• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Tri-x pushed to ASA 6400

Interestingly the one pushed to 6400 seem to be those where the light conditions do not require such a push. Those where the light conditions do require a push or should that be 4 pushes turn out to be only so-so. I wonder if even those in dim light need to be pushed to 6400. If they didn't then it may be that they would have looked better at 2-3 pushes rather than 4.

I am sure there is nothing wrong with Tri-X but it would be nice to see the same scene shot with say HP5+ at the same speed.

pentaxuser
 

First thing I thought. Pushing to 6400 in great light is no big feat. It's how the film acts in low light that's the real clincher.
 
its funny
i never push films but i pull them about 4-5, sometimes 6 stops
even when lighting conditions do not warrent it ...
 
Craig said:
Why not use Delta 3200 instead?
Click to expand...

It’s roughly 2x the price and some folks like the grain of pushed 400 vs the giant grain of D3200.
 
Isn't Delta 3200 a different animal than Tri-X? Delta is a designer grain film and Tri-X is not. The look is different to me. I've always preferred old school BW film.
 
Craig said:
Guess that depends where you are. At my local camera store D3200 is cheaper than Tri-X.
Click to expand...

That’s nutty. What are the prices on each?
 
I need to push some HP5 to 6400, Ive done 3200 and it looked pretty good
 

In OP link where are some examples where I would want to push it to 6400. Just like I do with digital. But I'm agree. Too many examples provided where you could rate film as you want and it will still come OK, because it was daylight.

In 2015-2016 I started to push HP5+ to 1200 and then 1600.
In 2017 I went to 3200:

Print from HP5+ @3200, I have to push it to maintain moderate shutter speed and small enough aperture:


Scan from HP5+ @3200, it was really dark where. Lens wide open (2.5) and shutter speed was something like 1/4:
 
Fixcinater said:
That’s nutty. What are the prices on each?
Click to expand...

Tri-X 120 - $10.87
Delta 3200 120 - $10.24.
Just for reference, HP5+ 120 is $6.63.

This is Canadian dollars. You can run it through xe.com if you want to convert to USD. Kodak film in Canada is very expensive for some reason. T Max sheets films are approximately double the price of Ilford for example.
 
Mainecoonmaniac said:
I think it's Ralph Gibson's favorite film. However, he overexposes Tri-X.

http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2014/07/more-thoughts-on-gibson-method.html
Click to expand...

Last I can recall Gibson preferred Neopan 400 and 1600. His earlier images were on TriX. The later images are sharper, especially the 1600 ones. If you've ever used Neopan 1600 developed in Rodinal, you can spot it a mile away. If you look at his earlier images compared to his later ones you can see the difference. This is more evident looking at the prints, not so much on the web.
 

Oooh. I didn't he used Neopan 400 and 1600. Did he shoot at at a lower ASA like Tri-X?
 
Mainecoonmaniac said:
I think it's Ralph Gibson's favorite film
Click to expand...

Well when he was still using film he complained to one of my friend that the "new" (circa 2005) TRI-X was too clean for his taste. Therefore Gibson chose instead to work with the Kodak 3200 film.
 
Mainecoonmaniac said:
Isn't Delta 3200 a different animal than Tri-X? Delta is a designer grain film and Tri-X is not. The look is different to me. I've always preferred old school BW film.
Click to expand...
I am trying to picture the kind of person who might be responsible for designer grain and marry that with the chemists I saw at Mobberley. and they did not match my impression of the kind of people who devise designer grain

They certainly were not what we term in the U.K. " arty-farty" sort of people who are the kind of people I always associate with anything that has the word "designer" in it.

pentaxuser
 
I shoot Tri-x at EI 12,800 all the time!!!

What I do is place the darkest areas of the scene in which I want texture on Zone VII.




If you don't get it, my statement shows Tri-X being exposed at Box Speed; it is a sarcastic way to show statements like "I shoot ___ film at ___ exposure index" are meaningless without scene illumination and exposure data confirmation. I ignore those statements. I know what under-exposed negatives look like and I know what the prints from them look like.
 
Cholentpot said:
First thing I thought. Pushing to 6400 in great light is no big feat. It's how the film acts in low light that's the real clincher.
Click to expand...
+1 agree. Try shooting sports - like basketball - in a dimly lit arena and see how Tri-x or HP-5 or Delta 3200 at 6400 looks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register