Tri-X at iso 800

[Mike Kennedy]

I should know this but my brain must be in neutral.
I have a fresh batch of D76 and 6 rolls of film to process .I roll is tri-X pushed to iso 800 and I can't rember the correct time for developing.Assistance please.

Thank You

 

[Pinholemaster]

Have you tested 'push time' to see what works for you at 800 ISO?

One person's push time might not me yours.

But if you want to see what Kodak suggests, you could find this information on your own by simply doing an internet search.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.jhtml#08

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Thanks for the link.It only shows pushing to 1600....mine was shot at iso 800.

 

[Chaska]

In their notes Kodak indicates that the latitude of the film generally covers 800 with the 400 times. That seems to be my experience when using 35mm tri-x. You could split the difference between 400 and 1600 to be safe.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

I'll give it a shot.
Thanks Chaska.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Mike,

You've underexposed by about a stop (an EI, of course not ISO).

So give it a bit of extra development. How much is 'a bit'?

Well, less than 60% according to Kodak.

20%? 30%? 40%? 50%?

It doesn't matter. All will give you an image (as would normal, as would 60%). All will give different effects. No-one can tell you which you will like best.

Pictorial photography -- especially push processing -- is not for the most part a very precise science.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[jim appleyard]

I should know this but my brain must be in neutral.

Better to be in neutral than reverse!

If this roll is important, please do a test roll or two. As Roger suggested, "how much?" Pushing film, or whatever you wish to call it, is, IMO, not an exact science. You will lose shadow detail and gain contrast, how much is acceptable is up to the artist.

 

[rusty71]

Tri-X can be shot t ISO 800 with virtually no loss of image quality. However, to add some contrast, I would extend the normal D-76 times about 25%.
I recently had the same problem. Very few times published for pusing Tri-X to 800. I think that's because most people push farther, into the 1600 and 3200 ISO range. And also because Tri-X is so good one stop under rarely causes major problems.
Good luck.

 

[Pinholemaster]

Remember, we expose for the shadow detail, and process for the contrast.

By rating your film at 800, you are placing 'black with detail' (zone 3) in to 'black' (zone 2). No amount of extra processing will change that.

Pushing only raises the contrast of the film, so your 'white with detail' (zone 7) moves back up from zone 6, where it is due to the 800 rating, back up to zone 7.

Over development only increases your contrast.

 

[nyoung]

Not to dispute previous posters but I suggest you dilute your D76 1:1 with water and start adding development time (25-30%)from the ISO 400 time for 1:1.
Rational is that the weaker developer will allow the extended time to develop shadow detail while slowing highlight development to avoid blocking.
Also depends on the subject - high contrast subject needs "gentle" developing.
Low contrast subject can stand harsher treatment.
Basically, a stronger developer yields a higher contrast negative at a given time and temperature.

 

[gainer]

Lately I have been bracketing my practical test shots + and - 1 f-stop and have been using FP4+ and Arista 400 EDU Ultra. I can seldom tell the difference in the shadow detail, even with Rodinal. As I remember from my Tri-X days, 800 is nothing to worry about with D-76 or equal.

 

[fotofem]

TRI-X at 800: Unbelievable as it sounds, my densitometry testing and much experience show a TRUE 800 (not a push) when I develop TRI-X with Edwal FG7 1:7 with added sodium sulfite (1 T. + 2 1/2 tsp - kitchen measuring spoons - per 16 oz liquid) My time for normal with the new TRI-X is 5:25.
RE: pushing TRI-X with D76 --- I just developed TRI-X (800) in D76 1+1 13:30 at 70 degrees F (shadows placed in III 1/2) and got beautiful printable graphic sand dune negs where there had been only 2 stops of contrast in the scene. This, of course, was a real push (with black shadows and beautiful ripple textures.)

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

I push Tri-X 400 by a stop on a regular basis. I have always followed Kodak's data and developed normally with very nice results. It feels wrong not to extend the development time, but my experience supports normal development.

YMMV.

- CJ

 

[gainer]

I have been doing a lot of testing where I bracket exposures 1 stop either side of normal. I can set my camera to do this for me. In general, I can print all three with any film and any developer I have tried when the development gives normal contrast on the midle one. I have not used Tri X lately, but my memory is that it is quite forgiving on the low side. I would not consider 800 to be a push, especially if you use incident metering or tend to favor the shadows. As someone said above, one person's 800 is often another's 400. If you're the other way round, you can worry a little.

How come you never encountered this situation before?

 

[gainer]

Lately I have been bracketing my practical test shots + and - 1 f-stop and have been using FP4+ and Arista 400 EDU Ultra. I can seldom tell the difference in the shadow detail, even with Rodinal. As I remember from my Tri-X days, 800 is nothing to worry about with D-76 or equal.

I don't remember saying that just now. Whence came it?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have shot Tri X directly at 800 with no special push using D-76 and the results were quite good. The film has excellent latitude.

PE

 

[gainer]

I push Tri-X 400 by a stop on a regular basis. I have always followed Kodak's data and developed normally with very nice results. It feels wrong not to extend the development time, but my experience supports normal development.

YMMV.

