Tri-X: to push or not to push

[Joseph Bell]

Hello silver fans! I am wondering if I might ask you for some guidance RE: Tri-X. I am not too familiar with this film, and I recently shot a few rolls of 35mm at EI400. Generally speaking, do you prefer the look of Tri-X developed normally, or pushed for extra grain and contrast? I metered at 400, but I'm wondering if I'll get more of that classic Tri-X look if I push the film. I will be most grateful for your ideas and opinions!

Sincere thanks,
Joseph

 

[MattKing]

To me, the "classic" Tri-X look is actually a look with a full range of tones and smooth tonal gradations, accompanied by the subtle but important contributions of tight grain and strong shadows and brilliant highlights.
Pushing Tri-X tends to distort the qualities of Tri-X I like the most.
But there are certainly some photographers who have had success with the results of a push development.
Most of my Tri-X shooting was in the 1970s and early 1980s, and that film wasn't as modern as current Tri-X.
I need to reprint more of my Tri-X negatives, most of which are shown here:

 

[jamesaz]

I don’t know if this will help you but I’m happy with the results I get with 35mm tri-x when shot at 1250 and developed in HB-110b for 15 minutes. As long as I don’t print larger than 7x9in it works well for me. It’s clearly not for every application but for general use within those parameters it works for me. Ive found that combination gives tighter grain than using diafine as well. Good luck and have fun.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Tri-X 400 can be pushed to nearly 'perfection' till 1600 ASA...
All I can say is: do it in X-Tol, wether in 1+1 or undiluted, if you want to be happy, which is a very personal opinion ofcourse (E-76 I used is somewhat a home brewed substitute for X-Tol).
My book 'Paris Dans Mon Gand' ( http://www.photoeil.be/books/paris-dans-mon-gand.html ) was almost entirely shot on Tri-X exposed (metered) at 1000 ASA and processed as it where 1600 ASA. I did this to do as I was exposing for the shadows; panoramic images are not that evident to measure, not even with a spotmeter...
Some pictures where shot on T-Max 400 and HP5, due to availability issues, but to my lesser satisfaction.
But, I still miss my beloved AGFAPAN 400!

 

[radiant]

No need to push Tri-X for a "look". It has nice contrast anyways.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Nobody can tell you whether you'll like the pushed results more than the normal results as it's a matter of personal taste. You might want to do yourself a favour. Shoot one more roll of Tri-X at EI:400. Cut the roll into three strips. Develop one strip normally, give the second strip 25% more time and the third 50% more time. Check the results and find the answer for your question.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

My book 'Paris Dans Mon Gand' ( http://www.photoeil.be/books/paris-dans-mon-gand.html ) was almost entirely shot on Tri-X exposed (metered) at 1000 ASA and processed as it where 1600 ASA. I did this to do as I was exposing for the shadows; panoramic images are not that evident to measure, not even with a spotmeter...

I checked your website. Left me highly impressed. Very nice body of work across multiple projects and books.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I checked your website. Left me highly impressed. Very nice body of work across multiple projects and books.

Thank you, Raghu, for the nice words.

 

[removedacct1]

Shoot one more roll of Tri-X at EI:400. Cut the roll into three strips. Develop one strip normally, give the second strip 25% more time and the third 50% more time. Check the results and find the answer for your question.

This is excellent advice

 

[gone]

Everybody will have their own ideas on what classic Tri-X looks like, but I like it when shot w/ a Y. or R. fltr, and developed in stock D76 or in Rodinal at 1:50 or even 1:25.. I shot it at 400 for years, but when I switched to shooting it at 200-250, I liked it better. Your choice of developers and how you agitate it will definitely change how the film looks.

 

[removed account4]

Hi Joseph
its all about persona technique and style.
my camera isn't like yours, my processing technique and printing technique neither
I'd shoot a lot of of film and see how you like its look. as Raghu and Paul suggest
personally .. im a fan of grain and contrast and not smooth, even when I shoot tmx, tmy I process it to give me
grain and edge. you might consider using a developer that will give your tri x some tooth
im a fan of using coffee and print developer to process all my film, it gives me everything I need without
over or under exposing and over and under development ( and over and under agitation ) .
have fun!
John

 

[MatthewDunn]

Purely from the perspective of maximum efficiency, you might consider shooting it at box speed in D-76 1:1. Show anyone those images and say "I like this and I don't like that" and I suspect you will get more quickly to your destination than if you start shooting at 800, processing at 1600, etc. I would start with a known point and work from there.

