wise but ruined by motion blur of shooting handheld at wildly optimistic shutter speeds like 1/8th. I can get maybe one shot in three or four acceptably sharp for 5x7 prints doing that, so given the choice of trying or not, sometimes I try.

If I had a DSLR I could have used it, but I think I'd rather have just had some TMZ. I'd have shot it at 6400 and, with my not-particularly-fast 50mm f/1.7 lens that would have been fast enough. The film camera somehow "fit" the venue better (and stood out from the hoards shooting digital! - though I did stop and chat with a guy shooting with a Mamiya TLR) but, more importantly, I think the black inky shadows and increased grain would have also actually looked better for those shots.

We are, of course, diverging wildly from the topic of Rodinal and HC110. The mention of "Super Soup" sent me off to google to find it, and now I'm wondering what I'd get out of TMZ and Delta 3200 in that stuff... I think some of the appeal is just seeing how far you can go and what kind of results you can get in extreme situations. Photography isn't all about 16x20 display prints to hang on the wall. Sometimes it's fun just to play with the tools and see what you can make them do.

 

[puketronic]

Thanks for the many responses! I'm in a hurry right now so I just skimmed the new posts and I'll have to read them over more carefully later but I agree with many of you. Seeking recommendations is beneficial, but tests are going to be the deciding factor. I asked which pushed better, but better can mean many different things for different people. Initially I was thinking that I wanted more shadow details so I batched up some Xtol and compared it with Rodinal. Xtol had better shadow details, but Rodinal looked better. I prefer Rodinal. I just got HC110 for kicks and I'm looking into testing the two developers soon to see which look I prefer.

 

[cjbecker]

Im about ready to run some tests with tri-x and hc-110. Im going to be shooting at 1600 and work out developing. Im looking for a grainy image with not much shadow detail though.

 

[MattKing]

I can't think of a time I ever disagreed with Matt and this is no exception.

I should send you my wife's email .

 

[mgb74]

I should send you my wife's email .

As the saying goes: "No man is a prophet in his own country".

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

When I went into the darkroom last night I kept this thread in mind, and I printed one of the negatives on a roll of TMax 400 that I exposed on Christmas Eve last year. Due to the dim lighting, and no flash availability, I had to expose the film at 1600, two stops underexposed. In order to not ruin the film in airport X-ray machines, I processed in my father's darkroom, and used what was available, Paterson FX-39, at the 1:19 dilution, did a clip test, and processed while agitating every 4 minutes.

In the print, the shadows that are in focus all show detail and subtle variations from one part of the boy's garment to another. It's subtle, and wasn't picked up very well in the scan, but we all know those limitations. Scanning prints sucks.

Shot with a Leica M2 and a 35mm Nokton lens, at f/2 hand held at 1/8th of a second (incident light reading), which is why it isn't very sharp. Printed on Ilford Galerie G3 using Ethol LPD (replenished) developer, and toned in Moersch Carbon toner for deeper shadow impact, and improving highlight color.

To me this shows that at EI 1600 one can get great shadows, even in difficult lighting like this, which is a mix of candle light and incandescent/fluorescent bulbs. Given that it was incandescent lighting, the underexposure was probably more like an actual three stops, and not two.

I hope you find this useful, and as an example that by altering technique, much more can be had from the film.

- Thomas