Tri-X: Shadows always way too dark, help!

[moleskin0r]

Hello everybody,
ever since I started film photography 2 years ago, I liked the grain of the Kodak Tri-x und how things looked with it in general. I started developing with Rodinal, tried D76, HC-110 and lately FX-39. Since I just don't have the time now to print large amounts of negatives, I usually scan them with a Canon 9000F MkII.
Now every other film looks just fine when scanned, I usually don't adjust anything after scanning, but Tri-X has always shadows so dark that it just looks wrong when compared to my other scans. CHM400 vs Tri-x:

This picture was shot using CHM 400, developed with FX-39. I like how the shadowish details on the left are still visible even though there is bright sunlight.

Here, everything in the left part of the picture is just dark, especially the skin tones. Same camera, but Tri-X (@400), also FX-39.

Do I just have to settle with the fact that Tri-X needs some adjustments? Should I change the developing times, the technique? Anything else?
With HP5+ and HC-110, I like the shadows and details a bit more, even though it still isn't as much detail as I have seen elsewhere (like in this forum).

HP5+, HC110.

I'm just not sure whether I'm doing something wrong when the scans don't look perfect, or printing the darker looking negatives will go as easy as printing Silvermax.

Thank you in advance!

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's hard to say without seeing the negatives. Cheap scanners have a tendency to do funny things to negatives that make it hard to diagnose anything from simply seeing the scans. TX generally has very good shadow speed.

My only other immediate reaction is that the TX & HP5 seem underexposed. This may be a function of metering habits, or the scanner or a list of other variables.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

It looks as if you are underexposing and a bit overdeveloping.
I would try exposing at EI 250 (or better make a test series on four exposes with 200, 250, 320, 400 on your next film on a typical subject) and reducing dev. time by 20%.
In general TX is great for such light.

Best
Jens

 

[faberryman]

Not sure how he is going to vary exposure by 1/3rd stop increments unless he has either a lens with 1/3rd stop aperture clicks or an aperture priority camera with 1/3rd stop or finer shutter speed increments.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Not sure how he is going to vary exposure by 1/3rd stop increments unless he has either a lens with 1/3rd stop aperture clicks or an aperture priority camera with 1/3rd stop or finer shutter speed increments.

It's called an ASA/ISO dial on most cameras and hand held meters. No problem setting those to 1/3 stop. Yes, you can even ride over click stops on a lens, but that's not always an accurate way. Or just meter something in the scene that is slightly darker in the scene and use that setting.

 

[faberryman]

It's called an ASA/ISO dial on most cameras and hand held meters. No problem setting those to 1/3 stop. Yes, you can even ride over click stops on a lens, but that's not always an accurate way. Or just meter something in the scene that is slightly darker in the scene and use that setting.

You can change the ISO dial all you want, but the ISO dial doesn't vary exposure. The only way to vary exposure is with shutter speed and aperture, and those are generally not in 1/3rd stop increments with film cameras and lenses, unless you are shooting with an automatic camera in aperture priority. You're lucky if your aperture has 1/2 stop clicks. A few Zeiss lenses for Leica and Nikon have 1/3 stop clicks.

The first and third image likely have more than eight stops of dynamic range, which means with normal processing you can have correct exposure for the shadows, or correct exposure for the highlights, but not both. It looks like the OP erred on the side of exposure for the highlights, and accordingly lost details in the shadows. If he had exposed for the shadows, he would have blown out the highlights. Without zone system metering and processing, you are in a tough spot and must make choices. His exposure index and processing might be fine for normal lighting. No way to tell without testing. The second image just looks underexposed.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's probably a combination of metering as you have mixed light sources and choice of effective EI. FIlms are slower in Tunsgten light than day light FP4 for instance is 125 in daylight and 80 in Tungsten (Artificial) light.

This used to be on the boxes and data sheets as a lot of people used tungsten studio lighting. I think your results are as I'D expect if I didn't increase the exposure by half to maybe a full stop to compensate development is probably OK.

Ian

 

[baachitraka]

Simple problem

 

[Kino]

Hi,

It looks as if you are underexposing and a bit overdeveloping.
I would try exposing at EI 250 (or better make a test series on four exposes with 200, 250, 320, 400 on your next film on a typical subject) and reducing dev. time by 20%.
In general TX is great for such light.

Best
Jens

+1 (partial)

Underexposure leaves no detail in the shadows; if it ain't there, you can't "print it up".

Before you adjust development times, try rating it a a lower ASA/ISO and process normal. It is best NOT to add 2 variables when troubleshooting; vary only one aspect at a time.

You can simulate this by taking the ASA/ISO and halving it to give it a stop more exposure.