To be clear, I am in no way telling you where you should end up...if you determine you like pushing, pulling and Rodinal mixed with PMK using stand, by all means - your aesthetic is exactly that - yours. I am just suggesting what I consider to be the easiest way to get where it is that YOU want to go.

And in the end, it's Tri-X. It's going to look awesome whatever you do.

 

[abruzzi]

No need to push Tri-X for a "look". It has nice contrast anyways.

well, if you pull it a few stops it can lose its contrast, at least in my experience.

 

[bluechromis]

Tests are a good idea. It may also depend on subject matter. When you push, you are apt to get more contrast, more grain and less shadow detail. If, for example, if one were to shoot a building where the facade was in full sun but there was a dark, shadowy interior passageway, a contrasty scene, it might be important to retail detail in the tunnel. If pushed, the scene would be more apt to block up and lose detail in shadow, highlights or both. If one shots at box speed or less it is more likely to capture shadow detail without blowing up highlights. Alternatively, I heard a British photographer complain that he "gets cheesed off" at Americans in sunny California shooting at 1/2 box speed. Where he lived he was dealing with overcast skies and flat light for months of the year and desperate for a bit of contrast ,which shooting at a higher EI helped with. A portrait photographer says she likes Tri-X at EI 1600 because she favors the deep shadows. But she is in a studio so she can have the darkest shadows on the background where it won't matter it they block up some because is not on the subject. The OP also did not mention how he worked. If he doing static subjects using a tripod? Is he shooting dynamic subjects handheld? If is the later, one may need a higher EI. For example, if one uses a color filter there would be a loss of 1, 2, or more stops. So what was box speed becomes 200, 100, etc. If the light is dim, one needs a good shutter speed and considerable depth of field, then box speed might not be enough. Some people shooting unpredictable subjects, will shoot Tri-X pushed a stop or two for versatility. If they encounter a dim scene, the EI can handle it. If they get into a bright scene where EI 1600 might be too much, they slap on a neutral density filter. This way they can deal with 90% of lighting conditions they might encounter. The book (and probably other resources) "Way Beyond Monochrome" has good examples of how changing various parameters changes the look of a scene.

 

[bluechromis]

Although the effects of pushing are most noticeable in the extreme highlights and shadows, am I correct in thinking it may also impact the look of the mid-tones? If one changes the density curve of the film and makes the curve more or less steep would that not translate to mid-tones being more or less compressed?

 

[Joseph Bell]

To me, the "classic" Tri-X look is actually a look with a full range of tones and smooth tonal gradations, accompanied by the subtle but important contributions of tight grain and strong shadows and brilliant highlights.
Pushing Tri-X tends to distort the qualities of Tri-X I like the most.
But there are certainly some photographers who have had success with the results of a push development.
Most of my Tri-X shooting was in the 1970s and early 1980s, and that film wasn't as modern as current Tri-X.
I need to reprint more of my Tri-X negatives, most of which are shown here:
View attachment 275830

Thank you Matt, I will certainly opt for normal processing for these rolls. Your binder full of negatives in glassine looks quite inviting. I agree - print them up! Delightful.

 

[Joseph Bell]

No need to push Tri-X for a "look". It has nice contrast anyways.

Thank you! I will process them normally. I'm excited about it!

 

[Joseph Bell]

Nobody can tell you whether you'll like the pushed results more than the normal results as it's a matter of personal taste. You might want to do yourself a favour. Shoot one more roll of Tri-X at EI:400. Cut the roll into three strips. Develop one strip normally, give the second strip 25% more time and the third 50% more time. Check the results and find the answer for your question.

That is wonderful advice, much appreciated! Excellent suggestion, thank you!

 

[Joseph Bell]

Hi Joseph
its all about persona technique and style.
my camera isn't like yours, my processing technique and printing technique neither
I'd shoot a lot of of film and see how you like its look. as Raghu and Paul suggest
personally .. im a fan of grain and contrast and not smooth, even when I shoot tmx, tmy I process it to give me
grain and edge. you might consider using a developer that will give your tri x some tooth
im a fan of using coffee and print developer to process all my film, it gives me everything I need without
over or under exposing and over and under development ( and over and under agitation ) .
have fun!
John

Thank you John, that's great. I love the idea of coffee developer, by the way, and I'd like to look into that someday soon.

