Tri-X Push Processing - how far can you go?

htmlguru4242 · Apr 4, 2006

I've got a [free] roll of Tri-X, and I've been thinking about how far i may be able to push-process it (just for fun). Does anybody have any suggestions about how extreme of a push is possible and development reccomendations.

I've got D-76, Dektol and T-Max (not RS) and maybe some HC-110 (don't think so, though) developers available, so reccomendations there would be nice ...

Thanks

Donald Miller · Apr 4, 2006

The logical question that follows your question is ...what are you planning on printing the resulting negative on? Beyond that what developer are you planning on using?

People talk about pushing film with no idea of the effects on film both from the standpoint of achieving exposure but also from the standpoint of what density range you are achieving within the negative.

gnashings · Apr 4, 2006

I think the question is: why?
I mean, you can overdevelop film until you're blue in the face, but to what end?
Here is an example of what I am talking about:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1512
Eventually you get images that resulted from light levels so negligible that it shows artefacts such as in this example. (and, btw, that was done in Rodnal, I think!). Also, type TriX into the search feature - I got too many hits to go through - pushing TriX is not exactly something foreign to this forum
TriX is great, its probably the all around best B&W film ever made, and it will do a lot of crazy things for you if you ask it. Perhaps you could go further than that, arriving at some highly flawed, pure black and pure white, foggy thing with no tonality at all...but why?
Then again, I don't see why people breed hairless cats, but some pay big money for them - different folks...

agGNOME · Apr 4, 2006

Totally subjective because obviously there are no bounds, but my personal tastes for Tri-x are anywhere from 200-1600. In this range I have no doubt of tri-x's abilities coupled with the right developer,method, and purpose. Everyone's criteria will differ, but what always holds true is that the technical side of photography is a balance of compromises. cameron

htmlguru4242 · Apr 4, 2006

First of all, to that link: Tri-X @ EI 102,400 - just ... wow ... I didn't even know that that was possible - at all -.

There's really no reason, it's a "Why Not?" kind of thing here ...

If I were to print the negatives, it would be on Ilford MGIV, Kodak Polycontrast or Patterson Accugrade (I stick with RC stuff and those are what I currently have). I'm really just trying to see if the negatives will come out at all; purely for exercise, not for practical usage.

Donald miller said

Beyond that what developer are you planning on using?

If you're asking print developer (not sure why) - Dektol. Film developer, I have: D-76, T-Max Developer and Dektol.

Perhaps I should ask it this way: What's the maximun anyone has TRIED with this film, and what were the results?

df cardwell · Apr 4, 2006

How you measure speed is the critical answer.

Shadows ?

Zone II ? MAYBE, without latent image intensification or cold amping, EI 3200 in D76 1+1, or better, XTOL 1+1.

Highlights ?

Zone VII ? 12800, in T MAX developer.

Try it, and you'll have an idea.

Remember, "pushing" film is about underexposing the dark areas of the scene, and overdeveloping the bright areas to compensate. We did a lot of things 40 years ago because we had to !

Pictorially, it can be very cool. I'd use either the D-76 1+1 or Dektol 1+10. But you'll probably have to invest in some Tri X to find out for sure. Visit the Kodak webpage for Tri-X and see what data already exists: there is a neat contrast chart for all kinds of developers and contrast targets.

.

derevaun · Apr 5, 2006

As with many things in the big crazy world, why not give it a try before the line runs off your hand? You might want to use a fast-acting developer. And this project would be a good one to segregate from the quest-for-yet-another-perfect-pictorial-print project.

gnashings · Apr 5, 2006

htmlguru4242 said:
There's really no reason, it's a "Why Not?" kind of thing here ...

I just hope you didn't take my comments the wrong way - they were intended somewhat humorously, I sincerely hope I didn't come across as condascending! Best of luck - its all about having fun after all!

Cheers,

Peter.

htmlguru4242 · Apr 5, 2006

Gnashings - don't worry about it; not condescending at all; I think that i may have misinterpereted a bit, but oh well ...

I'm going to try this this evening @ EI 50,000 with Tri-X and Delta 3200 and see what happens - should be "fun".

I'll report results when (and if) I get anyhting.

gnashings · Apr 5, 2006

htmlguru4242 said:
Gnashings - don't worry about it; not condescending at all; I think that i may have misinterpereted a bit, but oh well ...

I'm going to try this this evening @ EI 50,000 with Tri-X and Delta 3200 and see what happens - should be "fun".

I'll report results when (and if) I get anyhting.

