Developing Tri-X at 12800 ISO

I've seen some nice results of Tri-X developed at 12800 ISO before (some in

Tmax developer, some in Microphen, some even in Rodinal), and I was recently

forced to shoot two rolls at 12800 myself. Now, I'd like to get somewhat

decent results and after developing a first testroll it seems I'm not getting

there.

 

Let's see:

 

Developed a testroll at 12800 ISO. Microphen (fresh) stock, 20ﾰC (68ﾰ F), 60

mins, 60s agitation at the start and afterwards 10s every three minutes.

Results are... Pretty horrible. Grain and exposure/shadow details are fine,

better than I had exspected, but the negative is developed unevenly (bottom

1/5th is developed more, best visible in picture #2) and "speckled" (best

visible in the empty areas of the pictures - development is not even).

 

Any ideas? Agitate less, agitate more? Use 600ml instead of 300ml even if it's

just one roll (I'm using a 2-roll plastic Paterson tank)? Agitate only

extremely gently (using the agitator instead of doing inversions), or on the

contrary, agitate more heavily? Use another time/temp? Use DD-X or T-Max

developer?

 

Some advice would be appreciated, thanks a lot in advance.

Jonas

And attached is the second image...

 

Thanks again.

With respect, you just cannot get Tri-X even close to ISO 12800 without using some Mad Hatter-like supersensitizing techniques. All you will eventually get from gross overdevelopment is increased chemical fog.

 

If speed is your goal, then you might look to a film that is already faster.

The film is ISO 400, regardless of how you develop it. You can use whatever exposure index (EI) you want, and push it as far as it will go, but 12800 is pretty much fantasy. As said above, buy faster film!

Your iso 400 film was exposed at an EI of 12800. <BR><BR>ISO speed only applies if a film is developed so the DlogE curve fits thru certain defined points. This effectively defines the contrast as "not to low, not too high, as the little bears woulsd say :) "<BR><BR>Having a fair and standardized test "levels the playing field" so films can be tested with a defined test, and compaired to each other.<BR><BR> Overdeveloping increases contrast, and voids the formal ISO test.. <BR><BR>Overdeveloping and claiming to get radical high ISO numbers is like: <BR><BR>Playing golf and using a illegal superball and getting a better score,<BR><BR> Getting a higher baseball batting average by using a giant illegal Batt; <BR><BR>using a loaded bat :) ;<BR><BR> having a marketer make 1/4 mile drag strip claims for his YUGO brochure in seconds, with the car actually run on a 1/8 or 1/16 mile test.<BR><BR><BR><BR>Here I have run DlogE curves on different brews, and messed with "Pushing" for over 4 decades. Tri-X at 12800 ISO is a fairy tale. You are expoing at an EI of 12800, but not getting a ISO of this value. <BR><BR>Fresh brand new film will have a TAD less fog, and often abit higher iso with standard developing to ISO specs. <BR><BR><BR><BR>There is NOTHING WRONG with experimenting, I LOVE to experiment also with developing times, developers, preflashing, gas hyping, mystery baths; in the quest for faster film. The minor beef is usage of ISO instead of EI.

The basic (grossly simplified) problem is that the silver halide has to absorb a number of photons in order to form a latent image - something for the developer to develop. If it doesn't see the required photons, it doesn't form a latent image, and you get clear spots on your film. It really is about that simple.

 

Whether you rate Tri-X at 4, or 4000000, the physics remains the same. Not enough light means no image on the processed film. That's why you have so much untextured black showing in your image.

 

What you can do is use the highest ISO film you can find, and use a speed enhancing developer (aka an acutance developer). Maybe a two bath compensating developer like Diafine. Consider encouraging lots of compensation by using stand or semi-stand developement.

 

You could use flash ;-). But if you are going to "starve" the emulsion for light, you need to accept that you are going to loose shadow detail. If that's OK, then go for it!

Huh?

 

I come back from living with homeless kids in Romania, documenting their lives living in sewers, under bridges, at the railway station... I've photographed things I really wish I hadn't seen... kids doing glue, kids without legs, ten-year-old girls that get group-raped in the sewers each day, kids half-dead on the streets...

 

 

and all I get here is dissing because I used "ISO" instead of "EI"?

 

ISO, EI, I really couldn't care less, I need to know how to develop these films cause I have a couple of NGO's and magazines waiting.

 

No... I'm not going flash a speedlight in the face of kids high on glue, pretty pissed off already, a foot taller than me and armed with knives, in the middle of the night on my own in a sewer... thanks for the suggestion though.

 

I won't buy faster film, I can't carry more than one variety of film with me when travelling for weeks without any chance to restock, tri-x it is and always will be. I'm not going to start messing with more than one film, it's complicated enough already. More film = more luggage. I can never predict what the circumstances will be untill I get there and then it's too late to buy new film.

 

And for the nay-sayers, saying "it can't be done", it has been done so many times, I've seen Tri-X at 12800 pics that were stunning, here is just one example: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4386&d=1110228115

 

I can do without shadow detail, all I need to know is what's causing this uneven development... As I said above, there is even more shadow detail in the testroll than I was exspecting, so that's no problem. But the uneven development and the 'blotches' of film that are more developed than other pieces, that IS a problem.

Jonas,

 

Interesting set of respones here. Very different than RFF, no? :-)

 

The comment about an acutance developer at a higher dilution may in fact be the answer. I am a huge Microphen fan. I use it all the time. And pushing to 6400 gives me okay results. But it is a solvent developer and even Ilford says that diluting it in order to get better compensation doesn't offset the increase in grain and loss of even midtones.

 

So...maybe going that far out is best left to Rodinal or some other speed-enhancing developer. Something like fx-2 might work even more, since you'll get 640 or so out of TXT right off the bat (as compared to 250 or so with Rodinal in my tests).

 

allan

Its not really "dissing" to clarify a faulty useage of photographic terms. <BR><BR>ASA (now ISO ) and EI were known terms over 1/2 century ago. Calling ISO instead of EI as "slang" causes confusion to newcomers to photography; it dilutes proper defined 1/2 century old terms, and is just sloppy ill wording. <BR><BR>Your thread title just screams sloppy improper usage of photographic terminology, and has nothing really to do with kids in Romania.

Jonas; there is nothing wrong with shooting tri-x at 10, 100, 1000, 10000 EI. Whats wrong is to claim that tri-x is really ISO 12800 at your EI of 12800. It as wrong as claiming Romania is Poland or Russia, or Ireland. Many of us DO push films at and underexpose at high EI's too. Using clear terms helps with newcomers understanding of experimenting with pushing films.

If you are serious about getting the best negative and highest film speed out of your already exposed film,I suggest you buy some FG7 and some sodium sulfite and develop the film using that. I and other photographers have photographed kids living in sewers and on the streets doing all the things you said ,without boxing ourselves into shooting a certain kind of film grossly under-exposed, and then making excuses for it. You used the film-ASA combination because you choose too, not because you needed to.

I'm just as much of a stickler on ISO vs. EI as anyone else. I bring it up on other forums all the time. But I think everone gets the point of the OP.

 

allan

Well, my apologies, I may have overreacted a bit. It is indeed a good thing to bring up the difference between EI and ISO. But after three posts bringing up the same point and adding nothing else to the thread I guess I kinda hit my frustration point - sorry guys, it's been a long day, I'm tired, and I hate sitting in front of the computer all day (which is what I've been doing, scanning and editing). So thanks, Allan, Bruce, Michael and Kelly.

 

Anyway, I'll do some more experimenting. I might have to try and find Rodinal or FG7 but I have little time and neither is available locally.

 

Michael, I don't understand your last point. I was stuck with Tri-X in an unexspected situation where I could not use flash, I was using my fastest lens wide open and shooting at 1/15th, so what other options did I have but to underexpose as much as necessary? I am not being sarcastic. I only got into photography seriously a couple of months ago, I'm just a student (and not even a photography student). I read your bio and I'm impressed. I just don't understand..?

 

Greetings

Jonas , my point is that you choose to shoot tri-x instead of a higher speed film.You do not say what lenses you user using and how fast they are , but shooting tri-x at 1600, which is a much more manageable film speed you can shoot by candle light. You might have to hand hold a slower shutter speed, and there are shots that you might just not be able to shoot. My experience with film,is that if you can see it with your eye, then you can shoot a photo of it. T-max 3200 is a very good film for low light.

 

 

As a documentary or Photojournalist photographer you have to be flexible in your approach to shooting the story. You might have to shoot your photos , not in the darkest part of the sewer or tunnel, but near the openings.You might shoot the kids in the tunnel as silhouette ,exposing for the outside light.Get them under the manhole covers, near any underground lighting. I am sure you have learned quite a bit about doing this kind of story as a student. You may not be able to correct the mistakes you made during this learning process ,by finding a miracle developer after the fact.

 

 

This might have been something that you were not planning on shooting, had no way to prepare yourself ,and learn what you needed to do to get the photos.These projects can be dangerous and listening to you gut is a good way of keeping your self safe, but I have found that a kid huffing gas, or spray paint,usually would not notice if you popped a strobe while they were doing it.