 

[Joseph Bell]

Purely from the perspective of maximum efficiency, you might consider shooting it at box speed in D-76 1:1. Show anyone those images and say "I like this and I don't like that" and I suspect you will get more quickly to your destination than if you start shooting at 800, processing at 1600, etc. I would start with a known point and work from there.

To be clear, I am in no way telling you where you should end up...if you determine you like pushing, pulling and Rodinal mixed with PMK using stand, by all means - your aesthetic is exactly that - yours. I am just suggesting what I consider to be the easiest way to get where it is that YOU want to go.

And in the end, it's Tri-X. It's going to look awesome whatever you do.

Matthew, sincere thanks! Tremendous advice, and certainly I appreciate the encouragement as well.

 

[Joseph Bell]

I am truly delighted by all your answers, advice, suggestions, etc! What a tremendous forum this is. Much appreciated.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My drug of choice Black & White film is Tri-X at box speed and developed in replenished XTOL. I like the grain. I have no reason to push. For all films including Tri-X, if I want more more shadow detail I use a spot meter on the darkest areas that I want detail and adjust with the Zone System.

 

[Lachlan Young]

was almost entirely shot on Tri-X exposed (metered) at 1000 ASA and processed as it where 1600 ASA. I did this to do as I was exposing for the shadows; panoramic images are not that evident to measure, not even with a spotmeter...

So if you keyed to the shadows using IRE or similar standard norms, what you're actually saying is that you rated at an effective EI of 640 and processed to a nominal aim CI of 0.72-ish - which are barely pushes in many superadditive phenidone based developers (Microphen used to claim +2/3, Xtol about +1/3 over nominal D-76 derived speed rating) - and about the contrast aim that used to be specified for diffusion/ cold light sources by Ilford. In other words, depending on enlarger choice etc, it may not even be a push at all.

 

[gone]

I just remembered something PE said...... use Dektol at 1:3 for paper, and 1:7 for most films. These were just starting points. He thought if it was used as a film developer it would give lots of contrast and deep blacks, which sure sounds like classic Tri-X to me. I've never used Dektol for a film developer, but will give it a try soon. So far all my developer experiments have worked just like they should have, including my one attempt at developing Fomapan 400 in Rodinal. Everyone said don't do it, and they were right! Actually, some of the shots looked OK in low light, but the grain was "interesting", and not exactly a classic sort of interesting.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

When I started doing street, not long ago (around 2008) I enjoyed pushing Tri-X to 1600, and I dared doing that shameful abuse with Rodinal.
For years... I just felt back then, if the image is fine, it will survive.
As some other forum members have said, as years go by we often test that great film in different developers, and at different exposure indexes.
Tri-X is wild and breaking at 1600, intense at 800, workable at 400 and superb at 200.
I like it the most at EI250 in Perceptol, with the Hasselblad and tripod. It shows its beautiful "contrast distribution" full of personality even when it receives that good amount of light, and even if the current version has smaller grain, yet the film has a strong grain presence, but that grain is so incredibly beautiful in Perceptol 1+1 and 1+2. I didn't like it that much at 1+3 or stock. For 35mm without prefocusing, I have not seen better Tri-X than EI250 in Perceptol 1+1.
But for common MF and 35mm fast overcast photography with good DOF (nearly two stops more!), I prefer Tri-X at EI800 in D-76 stock. Grain is not dissolved at all, and general image sharpness is great, just like the bite in highlights compared to 1+1. As Lachlan and others have pointed, that's not a real push for soft light.
The magic of Tri-X when we do the same scene comparing it to other ISO400 films, is Tri-X seems to mix, in some middle grays areas, a bit more low and high values details than, say HP5+, so it's very dynamic visually speaking, and makes our eye like it better often, if we do a comparison. HP5+ is more real, and Tri-X more a new slightly graphic world.
IMO it's different from Kentmere400 and Foma400 (both grainy), but sometimes Delta400 can look close to Tri-X.
Again IMO, the film is not optimized for EI400: it's only that it can be used that way, but with a bit more contrast and grain, and less resolving power than we get at 200-250.
Real pushing, say to 1600, makes it totally lose its best grain and fine detail. Both TMY and HP5+ give better pushed prints from a purely technical point of view, though the pushed look of Tri-X looks classic and works well for small sized printing.
It's totally amazing to me how it resolves very fine detail at EI250 in Perceptol 1+1: how can Kodak do that, with present grain at the same time? I have not seen any other film do it...
Lovely.