I'll be looking forward to it - you should take a look at that this, too:

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4441

I found it pretty inspirational, the guys there got some really outstanding results from Tri X and Rodinal - really surprising tonality for such an extreme push.
Of course, if you are looking for more "graphic" results, I would try Dektol - I am promissing myself to try it after seeing the results my friend got: really dramatic images.
Once again, sorry if my initial message lost a lot "in translation", I suppose that is why I am not a best selling author

Cheers,

Peter.

NikoSperi · Apr 6, 2006

gnashings said:
Then again, I don't see why people breed hairless cats, but some pay big money for them - different folks...

Have you ever been snuggled up to by a Sphynx? Then you would know why they are such amazing animals...
As for the Tri-X... I'm inclined to agree with you, despite the fact that I like alot of Andrew's photos. I just don't see the print as being the ideal medium to display them...

htmlguru4242 · Apr 6, 2006

Ok, I just shot 6 frames of Tri-X and Delta @ EI 51,200. I'll develop them tomorrow or Saturday and see what happens ...

Development reccomendations, anyone?

I have TMax, D-76 and Dektol.

gnashings · Apr 6, 2006

NikoSperi said:
Have you ever been snuggled up to by a Sphynx? Then you would know why they are such amazing animals...

I have nothing against the animals - I have issues with the people who like to play God and create these unfortunate, crippled creatures for their own amusement...

htmlguru4242 said:
Ok, I just shot 6 frames of Tri-X and Delta @ EI 51,200. I'll develop them tomorrow or Saturday and see what happens ...

Development reccomendations, anyone?

I have TMax, D-76 and Dektol.

Do you know what "effect" you are going for? Do you want to actually get as close to a "proper" image as possible - or do you want a really "out there" effect (probably more likely to be attainable)?

Peter.

htmlguru4242 · Apr 6, 2006

The odd, super-pushed look is what I'm trying for now ; a good image would be nice, but I'm pretty sure that its not going to happen at all with the Tri-X and only slightly more likely withe the Delta.

So whatever happens happens, I'd really like to "perfect" this (such as it is), but ...

Looking at the dev. charts, it seems like about 40 minutes in D-76 or about 30 minutes in TMax for the Tri-X

For the Delta, it seems about 30 in D-76 and 25 for TMax dev.

These are just what I think are approximations looking at the Massive Dev Chart data.

Are these about good or am I way off base here?

htmlguru4242 · Apr 7, 2006

Ok, I tried this wiht the Delta 3200 first, (running hte Tri-X tonight) and the results are ... interesting. I did 45 minutes in D-76 @ 68F

The negatives are all very thin, and there's only one image that MAY be printable, though it would not be easy ... I can see some density (if it can be called that) in all frames, though.

I'm assuming that more development would help this?

gnashings · Apr 7, 2006

I had some horrible luck with Delta 3200, with the same results as you describe - thin, thin almost non-existant negs... Keep us posted, I really hope you tame this!

htmlguru4242 · Apr 7, 2006

I had some horrible luck with Delta 3200, with the same results as you describe - thin, thin almost non-existant negs...

At 3200 and 6400 this isn't an issue for me; the negs. are low contrast, but they're printable ... I'm going to try TMax developer and see if I can get any better results. Can't wait to try the Tri - X ...

htmlguru4242 · Apr 8, 2006

Duhhhhh

Ooook; I thought I'd exposed at EI 50000, but I messed up; I metered at EI 3200 and exposed 5 stops lower; that's EI 100000 (actually 102400, but oh well). Some frames were done at EI 50000 and those were the ones that came out the densest (well, that's a relative term). So maybe I'll double [triple?] the development time and raise the temp. to see how it comes out.

gnashings · Apr 8, 2006

Don't fret - we've all been there, done that, I think
Now I have to get off my ass and soup the roll of Delta 3200 I have sitting around, before the cosmic rays turn it into an abstract design...
I think I have to get some Microphen...

htmlguru4242 · Apr 10, 2006

Ok, i ran the last strip of the Delta roll - the Tri-X is somewhere ... temporarily "misplaced" it.

The shots were done at EI 50,000 and 100,000. I developed for 95 min. @ 68ºF with agitation every 30sec.

The images taken indoors came out pretty nicely. Shadow detail is [obviously] lacking, but the images are overall ecceptable. However, once again, the imagaes taken outside did not really come out at all. There ARE images on almost all the frames, but once again, they are quite thin. I'll post the images once I can scan / print them.

Once I can find that Tri-X, maybe I'll get good results ...

Tri-X Push Processing - how far can you go?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency