Tri-X pushed 1600 in DD-X, insufficient image dev but high base fog (rotary processing)

[Sorry for the ugly thread title, trying to cram in all the keywords that didn't help me find anyone with this same problem!]

Background: I've been experimenting with split-rating a single roll, IE, outdoor shots rated at 400, indoor at 1600. I carry a camera everywhere but take about a week to burn a full roll, so I can't choose a single ISO. It works pretty well with stand processing, but I'm getting bromide drag, and I can only do one roll in a tank, which is tedious.

I just ran a single roll of 35mm Tri-X exposed this way through the Jobo in DD-X 1+4, per dev chart. I subtracted 15% from the indicated development time, and the negatives came out...less than stellar.
First thing, high base fog everywhere. I don't have a densitometer, but it's significant, certainly enough to affect printing. The film base also appears less purple than I'm used to (with Rodinal/D-76), and no dye came out in the wash or the hypo clear that I saw.
The first four frames were exposed at 400, in bright outdoor sun. Those look great.
The rest are mostly indoors, exposed at 1600, and they're noticeably underdeveloped. Definitely printable, but I would like to see some more shadow density above base, they're going to print pretty dark.

The negs are drying right now, so I don't have a contact print to look at yet.

What should my next course of action be? If it weren't for the base fog, I would say they just needed a bit more development, but I associate high base fog on fresh, recently exposed, thermally-unabused film with straight overdevelopment.
I'm fine with the 400 frames being overdeveloped a bit as long as the 1600 frames are developed enough to print from, but if I add more development time, I think the fog is going to get unmanageable.


Summary of factors:

• Tri-X 400
• 35mm
• exposed at 400 and 1600 on different frames
• rotary processed in single-roll Jobo tank
• DD-X 1+4
• 20C dev temp
• 11m54s (indicated 14m -15%)
• stop indicating good
• fix tested with Hypo-Check immediately before use

The speed of Tri-X Pan is ISO 400. For best results, use half that (EI 200). Rotary processing is not the best technique. Forget "pushing". You have underexposed some frames of your film, and there is nothing you can do in processing to remedy that, now, or before processing. Films are assigned speeds to help you get the right exposure. Underexposure is fatal and cannot be remedied. Several stops of overexposure, however, are not a problem. Rating your film at 1600 has underexposed it by two stops. That cannot be remedied.

If the outdoor frames are fine then your indoor exposure may be the issue. How did you determine the exposure? In low light I often give an extra stop when in low light when using an older TTL meter.

Have you fixed a piece of film without developing to find film base?

markaudacity said:

The rest are mostly indoors, exposed at 1600, and they're noticeably underdeveloped. Definitely printable, but I would like to see some more shadow density above base, they're going to print pretty dark.

Click to expand...

Lack of shadow detail means they're underexposed. Which is no surprise, since you underexposed the film by two stops. It's to be expected; this is the price you pay for 'pushing' film.

You can't use two different ISO on one film unless it's a chromogenic film stock like XP2. If you expose at 400 ISO you need to develop for 400 and if you shoot at 1600 you need to compensate the development time for shooting at 1600 ISO. Each ISO rating and exposure needs different development times.

250swb said:

You can't use two different ISO on one film unless it's a chromogenic film stock like XP2. If you expose at 400 ISO you need to develop for 400 and if you shoot at 1600 you need to compensate the development time for shooting at 1600 ISO. Each ISO rating and exposure needs different development times.

Click to expand...

That being said, if you can put up with mediocre results, where nothing is optimized, splitting the difference and developing for an EI of 800 may give you some usable results.

You'd be better off with a two part developer like Diafine or Thornton's if you want to treat a roll of film like that.

As has been said, this is expected, it will never be ideal. If the indoor shots are important, develop longer and see if the outdoor shots are still workable. You can also try exposing outdoors at 1600 as well.

MattKing said:

That being said, if you can put up with mediocre results, where nothing is optimized, splitting the difference and developing for an EI of 800 may give you some usable results.

Click to expand...

You are right and I've done it myself after retrieving a film from a camera at the back of a drawer not remembering what was on it or what I'd rated it at, or sometimes even what the film was in the cassette. But the OP was worried about (repeatable) quality where I'd know I'd made a lucky guess in developing it. Of course the more you practice the luckier your guesses are, but that's about breaking the rules when you know what the rules are which I'm guessing the OP doesn't know. Perhaps they read something on the internet like 'splitting the difference' giving usable results and didn't go further into it? But this is how a bodge becomes a meme.

250swb said:

You are right and I've done it myself after retrieving a film from a camera at the back of a drawer not remembering what was on it or what I'd rated it at, or sometimes even what the film was in the cassette. But the OP was worried about (repeatable) quality where I'd know I'd made a lucky guess in developing it. Of course the more you practice the luckier your guesses are, but that's about breaking the rules when you know what the rules are which I'm guessing the OP doesn't know. Perhaps they read something on the internet like 'splitting the difference' giving usable results and didn't go further into it? But this is how a bodge becomes a meme.

Click to expand...

Clearly one should never edit any of my posts, but should read them all in their entirety, and take them to heart! .
(Please note the emoticons - they are integral to this post!)

What should your next course of action be, markaudacity? Well you could try HP5+ instead or take a digital picture of your negs for our comments. They will be dry by now. Negs might tell us a lot

pentaxuser

MattKing said:

Clearly one should never edit any of my posts, but should read them all in their entirety, and take them to heart! .
(Please note the emoticons - they are integral to this post!)

Click to expand...

I didn't edit ANY of your post?? Why are you being disingenuous, I quoted your post in its entirety and was replying to it?

It's especially concerning given you now want to throw emoticons around like confetti, ha ha ha.

250swb said:

I didn't edit ANY of your post?? Why are you being disingenuous, I quoted your post in its entirety and was replying to it?

It's especially concerning given you now want to throw emoticons around like you confetti, ha ha ha.

Click to expand...

The post of yours I was responding to referred to the tendency of others on the internet to only read parts of posts (or other things) and then run with those incomplete, out of context bits.
If I had thought of another, better way to indicate that my post was completely tongue-in-cheek, I would have used it instead.
Sorry that I wasn't clear enough about that.
I completely agree with what you posted.

MattKing said:

The post of yours I was responding to referred to the tendency of others on the internet to only read parts of posts (or other things) and then run with those incomplete, out of context bits.
If I had thought of another, better way to indicate that my post was completely tongue-in-cheek, I would have used it instead.
Sorry that I wasn't clear enough about that.
I completely agree with what you posted.

Click to expand...

Yeah, right, good wiggle but given you made a concrete statement that I edited your post it doesn't stand scrutiny. If you have an agenda that set this off send me a pm and I'll gladly tell you what I think.

250swb said:

Yeah, right, good wiggle but given you made a concrete statement that I edited your post it doesn't stand scrutiny. If you have an agenda that set this off send me a pm and I'll gladly tell you what I think.

Click to expand...

Clearly I wasn't clear, and I'll say sorry for that lack of clarity, and for unintentionally given an incorrect impression. 250swb did not edit my post and I'm sorry that, in an attempt at some ironic humour, I may have indirectly and unintentionally given that impression.

Augustus Caesar said:

Forget "pushing".

Click to expand...

When they make indoor lighting brighter, I will. ;P
(Generally speaking, advice that involves changing the goals is not helpful. I’m not interested in how to best expose your photographs, I’m only shooting mine.
This is also nonsense; people have been pushing film longer than either of us have been alive, and ISO speeds are already arbitrary, set to a chosen standard of contrast and density which are the accepted average, not the only option. Perfect development is not my goal; capturing the moment is much more important to me.)

grain elevator said:

develop longer

Click to expand...

This unfortunately won’t address the base fog, which is the main issue. If I just develop longer, that will get worse.

I appreciate all the responses, but I do know what pushing is, I do know to expect higher contrast, as I’ve been pushing film for twenty years. I also realize that the split-ISO scheme will never result in perfect development of either exposure index; that’s the price to be paid.
What’s outside my expectations is the base fog, which I haven’t experienced before except with very old film or accidental massive (4 stops) overdevelopment without underexposure.
Since the images exposed at 400 aren’t overdeveloped, this indicates to me that it wasn’t a successful push, but the base fog seems to indicate overexposure.

