Tri-X at 1600ISO

[lookupinwonder]

Hi all,

 

Recently I've started working with film again with a couple of old Nikons (FM

& FE).

 

Currently I have a roll of Tri-X in the FE and I'm exposing it at 1600ISO

(concert work). Can my local lab handle this? I read somewhere that 'extra

work' is needed when push processing Tri-X to 1600, but no idea what.

 

The lab has done satisfactory push processing in the past, but I have the

feeling they're slipping these days and I don't want them to scr*w it up.

 

In case you are wondering, I have no 'wet' darkroom experience whatsoever, but

I'm starting to think that doing all this stuff myself can't be very far away

if I want to continue using film...

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

Ronald,

 

The only real extra work is an extended time in the developer. However, that assumes the lab bothers to check film-specific times for the temperature for the 2-stop push.

 

You certainly dont need a darkroom to develop film - a change bag is enough! To attempt developing yourself is not difficult. I recently had correspondence via email with a member here who contacted me about first time developing B&W film. Using only email over about 4 days we went from what to buy, what to do with it, go and shoot a test roll and actually develop it, with quite satisfactory results. Plus traditional emulsions like Tri-X are reasonably forgiving as well.

 

Go on Ron, take the plunge... do it ya-self! :))

[richam]

I second what Craig said -- do it yourself is the best way to go. I keep all the "equipment"

in a plastic storage box. All told, not over $50 worth of tanks, reels, thermometer,

changing bag, film clips, measuring cups. I keep the few chemicals I need in an old plastic

cooler to avoid spillage. It's easier than you probably think right now. Tri-X pushes nicely

with the standard developers such as D-76. You can experiment and get different looks

with other developers, e.g. Rodinal, which is sharp and pleasingly grainy. There's a whole

world of fun and excitement waiting for you. Jump in!

[glenn_mabbutt]

Your local lab should be able to process it if they're doing B&W. It seems a lot of labs are using Kodak Tmax or Xtol developers, which push pretty well.

 

There still are send-away labs that specialize in B&W if you want to go that route - might want to search/look through the ads on apug.org as well (there's an ad for Cox that comes to mind).

 

I've started to process my own as well - not as hard as it looks initially, but it's a bit of a black art - getting a negative isn't that difficult - getting a negative that's exactly what you want is more tricky and requires some playing around :)

[larrydressler]

And for Tri-X at 1600 you can't beat Diafine

 

Larry

[Fotohuis RoVo]

Any lab will be a problem due to the fact they are going to guess what you've done.

 

Processing a B&W film is not too difficult and using push processing Tri-X (400) on E.I. 1600 is already known for over 20 years with the 2-bath Diafine (BKA Chicago) developer as one of the best film-developer combinations.

 

http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Diafine_Acu-1_BKA.pdf

 

The mentioned Rodinal (Agfa/A&O) combination is usable from iso 250-400 with very high acutance and sharpness and indeed pleasingly grain.

 

Best regards,

 

Robert

 

http://www.fotohuisRoVo.nl

 

(Fortunately for you, also from the Netherlands)

[craig_shearman1]

If the lab is actually developing B&W at all (as opposed to sending it out) they ought to be able to do 1600. But just because they can doesn't mean they will. The secret to do any kind of commercial lab work is volume. You want to put as many rolls of film into the tanks or through the processor at one time as possible. And that means they all get the same time and temperature so they have to be (or should be) the same ISO. If you're developing film in batches of 20 rolls and somebody comes in with two rolls to be push processed, they have go in a batch of their own. So either you have to charge extra or wait til you have enough for a whole batch of the same speed. Also, unless they're pushing every day they're going to do it in whatever developer they use every day -- they're not going to buy diafine or Rodinal for one batch. Much better to do your own B&W processing. It's cheap and you can use whatever ISO you want.

[lookupinwonder]

Thanks guys.

 

The lab I go to do their own processing. Manual labour and they do charge extra (but not that much).

 

HOWEVER, the last few rolls had the following problems:

 

2 rolls of E-6 with greenish stains. Not visible during projection but nasty in scans. They now stopped doing E-6 altogether due to low volume.

 

One terribly overdeveloped roll of 125ISO off-brand B/W (exposed at 125) I had another roll and had this done via the department store I bought it... results were perfect... but try explaining to a development store employee that you want push processing...

 

A correctly pushed (to 800) roll of 400ISO... but with terrible stains on a few of the shots and a badly scratched first neg...

 

So I'm losing faith here. C41 and E6 I can get done everywhere, only have to wait a few days. B/W push is what I want done perfectly.

 

So maybe in a few weeks I'll might try the DIY route. I know where to ask now ;-)

[James G. Dainis]

Ronald,

 

The DIY process is so simple you will wonder why you never did it before. A main benefit is, you can be looking at the negatives 1/2 hour after shooting and you don't even have to leave the house. You can spend the entire day in your house trying different pushes with only a 1/2 or 1/4 roll at a time if you want.

[chris_markiewicz]

yikes, i'd say drop a lab after two mistakes. after the list that you have, you definitely want to try another lab. or do it yourself. i recently processed tri-x at 1600 in hc-110 dilution h at 68 degrees for 19 minutes - negs print very nicely. chris

[mr_engel1]

Tri-X @ 1000 in Stock D76, 10 mins: 20 deg C

Tri-X @ 1600 in X-Tol 1:2 Test around 15 mins: 20 deg C

 

I've found D76 requires about 18 mins minimum for Tri-X rated at 1600, even then the

shadows detail can be very poor. X-Tol has worked better for me in the past, though I haven't

used it recently and the time i've submitted comes from memory.