In other words, leave your camera ASA/ISO rating at the default 400; meter a scene at the normal ASA/ISO rating and shoot one frame (take notes). This is your ASA 400 frame
Open 1/2 a stop and take a shot. This is your 320 ASA frame (use 300 if your ASA dial is that fine grained, but most aren't).
Open 1 full stop and take another shot. This is your ASA 200 frame.
Continue as desired.

Process normal and see which frame gives you the most pleasing results. Rate the film at that ASA/ISO and shoot/process normal with your new ASA/ISO rating.

Your images look (as well as I can tell) to exhibit higher than standard gamma or contrast. You might do well to fall-back to a slower/lower energy developer with more metol, such as D76, if you want a longer gray scale in your images. HC-110 and FX-39 are not typically long-scale developers without dilution and corresponding longer development times...


Frank

 

[John Wiegerink]

You can change the ISO dial all you want, but the ISO dial doesn't vary exposure. The only way to vary exposure is with shutter speed and aperture, and those are generally not in 1/3rd stop increments with film cameras and lenses, unless you are shooting with an automatic camera in aperture priority. You're lucky if your aperture has 1/2 stop clicks.

Boy, I guess I have been doing things wrong for all these years! I guess at 67yrs of age you can still be taught something. You are right in away, but you are wrong in a way also. And who said he wasn't using an auto-E camera? I didn't read it anyway. Most of the cameras of the 60"s and later had built in meters link to an ASA dial. You set the dial to the ASA/ISO of the film and matched a needle or LED diode to get the correct exposure. If you were using ASA/ISO 400 and wanted more exposure you set it to ASA/ISO 320. Most shutters back then weren't electronic and step-less so you varied your f-stop. Yes, varied it any where to match the needle. You might not believe it, but I've actually done it a time or two over the last 50 years. Try it and you'll see it does truly work. Trust me!

 

[Petraio Prime]

Boy, I guess I have been doing things wrong for all these years! I guess at 67yrs of age you can still be taught something. You are right in away, but you are wrong in a way also. And who said he wasn't using an auto-E camera? I didn't read it anyway. Most of the cameras of the 60"s and later had built in meters link to an ASA dial. You set the dial to the ASA/ISO of the film and matched a needle or LED diode to get the correct exposure. If you were using ASA/ISO 400 and wanted more exposure you set it to ASA/ISO 320. Most shutters back then weren't electronic and step-less so you varied your f-stop. Yes, varied it any where to match the needle. You might not believe it, but I've actually done it a time or two over the last 50 years. Try it and you'll see it does truly work. Trust me!

The Leicaflex SL and SL2 cameras have continuously variable shutter speeds with a mechanical shutter. This was unusual in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The Leicaflex SL and SL2 cameras have continuously variable shutter speeds with a mechanical shutter. This was unusual in the 1960s and 1970s.

Yes, I own the SL, but figured the OP probably didn't so never mentioned it. Still, the SL and SL2's shutters are not exactly the same as electronic step-less shutters.

 

[faberryman]

You might not believe it, but I've actually done it a time or two over the last 50 years. Try it and you'll see it does truly work. Trust me!

The exposure latitude of film absolves many sins.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The exposure latitude of film absolves many sins.

Forgive me for I have sinned and will continue to sin. I say go ahead and put ISO 400 film in your camera and set the ISO/ASA dial to that speed, meter and take a shot. Then only change the ASA/ISO dial to ISO 25, match your needle or whatever and take a shot. Next, set the dial to ISO 12,500 or the highest setting you have and do the same. If your exposure are the same I'll eat my hat. I'm not wearing a hat, but I'll sure run and get one quick. It's posts like this that end up confusing folks here and there is no reason for it.

 

[faberryman]

Forgive me for I have sinned and will continue to sin. I say go ahead and put ISO 400 film in your camera and set the ISO/ASA dial to that speed, meter and take a shot. Then only change the ASA/ISO dial to ISO 25, match your needle or whatever and take a shot. Next, set the dial to ISO 12,500 or the highest setting you have and do the same. If your exposure are the same I'll eat my hat. I'm not wearing a hat, but I'll sure run and get one quick. It's posts like this that end up confusing folks here and there is no reason for it.

The Leicaflex SL has a donut on a stick type match needle meter. Sometimes when you change the aperture, the needle lines up in the exact center of the donut. Other times when you change the aperture, the needle might be a little above or a little below the donut, but you can't get it exactly in the center unless you set the aperture between clicks. That's where exposure latitude comes into play. So continue as you always have and you'll be fine.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The Leicaflex SL has a donut on a stick type match needle meter. Sometimes when you change the aperture, the needle lines up in the exact center of the donut. Other times when you change the aperture, the needle might be a little above or below the donut, but you can't get it exactly in the center unless you set the aperture between clicks. That's where exposure latitude comes into play. So continue as you always have and you'll be fine.

