Tri-X pushed -DDX or Rodinal?

[markbarendt]

BTW Znerken, how are you printing?

 

[Znerken]

BTW Znerken, how are you printing?

Directly from Lightroom



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Znerken]

Not trolls, most people just like thinking they are right. They may be right for themselves, they may even have a chip on their shoulder, but that doesn't necessarily translate to being right for you too.

As to which lab?

In your situation, considering two separate labs, IMO by far the biggest differences you will ever see between any two Tri-X films sent to separate labs will be because of the people doing the work, not because of the difference in any chemical they use.

This sounds so much better than those forums trolls. This makes sense! So Rodinal with TRI-X 1:50, what will be the result? I have only read "too big grain, doesn't look good. Looks too grey".

The guy who does the Rodinal has been doing this for ages!

The other lab just uses machines, which as seen earlier in this thread perhaps doesn't work that good.

Would you chose hand developing over a machine?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

Directly from Lightroom



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would suggest you try some developed normally and adjust contrast in LR.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hey everyone. I have fallen in love with film. For years I have been unhappy with the digital black and whites, and then finally I found tri-x. It feels so good for me to not worry about new camera releases and gazillions of megapixels... Anyway, to the question:
I wonder if you recommend DDX or Rodinal 1:50 for tri-x 400 pushed to 800 or 1600.

Shooting Tri-X at 800 is one stop away from the box speed and well within the normal brightness latitude of the film, so just develop normally or it the negative is too thin extend the development time by 10% to 15%.

 

[Znerken]

I would suggest you try some developed normally and adjust contrast in LR.

What do you mean normally? By not pushing? I push to get the increased speed, cause I want f8-16. Or do you mean developing normal and not developing for contrast?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

Pushing does not change film sensitivity.

 

[Znerken]

Pushing does not change film sensitivity.

But I miss some answers to my earlier questions:

1. What do you mean normally?
2. What is the typical look you get with Rodinal 1:50 @ tri-x 1600? Especially what's the difference from DDX?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mrred]

You will find the look most people are after is fine grained and rich in detail. When asking about a developer or technique that differs from this, people tend to dump on it.

Rodinal get's a bad rap from people that try it a couple of times and walk away after not getting what they want.

I started with D76 way back in the 70's and was told to stick with a developer until you know all it can do. And I have with every developer I have tried. Some I have tamed, some I have not.

I would really suggest you learn how to get what you want with the developer you are using now. It will make you a better photographer. Being able to see your shot get processed before the shutter clicks is a sure fire way to get what you actually want.

 

[markbarendt]

But I miss some answers to my earlier questions:

1. What do you mean normally?
2. What is the typical look you get with Rodinal 1:50 @ tri-x 1600? Especially what's the difference from DDX?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1 No push.
2 It's all in the choices you make when printing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

1 No push.
2 It's all in the choices you make when printing.

Wot he done did sed.

 

[Znerken]

1 No push.
2 It's all in the choices you make when printing.

But if we are talking purely about the negative? I would guess Rodinal has more pronounced grain as it isn't a fine grain developer but a general developer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Znerken]

You will find the look most people are after is fine grained and rich in detail. When asking about a developer or technique that differs from this, people tend to dump on it.

Rodinal get's a bad rap from people that try it a couple of times and walk away after not getting what they want.

I started with D76 way back in the 70's and was told to stick with a developer until you know all it can do. And I have with every developer I have tried. Some I have tamed, some I have not.

I would really suggest you learn how to get what you want with the developer you are using now. It will make you a better photographer. Being able to see your shot get processed before the shutter clicks is a sure fire way to get what you actually want.

Thank you. As I am not currently developing myself I almost always see the end picture I want when I take a picture. Then I try to come back with that when I edit the scanned photos. I drag the clarity slider a lot, which gives me the gritty look I am after. If Rodinal gives me this straight out of the camera, that would of course be better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

But if we are talking purely about the negative? I would guess Rodinal has more pronounced grain as it isn't a fine grain developer but a general developer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are worried about mice when there are bears in the room.

 

[Znerken]

You are worried about mice when there are bears in the room.

