Tri-X pushed -DDX or Rodinal?

[markbarendt]

Ok Znerken,

I want you to see one of the advantages of us not being able to give you a straight answer.

Attached is the data sheet/instructions for a single use camera made by Ilford loaded with HP-5+. HP-5+ is very much akin to Tri-X in it's use, latitude, processing, and printing.

You'll notice that the camera has no adjustments for exposure (other than flash). Shutter 1/100, aperture f9.5, and the film speed is 400.

This camera makes fine negatives and fully capable of getting the look you want. Cameras like these and old box Brownies, and Holgas have been used for countless millions of very workable shots. Using negative films makes that possible.

Films from this camera are typically processed normally, no push or pull, because the actual exposure from frame to frame varies wildly.

Some shots on a roll might have metered at an EI of 1600 (2-stops under), some at EI 800 (1-stop under), others at EI 25 (4-stops over normal meter), the EI (meter setting) is allowed to float in order to make the 1/100, f9.5 fixed exposure settings workable.

In my experience I can get very workable shots across that whole range of EI's as long as I understand that I have to print each frame differently.

That works for me. I've practiced and know where my limits are. At 1600 I'm reaching the limits of my ability to print well.

I don't need to shoot every shot at 1600 though, even if I can with my fancy Nikons. I can shoot at 1600 or 25 when I have to and 400 the rest of the time, all on the same roll.

 

[blockend]

I've practiced and know where my limits are. At 1600 I'm reaching the limits of my ability to print well.

I agree. At 1600 ISO you're in a losing battle with contrast control. Some developers and development techniques mitigate the losses, but the film is trying to suck in light that isn't there. Unlike digital cameras that process what little signal there is and emerge with noise, film says "nothing to see here" and drops everything below that threshold. This has aesthetic advantages, like beautiful deep shadows, but finding extra information in the silver that doesn't grievously effects overall image quality is tough going, and not the thing for beginners wanting to limit the variables.

 

[Znerken]

I agree. At 1600 ISO you're in a losing battle with contrast control. Some developers and development techniques mitigate the losses, but the film is trying to suck in light that isn't there. Unlike digital cameras that process what little signal there is and emerge with noise, film says "nothing to see here" and drops everything below that threshold. This has aesthetic advantages, like beautiful deep shadows, but finding information in the silver that doesn't grievously effects overall image quality is tough going, and not the thing for beginners wanting to limit the variables.

But I want the speed, I want tri-x and I like the deep beautiful black. So I shoot at 1600


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hatchetman]

I use Tri-X at 1600 and DD-X for my daughter's ballet performances. It works OK. Kind of contrasty. Kind of grainy. It prints OK. Problem is stopping motion at 1/125 & f2.8ish.

 

[blockend]

But I want the speed, I want tri-x and I like the deep beautiful black. So I shoot at 1600

You're probably one of those entitled millennials I hear about - I want it all and I want it now! If you are I have to tell you film research and development stopped around the time you were born, so what we have now is all there is, and probably ever will be. My best advice is to to look at a photographer like Daido Moriyama, and don't stop experimenting until you get the look! Good Luck!

 

[Znerken]

You're probably one of those entitled millennials I hear about - I want it all and I want it now! If you are I have to tell you film research and development stopped around the time you were born, so what we have now is all there is, and probably ever will be. My best advice is to to look at a photographer like Daido Moriyama, and don't stop experimenting until you get the look! Good Luck!

Thank you! I have everything I need. A camera, tri-x and the street I don't want it all. I can accept shadows going black and I can accept grain. I want speed and tri-x.

Also, I grew up with a dad who used film because the digital wasn't there yet, so I ain't a newborn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blockend]

Thank you! I have everything I need. A camera, tri-x and the street I don't want it all. I can accept shadows going black and I can accept grain. I want speed and tri-x.

Also, I grew up with a dad who used film because the digital wasn't there yet, so I ain't a newborn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's the spirit! When you develop your film report back, some of us may be old but we've done this stuff a few times and might be able to help. Rodinal isn't the best developer for what you're trying to achieve or for fast film, but these things are best learned first hand. Keep going!

 

[Znerken]

That's the spirit! When you develop your film report back, some of us may be old but we've done this stuff a few times and might be able to help. Rodinal isn't the best developer for what you're trying to achieve or for fast film, but these things are best learned first hand. Keep going!

I believe you. Haha, now you made me unsure again.. I had decided on Rodinal 1:50 tri-x 1600.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blockend]

I believe you. Haha, now you made me unsure again.. I had decided on Rodinal 1:50 tri-x 1600.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What matters is whether you like it, everything else is propaganda. Check out this dude, he stand develops fast film in Rodinal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wy80sSRAMM He has plenty of talk but anyone in the same game has to be worth a watch.

 

[markbarendt]

But I want the speed, I want tri-x and I like the deep beautiful black. So I shoot at 1600

If you were shooting slide film then sure, shooting at 1600 and pushing would be important to get the result you want.

You aren't shooting slides.

When shooting negative film the exact EI setting doesn't matter, because there is no direct correlation between a specific image density on the negative and black, instead you get to choose where black falls on the print.

 

[Znerken]

If you were shooting slide film then sure, shooting at 1600 and pushing would be important to get the result you want.

You aren't shooting slides.

When shooting negative film the exact EI setting doesn't matter, because there is no direct correlation between a specific image density on the negative and black, instead you get to choose where black falls on the print.

Are you saying I shouldn't overdevelop? Is that true for a hybrid process as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

Are you saying I shouldn't overdevelop? Is that true for a hybrid process as well?

That's what several of us have been saying throughout the thread.