If you have access to Acufine developer that is a good second to FG7.

Light from a single candle, Tri-x at 1600 in FG7, 1 to 15 with one oz of sodium sulfite added.

Light from a single candle, Tri-x at 1600 in FG7, 1 to 15 with one oz of sodium sulfite added. Good luck<div></div>

Thank you very much, Michael. In fact, my thinking behind not taking faster film was similar to what you said; in addition to adding more bulk to my kit I was confident that 1600 ISO should suffice for everything because I thought I'd always be able to portray a silhouette, find a small ray of light, ... And it worked, for 95% of the pictures I shot. Technically, I'm very happy with the results of Tri-X at 1600 (see attached picture). I've shot almost everything between 400 and 1600.

 

The two rolls at an EI of 12800 were really nothing more than an experiment; the kids had withdrewn into a completely dark part of the sewers and I figured I might give it a go, not exspecting a result at all. It wasn't untill I came home and saw other pictures online of Tri-X at 12800 that I started thinking it would be worthwhile developing these two rolls. So really, they are not too important but as you say, this and pretty much everything I did in Romania is part of a learning curve that will hopefully pay off in the long run.

 

Thanks for taking your time to answer my question. And I think I can find Acufine in the local store, so that's great news too, I'll give that a shot.<div></div>

That is a great photo Jonas.I think every photographer does a "Hail Mary" shot every once in a while to see how far we can push the medium. I look forward to seeing your photos, here or published.

Jonas....I have seen comments from a number of photo net people who use to be newspaper photographer's "back in the day". They had always recomended HC-110 Replenisher for ultra high pushing of Tri-X. That is REPLENISHER ONLY! Recently, I bought a Holga, which basically has a shutterspeed and aperture designed for daylight shooting with ISO 100 film, so obviously, to shoot at night I had to use a higher ISO film.......or push something enormously. So, I searched the web for this "magic" HC-110 Repenisher and Tri-X combo. And <a href="http://www.art3st.com/education/photo/filmprocess.html"><u>found this</u></a> It's the block near the bottom.........shows Tri-X in HC-110 Replenisher and Tri-X at 4000, 6000, and 8000. And below in the instructioins, the dilution and agitation times/amount. 12800 should not be too hard to figure out....but I've never done it. I personally would try a test roll at everything the same as the chart but increase the time to 22 minutes. Anyhow, I've only done it with 120 film. The results a surprisingly nice.<br><br>by the way........as a rule, I always develop film in 500ml of developer for every 80 square inches of film (which is one roll of 36 exposure 35mm or one roll of 120 film)

A couple of years ago someone I had met up with in a workshop was using Tri-x around

12500. By the way, I still say ASA because that's what I grew up with and am a very late

adopter. Then ISO now EI Confuse myself all the time.

 

Tell you what, let me take this to another level and see what happens using D76 with Crone:

C additive. This is an accelerator but untried at that high of a speed to my knowledge.

 

Romania. Check out one of my favorite photograhers, Tomasz Tomaszewski. Did a lot of

work photographing the culture of the Gypsies in Romania.

<i>ISO, EI, I really couldn't care less, I need to know how to develop these films cause I have a couple of NGO's and magazines waiting. </i><p>

Drop the drama. Physics is physics. You screwed up. Virtuous wishes are not going to change that.<p>

Now just develop the living crap out of it and pray. Prayer is all you have.

<b>Thomas Sullivan</b> <i>

Jonas....I have seen comments from a number of photo net people who use to be newspaper photographer's "back in the day". </i><p>

I be one of them. We also had Agfa grade 6 paper. No such thing anymore. You could print a ghost on that stuff. Not very good, but with scanning you can do the same today.

One of the "Mad Hatter" things we used to do was Dektol 1-3 15 minutes with adgatation of 5 seconds every 30 seconds. also there was Diafine 4+4 then after B was removed a Shot of Rodinol 1-25 for 5 more minutes with 3 inversions every minute then the last minute 1 every 15 seconds. dumping it out when the timer dings.

 

 

Larry

I've never taken TriX that high, but if I was going to give a shot, I'd bet it was your agitation scheme that was the problem. I'd go for 5 seconds of agitation with the paddle every 30 seconds. I like TMax dev for pushing.

Try developing in Diafine, four times, with a one minute water rinse in-between each on a test roll first. I've developed at EI 1600 twice in Diafine before. It seems to work. That example pic you posted, I just don't believe; he probably overexposed.