- CJ

I looked up "regular" and "basis" in Roget. I can understand how it might be "smooth foundation" but what would be a "semi smooth foundation"

 

[Steve Anchell]

Tri-X at EI 800

This thread is of interest to me for a variety of reasons. One is that handheld night photography is one of my passions going back to my first images of this kind in 1983. Another is that I teach night street photography using handheld cameras once a year for the International Center of Photography in NYC.

Reading everyones post I must say that you are all right on. In my experience, achieiving a one stop increase in film speed is easily obtainable with any b/w film made today. Some, such as Tri-X, require little or no development compensation - depending on the "taste" of the photographer, as Cheryl Jacobs suggests. However, as a rule, I do precisely what Roger Hicks suggested, I add between 25% and 40% to the development time as "insurance." 25% to Tri-X and 40% to Ilford Delta 3200 exposed at EI 2400 (Delta 3200 is actually ISO 1600 so EI 2400 is a one stop increase). I have stunning 16x20" prints on my wall from Delta 3200 exposed and developed in this manner.

While I have used D-76 and XTOL (both good choices) as well as Acufine, Diafine, and other speed increasing negative developers I highly recommend Ilford DDX 1:4.

Anyway, Mike, not to worry. You'll get good results despite the gear your brain is in. As you posted this on October 14 you probably already know that, though!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I usually push Tri-X in Acufine and can get a reliable one stop boost with good shadows--EI 800 if the film is fresh. If the film is more than a couple years past date (I accumulated a lot of short-dated TX 120 a few years ago, almost done with it), I'll give it 640.

 

[Snapshot]

I'm find that Tri-X and Diafine allow me to attain an EI 1250 or EI 1600 without significant loss of shadow detail. Is this a true speed increase? I don't know but I've been very satisfied with the results.

 

[MattKing]

This thread is of interest to me for a variety of reasons. One is that handheld night photography is one of my passions going back to my first images of this kind in 1983. Another is that I teach night street photography using handheld cameras once a year for the International Center of Photography in NYC.

Reading everyones post I must say that you are all right on. In my experience, achieiving a one stop increase in film speed is easily obtainable with any b/w film made today. Some, such as Tri-X, require little or no development compensation - depending on the "taste" of the photographer, as Cheryl Jacobs suggests. However, as a rule, I do precisely what Roger Hicks suggested, I add between 25% and 40% to the development time as "insurance." 25% to Tri-X and 40% to Ilford Delta 3200 exposed at EI 2400 (Delta 3200 is actually ISO 1600 so EI 2400 is a one stop increase). I have stunning 16x20" prints on my wall from Delta 3200 exposed and developed in this manner.

While I have used D-76 and XTOL (both good choices) as well as Acufine, Diafine, and other speed increasing negative developers I highly recommend Ilford DDX 1:4.

Anyway, Mike, not to worry. You'll get good results despite the gear your brain is in. As you posted this on October 14 you probably already know that, though!

It is always interesting (and appreciated) to read a post from someone like Steve Anchell, who I assume is the "Anchell in "Anchell & Troop".

One question though - he doesn't show as a member, subscriber, moderator, council, or the penultimate - "Admin".

Does this mean he is an "Anchell"

Matt

P.S. Can I get the label of "King"

 

[mabman]

Although as noted it's not an exact science, I've had good success with Tri-X (with HC-110) using the times on the Massive Dev Chart where available, and applying what I've read is a general rule of thumb - add 50% more time per stop (adjust up or down for taste). Eg, 7.5 min @ 400 (dil. B) is what's listed along with 16 min. @ 1600 (which seems long but it works for me as well - dark negatives, but they scan quite well), so for 800 ISO I would try 7.5 min + 50% = 11.25 min as a starting point (and incidentally I also like Tri-X @ 200 at 5 min, and 5 min + 50% = 7.5 min for 400 follows the pattern as well).

Not sure if this principle works for D76, but I don't see why not.

 

[dfoo]

I developed a roll of TriX 135 exposed @ EI 800 in D76 1+1 last night for 9:45. The negatives all look great to me!

Is Acufine more or less the same as diafine?

 

[MarcoGiardini]

On my experience, to identify the right developing time, ISO is just one of the parameters. The other one (very important) is to know HOW the film has been exposed. Of course on a 36 frames, all the frames must have been exposed following the same logic. This is the reason i very often use a spot light meter to define, before shooting, which area should be in the V zone.
My 2 cents...

marco

 

[jglass]

This is pretty interesting to me for a different reason: I've been doing film speed testing (for some stupid reason) and my results (shooting a black target in open shade stopped down 4 stops below meter reading) indicate I should be rating Tri-X at 800! The test involves comparing the negs to a 0.1 ND filter supplied by Bruce Barlow at circleofthesunproductions.

Everything everywhere I've seen on TRi-x rates it well below box speed, but I'm getting a stop faster. I certainly don't trust my results but they seem consistent -- at least consistent with my other tests. Nevertheless, my prior practice of shooting at 200 to 250 to 320 produces pretty nice negs with good shadow detail given the fairly high contrast subject matter I like.

I think I'll just give up this goofy testing and focus on subject matter (as I've seen Mr. Roger Hicks suggest in various places).

Has anyone here ever heard of rating Tri-X at 800?