I surely will! And yes, I'll be just fine.

 

[bernard_L]

Your images look (as well as I can tell) to exhibit higher than standard gamma or contrast.

+1 on the observation
If (for whatever reason) your quarter-tones (dark grays) are "buried", a short-term fix might be to play with the Gamma setting of your s***g software, to lift the quarter- and mid-tones.

Now every other film looks just fine when scanned

Possibly the root cause is that your TX is under-developed, with dark tones on the toe of the logE-D curve. In which case you might look into your metering equipment and procedure, and into your development.
Good luck

 

[John Wiegerink]

Possibly the root cause is that your TX is under-developed, with dark tones on the toe of the logE-D curve. In which case you might look into your metering equipment and procedure, and into your development.
Good luck

It might be, but by looking at the first shot the highlighted face and bottle on the table I'd say you won't want to push development much further if any. Still, there are far to many variables in this(scanner, etc.) to really determine what is exactly the solution to the problem, but I'd say under exposure is a good, to very good guess.

 

[Jim Noel]

Not sure how he is going to vary exposure by 1/3rd stop increments unless he has either a lens with 1/3rd stop aperture clicks or an aperture priority camera with 1/3rd stop or finer shutter speed increments.

The lens doesn't have to have click stops in order to set the aperture between the clicks.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

400TX has a ridiculous amount of highlight density range. If I'm shooting 400TX, I put the meter where the skin tones are, then add a stop of exposure. If you're shooting with a newer camera that has auto exposure push the exposure compensation to Plus 1 stop. Develop as normal.

If you're scanning, if it comes out too bright, simply adjust the exposure down in your image editor. The highlights will be fine. You can drop a curve on it if you want to preserve some highlight detail, though the standard 2.2 gamma will fit ~12 stops into your 8 bits of display. I have a canon 9000 MkII, it can handle 400TX density no problem assuming you're using scanner software that lets you control the scanner exposure so you can place the film base exposure right under clipping.

At any rate, 400TX is nominally ISO 400, as is the case with most films, you have more highlight range than shadow range, which is why you always hear he phrase: expose for the shadows. You can't pull detail out of the neg if it didn't record it.

 

[tedr1]

It seems to me the images shown at the top of the thread are available light exposures made with no regard for the light quality of the subject, by which I mean the range of brightness and the types of light, direct and diffused. I don't mean to sound discouraging but in my opinion this is not so much about development as about choice of subject, choice of lighting, and adjustment of exposure appropriate to the subject. These choices cannot be "fixed" in the development stage, they are choices the photographer makes before pressing the shutter. This can be learned, the internet is a rich resource on the subjects of lighting and exposure and camera-craft.

 

[bernard_L]

Possibly the root cause is that your TX is under-developed

Sorry, a slip of the keyboard. I meant under-exposed (or else I would not have mentioned metering equipment and procedure).

No need to fiddle with 1/3 stop increments: you would not even see the difference over just 1/3 stop increment!
My advice: re-do the same sort of indoors pics, only changing the Tri-X rating to 200ISO, then 100ISO (yes!). Basic experiment rule: change only one factor at a time; So do not change your metering routine or dev time.

This should take care of your lack of separation in shadows. Later on you can learn to "meter for the shadows", which is a nice technique, but needs to be done properly. Once I took a photo course where the instructor taught us how to meter shadows without a spotmeter: carry in your bag a small box, with a hole, and the inside lined with black velvet; I dropped out of the course.

 

[pentaxuser]

Unless I missed it, the OP doesn't appear to have said what camera he used so we then know what controls are available to him

pentaxuser

 

[wiltw]

These negs were shot 50 years ago! Tri-X, souped in HC-110 dil. B, and printed conventionally for publication in our highschool newspaper on hard finished newsprint (think Life magazine quality paper). I just grabbed these shots as ones in dark settings with deep shadow, as something representative of Tri-X scanned on Canon 8800F with standard settings, and not altered tonally in postprocessing.

 

[MattKing]

I am just trying to figure what that person is doing trying to climb into the kitchen cupboard!
First, welcome to APUG.
It would be helpful if you could tell us about how you metered those scenes. The first one is very challenging - even if metered perfectly, one would expect to have to dodge and burn (or use the related post-processing tools) in order to obtain a good result.
Different films in different developers exhibit different response "curves" - essentially a measure of how the film responds to the range of brightness available. Some emphasize response in the shadow areas, usually at the expense of at least some response in the mid-tones and highlights. In days gone by, the response characteristics of different films were tailored to different lighting situations, and experienced photographers would choose amongst the films available to them to match a particular situation.
You can still do that a bit (many of the special purpose films are gone), but now a lot more people rely instead on either darkroom techniques or post-processing techniques instead.
FWIW, Tri-X 400 is just about as flexible a choice as any available.