Haha, now I don't understand anything. You, sir, make me even more confused


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

Haha, now I don't understand anything. You, sir, make me even more confused


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given your lab situation there is no way you will be able to compare objectively. Even if you could compare directly you would be hard pressed to see a difference unless you were using test targets and microscopes.

 

[MattKing]

I'm going to recommend DDX among the two choices. Basically, because you are less likely to lose detail through under-exposure.

Then, you can use the printing controls available to you to enhance contrast in the final result.

Scanning and digitally manipulating thereafter will have way more artificial effect on your results than the film and developer combination.

If you later start printing the negatives optically, the "grittyness" you seek will be achievable through contrast control. But if you don't have the detail there in the first place, it won't be there later.

If light is low, use faster film. A "Push" development increases contrast, but underexposure just loses detail.

 

[MartinP]

If you are printing digitally then just use any digital camera from the last five years and fake the look in software. That is basically what you are doing currently, but cheaper.

To see more grain, use less negative. Use a wide lens and crop heavily.

 

[Znerken]

If you are printing digitally then just use any digital camera from the last five years and fake the look in software. That is basically what you are doing currently, but cheaper.

To see more grain, use less negative. Use a wide lens and crop heavily.

I don't agree with this. I use film for the organic process. It slows me down and just feels right.

Why is this what I am doing? That's a lie. I get negatives with tons of information. They are more true to me compared to digital photos. Also, people telling other photographers that their process is not professional enough aren't photographers but technicians who belong in academia.

Have you looked at Nick Brandts work? He is a hybrid, using Pentax 67II, scanning and printing using a computer and a connected printer. Some of the best prints I have seen. I rest my case.

Also, how can anyone print digitally. You print out to a paper, which is analog. The point is to get a paper in your hands, how you do it shouldn't be important to anyone else than yourself.

Edit: By the way digital grain does not look like analog grain at ALL!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

I don't agree with this.

Me neither.

Good friend of mine who's business is in graphic arts work mentioned a problem a few years back, that as computers and PS have gotten really fast; the side effect is that his workers didn't have the time they needed to think about what they were doing, quality fell. Had to change his management style from keep the machine working, to take enough time to do it right.

One of the reasons I use film, even if it will be scanned, is for the qualities it brings without the need to do-it-in-post. The color palette of Portra, the look of FP4 etc...

When shooting negatives contrast must be dealt with, by default or choice, after the camera work is done.

IMO pushing/plus development is a holdover from times before good VC paper was available. If your print target is a single grade paper pushing/pulling or plus/minus development makes the rest of the process easier.

If one is using VC paper or scanning, then film development changes don't necessarily save any work or improve the end result.

 

[mrred]

+1

 

[pentaxuser]

Thank you. As I am not currently developing myself I almost always see the end picture I want when I take a picture. Then I try to come back with that when I edit the scanned photos. I drag the clarity slider a lot, which gives me the gritty look I am after. If Rodinal gives me this straight out of the camera, that would of course be better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It sounds as if you have the answer in the last line of the quote. Give Rodinal a try and see if it gives you what you want.

pentaxuser

 

[Znerken]

It sounds as if you have the answer in the last line of the quote. Give Rodinal a try and see if it gives you what you want.

pentaxuser

So Rodinal 1:50 tri-x 1600 will get acceptable results?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

It sounds as if you have the answer in the last line of the quote. Give Rodinal a try and see if it gives you what you want.

pentaxuser

The situation where pentaxuser's suggestion works with regard to contrast is when you are printing via an enlarger to a specific paper grade. You need a specified target.

There are ways to do similar things in the digital world but the specifics of that are off topic here. I will say that pushing the film is not generally necessary to accomplish that.

 

[Znerken]

The situation where pentaxuser's suggestion works with regard to contrast is when you are printing via an enlarger to a specific paper grade. You need a specified target.

There are ways to do similar things in the digital world but the specifics of that are off topic here. I will say that pushing the film is not generally necessary to accomplish that.

I push cause I like the look and need the speed. Especially cause I need the speed. My problem right now is that nobody wants to tell me wether Rodinal is a no go or not for this setup


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk