Tri-X pushed -DDX or Rodinal?

Znerken said:

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

Click to expand...

Your still focussing on the mice (the inconsequential things) when there are bears (bigger problems) to worry about.

The magic is in the choices you make in the printing process.

markbarendt said:

Your still focussing on the mice (the inconsequential things) when there are bears (bigger problems) to worry about.

The magic is in the choices you make in the printing process.

Click to expand...

So let me rephrase:

Will there be enough differences between Rodinal and DDX to be worth stressing about? Should I just chose the lab that's more convenient and don't bother being stressed about which developer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Znerken said:

I push 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

Click to expand...

I sort of did tell you, but I don't think you liked the answer .

When it comes to negative films, pushing doesn't give you more speed. It gives you more contrast and grain. You don't regain the detail you lost (due to under-exposure) in the shadows; you usually lose details in the highlights.

The near shadows look nicer, because of the extra contrast. The mid-tones look more contrasty, and that may appeal to you more.

I have had some experience with Rodinal, and a fair amount of information about DDX which I have gained from others.

If you need to under-expose a 400 ISO film by two stops (meter it at an EI of 1600) you are likely to retain slightly more shadow detail with DDX than Rodinal. So that is why I suggest DDX.

There is one caveat to the above which I bring up with great trepidation. There is a technique called "stand" developing that involves long development times in very dilute developer with very little or no agitation. This can result in some compensation effects that can, among many other possible effects, result in more low light response. Rodinal and HC-110 are two developers that are popular with the stand developing "cultists" . It may be that those two developers are particularly suitable for stand developing because they both give slightly less speed with films developed using more standard techniques.

In experienced and knowledgeable hands, stand developing can be a useful special purpose tool. And it can be fun to try it out. But I don't recommend it for beginners who are trying to work out there basic, everyday process.

MattKing said:

I sort of did tell you, but I don't think you liked the answer .

When it comes to negative films, pushing doesn't give you more speed. It gives you more contrast and grain. You don't regain the detail you lost (due to under-exposure) in the shadows; you usually lose details in the highlights.

The near shadows look nicer, because of the extra contrast. The mid-tones look more contrasty, and that may appeal to you more.

I have had some experience with Rodinal, and a fair amount of information about DDX which I have gained from others.

If you need to under-expose a 400 ISO film by two stops (meter it at an EI of 1600) you are likely to retain slightly more shadow detail with DDX than Rodinal. So that is why I suggest DDX.

There is one caveat to the above which I bring up with great trepidation. There is a technique called "stand" developing that involves long development times in very dilute developer with very little or no agitation. This can result in some compensation effects that can, among many other possible effects, result in more low light response. Rodinal and HC-110 are two developers that are popular with the stand developing "cultists" . It may be that those two developers are particularly suitable for stand developing because they both give slightly less speed with films developed using more standard techniques.

In experienced and knowledgeable hands, stand developing can be a useful special purpose tool. And it can be fun to try it out. But I don't recommend it for beginners who are trying to work out there basic, everyday process.

Click to expand...

Okay, thank you. The problem is that nothing seems to be perfect here:

* the DDX lab uses machine and doesn't seem to be that interested in high quality
* the other lab uses Rodinal, which isn't as good as DDX for pushing
* if i were to develop myself I would use stand. I got no experience with developing film, I have only tried it once.

Got three options then:
1:chose DDX lab, deal with some water marks.
2: chose Rodinal lab, which isn't as good with pushed
3: develop myself, which may result in many other bad things..




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Znerken said:

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

Click to expand...

Film isn't digital. Absolutes answers like Go or No-Go don't really work.

Think of an analog gas gauge in a car with just E, 1/2, and F marks; you can tell when you are getting close to empty but it won't tell you how many gallons are left.

Right now you don't know what the limits of the film really are and we can't really know what will get you the pictures you want, even with you showing us examples. There are too many other variables.

The speed of your Tri-X never, ever, ever, ever changes to 1600, with the chemicals you are talking about. A 2-stop push in DD-X might get the working speed of the film up to 640, Rodinal maybe to 500, (guessing) but neither will get you anywhere near 1600 (not guessing).

Believe it or not, the absolute speed number is not the problem.

The film's speed rating has some "latitude" built in, a safety factor of about a stop, using that up can get you to an EI (meter setting) of 800 by itself. This is one reason why Kodak can say that shooting Tri-X at 800 requires no change in development.

The other big wildcard is your print preferences. You are asking for and showing examples of, short SBR shots with little shadow detail. That choice probably gains you close to another stop of latitude at the shadow end which means that shooting at an EI of 1600 is probably very workable for you without even pushing the film.

Znerken said:

So let me rephrase:

Will there be enough differences between Rodinal and DDX to be worth stressing about? Should I just chose the lab that's more convenient and don't bother being stressed about which developer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Not enough difference.

And

Exactly, don't stress over the chemical.

markbarendt said:

Not enough difference.

And

Exactly, don't stress over the chemical.

Click to expand...

Thank you, now I understand.

To defend myself a little; it isn't exactly this impression you get from reading millions of threads on how bad Rodinal is to use when you "push film"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Znerken said:

Okay, thank you. The problem is that nothing seems to be perfect here:

* the DDX lab uses machine and doesn't seem to be that interested in high quality
* the other lab uses Rodinal, which isn't as good as DDX for pushing
* if i were to develop myself I would use stand. I got no experience with developing film, I have only tried it once.

Got three options then:
1:chose DDX lab, deal with some water marks.
2: chose Rodinal lab, which isn't as good with pushed
3: develop myself, which may result in many other bad things..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

A good, quality oriented lab is worth a lot more than the difference between the two developers.

Stand development might give you more speed, but the other effects are more likely to give you the polar opposite of the look you prefer.

It is relatively easy to learn to develop your own film, and can be really inexpensive.

And it is really satisfying and fun.

MattKing said:

A good, quality oriented lab is worth a lot more than the difference between the two developers.

Stand development might give you more speed, but the other effects are more likely to give you the polar opposite of the look you prefer.

It is relatively easy to learn to develop your own film, and can be really inexpensive.

And it is really satisfying and fun.

Click to expand...

I'm just so scared to do anything wrong.. Those photos are worth way too much to screw up!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Znerken said:

I'm just so scared to do anything wrong.. Those photos are worth way too much to screw up!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Ah - you need to take time to experiment with some photos that don't matter as much to you!

MattKing said:

Ah - you need to take time to experiment with some photos that don't matter as much to you!

Click to expand...

I tested with one roll in Rodinal a couple of years ago


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MattKing said:

Ah - you need to take time to experiment with some photos that don't matter as much to you!

Click to expand...

+1

Rodinal is an acutance developer, it gives increased sharpness at the expense of grain. To mitigate the effects of grain, photographers often use stand development, which requires minimal agitation, as agitation further increased grain. Stand development allows highlights to fill in after darker areas have finished developing, decreasing extremes of contrast. I mostly use it with slower films, but also sometimes "push" (underexpose) by two or three stops (100 ISO to 400 or 800) and get a good range of mid tones.

Some photographers push Tri-X and HP5+ in Rodinal but I haven't done so for many years. I'd expect contrast and grain to increase, and would use stand development to counteract both, but you'd have to experiment. 1970s street photographers routinely pushed Tri-X to 800 or 1600 ISO to allow for fast shutter speeds and depth of field, but not in Rodinal, most probably D76 or a dedicated high speed developer. The good thing about stand development is it allows for considerable latitude in time and temperature (within limits), so in addition to it's technical benefits it suits lazy people!

That's 7 pages of advice now. I don't think there is a lot more useful advice to come. Let us know what you have decided to do. If there are any glaring "holes" in your logic I am sure some of us will mention them.

To have found labs that use both DDX and Rodinal I'd say you have done well but if you really want control I think you have to do it yourself.

Of course there are risks. You need to be prepared to make mistakes and worse you can only blame yourself for any problems that arise

If there is a fail-safe way that is guaranteed to get you what you want and doesn't involve risks let me know. I have been looking for this in most things in life but haven't found it yet

pentaxuser

MattKing said:

I sort of did tell you, but I don't think you liked the answer .

When it comes to negative films, pushing doesn't give you more speed. It gives you more contrast and grain. You don't regain the detail you lost (due to under-exposure) in the shadows; you usually lose details in the highlights.

The near shadows look nicer, because of the extra contrast. The mid-tones look more contrasty, and that may appeal to you more.

I have had some experience with Rodinal, and a fair amount of information about DDX which I have gained from others.

If you need to under-expose a 400 ISO film by two stops (meter it at an EI of 1600) you are likely to retain slightly more shadow detail with DDX than Rodinal. So that is why I suggest DDX.

There is one caveat to the above which I bring up with great trepidation. There is a technique called "stand" developing that involves long development times in very dilute developer with very little or no agitation. This can result in some compensation effects that can, among many other possible effects, result in more low light response. Rodinal and HC-110 are two developers that are popular with the stand developing "cultists" . It may be that those two developers are particularly suitable for stand developing because they both give slightly less speed with films developed using more standard techniques.

In experienced and knowledgeable hands, stand developing can be a useful special purpose tool. And it can be fun to try it out. But I don't recommend it for beginners who are trying to work out there basic, everyday process.