If you shoot slide film getting exposure and development perfect matters because you are making the positive.

Shooting negatives, as long as you don't underexpose too far, you can push or not because when you or the lab make a positive (using VC paper or manipulating the scan) you can adjust print contrast and exposure as you please.

 

[Znerken]

That's what several of us have been saying throughout the thread.

If you shoot slide film getting exposure and development perfect matters because you are making the positive.

Shooting negatives, as long as you don't underexpose too far, you can push or not because when you or the lab make a positive (using VC paper or manipulating the scan) you can adjust print contrast and exposure as you please.

So just just meter at EI1600 and use normal development time then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blockend]

Are you saying I shouldn't overdevelop? Is that true for a hybrid process as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Forget scanning issues, you can scan almost any negative, the scanning thing is a distraction.

Think of it this way, a developing negative starts as a series of thin greys, gradually building up to a full range of tones from solid black to clear film and everything in between, but if left it in the developer long enough, the clear parts will fill in and reduce the range until everything turns black, more or less. Stop development too early or too late, and your negative will have a compressed tonal range, you need to find the sweet spot.

Push the film, in other words underexpose it, and you are doing the negative density equivalent of taking it out the developer early. Therefore you have to extend development times to meet the lack of light reaching the film. The scale is a sliding one and theoretically you could massively over expose a shot, or seriously under expose it, and so long as you matched your development time to your exposure you'd come out with a perfect negative. There are other variables, but in essence that's how it works.

Black and white film has considerable latitude - the ability to get too little or too much light and still produce a good negative - and high ISO film has more latitude than slow film. Similarly, film has latitude to variations in temperature and development duration, and so long as you don't take things too far, you'll still get a good negative. Think of it as home alchemy, not as particle accelerator science. Until you've developed a few films, and probably made mistakes along the way, you're taking in pure data which is a lousy way to learn. The sooner you begin breaking eggs, the quicker you'll get your omelette.

 

[MartinP]

It might also be interesting to link a few pictures that show the appearance you wish to achieve - regarding contrast, grain, 'feel' - then ask the forum, "How would you do this?". That way, all the assumptions over what is behind the pictures you have seen will be removed, and apuggers can present their suggestions for an entire process to achieve a specific end-result.

Some of the most extreme grain/contrast shots of all time have been done with hot print developer, for example. Asking open questions about whole processes behind an image may reveal some interesting suggestions that asking about details does not.

 

[Znerken]

I just did this search https://www.flickr.com/search/?advanced=1&tags=trix Rodinal

I'm more calm than ever that Rodinal and tri-x is a good combination


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

So just just meter at EI1600 and use normal development time then?

Yep.

When you really need EI 1600 shoot at 1600. Just realize that you are close to the underexposure limit when doing so. (Pushing doesn't fix that.)

When the light is bright enough shoot at EI 800 or 400 or 200 or 100, all these can all be on the same roll with your EI 1600 shots, normal developing; you'll get more keepers with a bit more exposure.

One way I do this is that I'll meter the darkest part of setting I'll be working in for 1600 and set the camera manually for that. after that I just leave the camera setting alone and shoot.

 

[blockend]

At the risk of blowing Znerken's mind, I'm wondering where the magic number of 1600 ASA came from? Has he seen someone's work he liked who shot at that EI, or does he live in a dark climate. In broad daylight 1600 ISO will be close to maxing out the shutter speeds on many cameras, and/or pushing apertures into f-stops where diffraction becomes an issue, in addition to negative density problems.

Trent Parke, whose photographs sound very much like what Znerken is aiming for, uses FP4, nominally a 125 ASA film.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think we owe it to him to let him get on with it and do what his instincts tell him to do

pentaxuser

 

[mrred]

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?

Garbage in is garbage out. Get the best possible negative.....period. If you don't develop enough, there will be little for the scanner to pick up. Nothing magic here. If anything, you would have more leeway with an optical print.

 

[mrred]

I just did this search https://www.flickr.com/search/?advanced=1&tags=trix Rodinal

I'm more calm than ever that Rodinal and tri-x is a good combination


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When you do these searches, make sure you are comparing the right film format. When using small format (like 35mm), there is less emulsion so the image get's magnified more than say... a 4x5 for the same size print. The grain will always look finer on a larger format.

 

[MattKing]

For instance, the photo linked here is tagged "220" "Tri-X 320" "rodinal": https://www.flickr.com/photos/po-pa...Xnm-dRwZSW-dELtRn-dBxGev-dnEb1y-dbQhAh-daf4R4

A much larger format and a film that is Tri-X in name only.

 

[Znerken]

When you do these searches, make sure you are comparing the right film format. When using small format (like 35mm), there is less emulsion so the image get's magnified more than say... a 4x5 for the same size print. The grain will always look finer on a larger format.

Of course


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Znerken]

At the risk of blowing Znerken's mind, I'm wondering where the magic number of 1600 ASA came from? Has he seen someone's work he liked who shot at that EI, or does he live in a dark climate. In broad daylight 1600 ISO will be close to maxing out the shutter speeds on many cameras, and/or pushing apertures into f-stops where diffraction becomes an issue, in addition to negative density problems.

Trent Parke, whose photographs sound very much like what Znerken is aiming for, uses FP4, nominally a 125 ASA film.

As stated earlier; it started with the look, but then I realized I needed the speed. I often shoot at 800 as well, but we are going in to darker times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blockend]

As stated earlier; it started with the look, but then I realized I needed the speed. I often shoot at 800 as well, but we are going in to darker times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Remember 1600 from 800 is only one stop of light, and if you're in dim conditions that's not a lot. Tell us how you get on.