Another roll of Tri-X shot in the same camera in the same lighting and stand developed turned out fine (minus the bromide drag), as well as twenty some-odd other rolls in that camera (including a couple E6), so the camera can be ruled out as a variable.

markaudacity said:

the base fog seems to indicate overexposure.

Click to expand...

Exposure doesn't crate 'base fog'.

Maybe we should set the terminology straight here as well.
Base density is the density of the film base plus emulsion stack, but without any image/silver density.
Fog is non-image silver density (and perhaps dye stain if a staining developer is used).
We generally refer to "base + fog" or "b+f" as the net density that forms the baseline; all density beyond that is image density.

We can ignore the base for now because it's a given and won't change. The degree of fog is influenced by various factors, including film age (through chemical deterioration and background radiation), developer choice, development time to name a few. What this baseline level of fog is not influenced by, is exposure. Dramatic overexposure can result in effects that result in non-image density; think of halation and light piping. Moreover, dramatic overexposure will lift the density of deep shadows up on the H/D curve. But that's not the same as fog.

So no, the fog does not indicate overexposure.

Why your TriX looks remarkably dense is in part due to the longer development, and perhaps the combination of DD-X and TriX is more liable to create fog, IDK. You could add restrainer to the developer (benzotriazole or potassium bromide) to cut back fog, but if you add too much, it'll hold back development of (legitimate) shadow density just the same - working against your effort to eek as much shadow detail from the film as possible.
Storage of the film might also play a part in this and since you're trying to get the most density out of the thin areas by developing longer, any effects influencing deterioration (heat, background radiation) will weigh heavier as well. I know you said it's fresh film etc., so these effects will be marginal - but they'll be there. Develop factory-fresh, cold-stored film long enough and it will start building non-image density. Faster films much more readily than slower ones.

There's always the chance of contamination of the developer, a tank, reel or mixing beaker with something that creates fog; notably sulfur compounds. Or a status LED on some piece of equipment that blinked for a fraction of a second while loading the film onto a reel. That's difficult to rule out; the only thing you could do is process (a) control roll(s) that eliminate these factors. But this brings the question how far you want to take this...

If pushing by 2 stops is something you're planning to do more often, some systematic testing would be in order to get the best results under those conditions. It's dull work, and I can imagine more fun things to do on a weekend, but sometimes, there's no other way...

markaudacity said:

When they make indoor lighting brighter, I will. ;P
(Generally speaking, advice that involves changing the goals is not helpful. I’m not interested in how to best expose your photographs, I’m only shooting mine.
This is also nonsense; people have been pushing film longer than either of us have been alive, and ISO speeds are already arbitrary, set to a chosen standard of contrast and density which are the accepted average, not the only option. Perfect development is not my goal; capturing the moment is much more important to me.)

Click to expand...

Over-development cannot compensate for underexposure. It's simple physics. People have been pushing film for a long time, of course. [...] The point is that pushing doesn't work. The very fast films currently on the market from Kodak and Ilford ("3200") are designed to allow extended development without increasing contrast as much as slower films do. They do this by incorporating a lot of iodide into the crystals, which inhibits development of the denser areas. This allows extended development to work more on shadow areas without such a severe penalty in extra contrast. In other words, the highlight areas are restrained proportionally more than the shadow areas, in comparison with slower films.

ISO speeds are not "arbitrary". [...] Try shooting Pan-F+ at EI 1000 and let me know how that works for you.

If Tri-X isn't fast enough for you, use T-Max 3200.

*[...] denotes a redaction of undiplomatic content - moderator.

I have read posts on other forums from an ingenious photographer who processes at lower temps for extended times to reduce fogging with a good bit of success. Talked about putting the tank in the fridge while it developed. His name is Daniel Keating if you can find him. He was posting on a darkroom forum on Facebook.

glbeas said:

lower temps for extended times to reduce fogging

Click to expand...

I can confirm that the opposite, i.e. developing at higher temperature, can dramatically increase it.

Would the agitation scheme affect fogging? I believe rotation processing generally increases contrast and reduces speed and acutance somewhat, compared to manual inversion processing. I can't remember any discussion regarding fogging, though, either way.