Click to expand...

Okay, if there is one technique I would use to do it myself it would be stand. Also, this is the only "technique" I can't get outsourced. Is stand really that hard? Isn't the point to just let it stand for one hour or longer, and since the time is so long things are less critical?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Znerken said:

Okay, if there is one technique I would use to do it myself it would be stand. Also, this is the only "technique" I can't get outsourced. Is stand really that hard? Isn't the point to just let it stand for one hour or longer, and since the time is so long things are less critical?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Stand development will most likely lead to the exact opposite of the effect you want. Compressed tones and minimized grain.

And depending on who you talk to, either more or less inconsistent results.

I was eleven years old when I started developing film. Within a year or so I was using the sort of daylight tanks you would use now.

Developing black and white negative film is pretty simple.

Okay guys, last question:

If I push the film to 1600, I read somewhere online that there is no point in increasing development times if you only are going to scan the negative. Can anyone confirm or not confirm this? Should I follow normal Rodinal times for tri-x or increase time?

I disagree quite strongly with the remarks over digital processing but this is, fortunately, an analog forum so I won't discuss that further.

The contrasty look that is apparently preferred is not the same thing as using fast film - you can use slow film, under-expose it, over-develop it and still get contrasty results. If it is grain that is desired, then do as I suggested and use a wide-angle lens with heavy cropping for the print. If speed is important then use a fast film instead of TriX, which these days means using Delta3200, and develop it in DDX. For the grainy/contrasty 'look', it might also be practical to use Foma Retropan320, with heavy under-exposure and over-development, as that seems to have a fairly good grain structure. I have only used sheets of that, but it is available in 135 too and is something I want to try.

It's unclear why you cannot develop film yourself. It is simple and needs no darkroom. Doing this would mean that it's much simpler to make far more tests (and you can use just half-a-dozen frames at a time, which reduces costs) to work out a process that gets you what you want, and removes the huge time delay between shooting and seeing the results. It seems to me that you are 'shy' of the materials - this is absolutely normal and, in most teaching environments, is something that must be overcome by hands-on familiarity with the process.

Shoot a lot, process carefully, test quickly, shoot wide and crop, assess the results in prints. Make a self-published book with your pictures and give it out as a Christmas present, this year.

MartinP said:

I disagree quite strongly with the remarks over digital processing but this is, fortunately, an analog forum so I won't discuss that further.

The contrasty look that is apparently preferred is not the same thing as using fast film - you can use slow film, under-expose it, over-develop it and still get contrasty results. If it is grain that is desired, then do as I suggested and use a wide-angle lens with heavy cropping for the print. If speed is important then use a fast film instead of TriX, which these days means using Delta3200, and develop it in DDX. For the grainy/contrasty 'look', it might also be practical to use Foma Retropan320, with heavy under-exposure and over-development, as that seems to have a fairly good grain structure. I have only used sheets of that, but it is available in 135 too and is something I want to try.

It's unclear why you cannot develop film yourself. It is simple and needs no darkroom. Doing this would mean that it's much simpler to make far more tests (and you can use just half-a-dozen frames at a time, which reduces costs) to work out a process that gets you what you want, and removes the huge time delay between shooting and seeing the results. It seems to me that you are 'shy' of the materials - this is absolutely normal and, in most teaching environments, is something that must be overcome by hands-on familiarity with the process.

Shoot a lot, process carefully, test quickly, shoot wide and crop, assess the results in prints. Make a self-published book with your pictures and give it out as a Christmas present, this year.

Click to expand...

Lets not discuss more about the hybrid process. How people arrive at the print isn't important, as long as they arrive at the print.

I totally agree with you about developing myself, and I am currently fightning with myself in sleep to get started on developing at home. That's why I asked about tri-x rodinal development times over here. The reason why I haven't developed myself is:
1. I am scared of these "dangerous" chemicals
2. I do not want to spend time testing etc, when I rather could be out photographing. If there is a standard recipe I can follow, that would be better. Of course, if I see that I need 20% longer dev time, I add that.
3. I hate cutting negatives, it scares me.
4. If I screw up something I would drink the whole bottle of Rodinal...

Right now I have made a list of what I need, feel free to fill in:
*Rodinal
*Darkroom bag
*Hangers for filmdrying
*Fixer
*Development tank
*Reels
*Tool to get the film out of the case
*"LFN" <- I feel geeky now.

You can use photoflo instead of lfn, it's much cheaper. Use clothespins to hang the film instead of special hangers. And if you have a dark windowless bathroom you can use it with a towel stuffed under the door instead of buying a changing bag which would just make the experience all sweaty and cramped anyway.

Just go in your bathroom with the towel method for a few minutes and let your eyes adjust. Do you see any light leaks? Make sure hall lights are off. If you're really concerned you could do it at night as well.

Have fun! It really is pretty easy. And nothing compares to the feeling you get when you unroll your first developed roll to dry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Znerken said:

Can anyone confirm or not confirm this? Should I follow normal Rodinal times for tri-x or increase time?

Click to expand...

You are asking these questions as if there is one right answer to each, like there is some magic formula; there isn't.

Like it or not, none of us have the perfect answer that will guarantee you a good result. We've already given you reasonable answers to these questions.

It may not seem like it should be this way but essentially you are asking us questions akin to: "do you think I have enough salt on my dinner?"

We don't know how salty you like your food nor how well your lab can cook, nor how well you can print, nor ...

You have to taste your food to see if it's been salted enough. You have to shoot some film and try what we have suggested to see for yourself.

The process is very forgiving. Give it a try pushed, give it a try normal. Both will work, only you can decide which you like better.

markbarendt said:

You are asking these questions as if there is one right answer to each, like there is some magic formula; there isn't.

Like it or not, none of us have the perfect answer that will guarantee you a good result. We've already given you reasonable answers to these questions.

It may not seem like it should be this way but essentially you are asking us questions akin to: "do you think I have enough salt on my dinner?"

We don't know how salty you like your food nor how well your lab can cook, nor how well you can print, nor ...

You have to taste your food to see if it's been salted enough. You have to shoot some film and try what we have suggested to see for yourself.

The process is very forgiving. Give it a try pushed, give it a try normal. Both will work, only you can decide which you like better.

Click to expand...

Point taken, thank you for honest answer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Developing film is about as difficult as making a cup of tea or boiling an egg. If either of those fill you with trepidation, don't do it. Rodinal types, RO9, etc, especially in stand development is absurdly easy. Rodinal is cheap and lasts almost indefinitely. Stand development requires high dilutions, 1:100 or 1:200, making development even less expensive. I can understand your anxiety if you've never done it before, but compared to sourcing a reliable lab, and the expense involved in sending and picking up your film as well as paying a professional premium, home development of black and white film is a no brainer.

In case no one has said, you need a tank (a two roll tank with a pair of plastic spirals is the easiest for beginners), developer and fixative. A thermometer is handy and a syringe or something for measuring baby medicine if a syringe is hard to come by. Failing those, any vessel that measures small volumes reliably. Load the film in a dark bag (get a bigger one from ebay in China) or a guaranteed dark place, like a closet under the stairs at night. Practice loading in daylight with some old negatives you don't care about, and make sure the spiral is completely dry.

Here's my stand development technique: Add 3 ml of developer to 300 ml of water per 35mm film, so 6 ml to 600 ml for two films, 9 ml to 900 ml for three films, and so on. If it isn't 20C (68F) place the measuring cylinder in a bowl of cold or warm water until it is. For stand development there is going to be some temperature variation over the stand period, don't sweat it, so long as you don't live in Arizona or Greenland you'll be okay. If you're worried put the developing tank in a bowl of water for the duration and take the temperature at regular intervals - I don't and it doesn't make any difference to the outcome.

Pour in the developer solution, invert the tank gently three times and leave alone, then three more inversions half way through development. You won't go far wrong with 1:100 dev/water for an hour. Pour away developer solution and fill tank with water of about the same temperature. Invert ten times, pour away and repeat. I rarely use stop bath, if you want to, suit yourself, the idea is to get rid of any developer that'll contaminate your fix. Put your fix in for the time stated on the instructions, typically about ten minutes. Pour your fix back in the bottle, it lasts for many films and wash the film with water. Your film is now light safe. The British Antarctic expedition did tests to see what the minimum film wash could be to preserve permanence. Water meant melting snow, which required fuel which had to be carried by sled, making water a valuable commodity. IIRC it was ten inversions of ten water changes. Anything more is a bonus, stick a shower hose on it if it makes you feel better. The final rinse requires a water softener to avoid drying marks. This can be Photo-Flo, I use a pin head size drop of whatever's available, mostly shampoo, in a full tank of water and agitate. If this alarms you, buy some Photo-Flo.

Hang the film off the shower rail with weighted photographic clips if you have some, if not clothes pegs do just fine. Last week the shower was full with family and I hung my film from a rose bush, making sure there was no wind! Look at Trent Parke's "Minutes to Midnight" where you'll see a photo of a swathe of his 35mm films hanging from an Australian tree. As for cutting film, use scissors! In 40 years I can only remember slicing a frame once. Once you've developed a couple of films you can do in in your sleep.

Just remember: dev, wash, fix, wash, dry.