push tri-x 3200 with d76

[tracy_king1]

<p>All I have available right now for film locally is Tri-x and Tmax 100 or 400. for developing they offer tmax, d76, and dektol. I know that I can order off the internet but my big dilema there is it seems many places charge huge shipping fees due to hazardous materials unless I misread something and I really don't have the money to spend on that with the volume of developing I do.<br>

already have the d76 developer though and would prefer to use that then the tmax as I am kind of broke right now but what kind of results can I expect with the tmax up at 3200? I'm not too worried about having some grain as I know it is expected just as long as it doesn't overtake the picture itself, but my main worry is contrast. can't find much information with this film and developer combo at 3200 though everything I've heard makes it sound as though I will get a 2 tone negative.<br>

I've seen the info on the kodak chart as well as the massive dev chart but that just gives times for developing not what the different dillution strengths will do to the contrast or how different agitation techniques will effect it either.<br>

any advice here for a noob?</p>

<p>btw before someone says why use it at 3200 use it at a lower iso it is due to my lens,camera issues. have an A1 that both the hot shoe and sync connection are busted on so flash. only have two lenses for this camera as well. 70-210 F4 and a 50 f1.4. the 50 SHOULD work but problem the lens was bought of the great auction site for 50 bucks roughly advertised in perfect shape. when I received it the thing was hashed with the front and rear element all scratched up and some haze and it was bad enough to make any picture taken with the camera turn into a soft focus, low contrast, high flare mess. but guess the good thing is I ended up getting some of the money credited back so it only cost me $5 in the end :) but really only leaves me with the 70-210 f4 and even then I'm usually shooting just at 1/30-1/60 usually.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Contrast will be a lot higher when you push Tri-X to 3200, no matter what developer you use. Pushed film always has higher contrast. Pushing film three stops, you can expect to lose at least 3 stops of dynamic range. </p>

[allen_friday]

<p>I shoot mostly tri-x and love the look of the film. But, I have never shot it at 3200 for general photographic work. Why don't you just order a 3200 speed film? You can get either Kodak or Ilford films in 3200. Either will give you much better results for general photography than pushing a 400 speed film to 3200. The 3200 speed films can be developed in D-76 with good results. I use D-76 exclusively.</p>

<p>As for shipping costs, you would only have a normal shipping charge when ordering only film. There is nothing hazardous about film. You could continue to buy the D-76 locally. Cost wise, I think you will be ahead by ordering a higher speed film and using it as designed, as opposed to trying to force the 400 speed film to fit your requirements. You state you are new to all this. I recommend that you learn to use the materials as designed before experimenting with pushing and pulling. You may spend a few extra dollars on shipping in the short run, but you will learn how to make good prints much faster and save money in the long run. </p>

[lars_holtgrewe]

<p>Tri-X and TMAX are both great films to start on. Surely if they have photo chemicals they have more than just 1-2 100 or 400 films?</p>

<p>As noted by John, it's not so much the grain you'll have to worry about, which yes will be exaggerated, but the contrast changes you'll have to deal with. The tonal range pushing that much will be severely compressed with middle tones being hard to come by.</p>

<p>Just to see what it would cost I added 2 bottles of HC-110 concentrate (that would make 4 gallons or working solution, which by the way lasts forever in concentrate, very much unlike D76) to the shopping card ($25 minimum order) and calculated shipping as $4.99. This is pretty much the markup, or less, at my local photo shop. Especially on things like film/paper it is much cheaper to order online unless you want to support your local shop. I thought HC-110 had been classified ORMD last time I ordered it, but who knows. Shipping on most ORMD is still very reasonable.</p>

<p>On a side note...Even though you had bad luck the first time (maybe not the first time) on the auction site, I'd give it another go. You may have to be patient, but don't pay more than $20-30, at most, for a used lens for the A1 unless you are looking for something specifically rare. Find sellers with very high ratings with consistent awards. I recently replaced a 58mm 1.4 Minolta lens with a slightly newer (albeit still 30 y/o) 50mm 1.4 and broke the bank spending $33. The lens came, and wow, it's in the best shape possible, and deserves all the praise about being one of Minolta's finest. The lesson being, always note the return policy, look for the best ratings, and know what you're looking for.</p>

[lars_holtgrewe]

<p>I was looking at some more stuff getting ready to place my next order and decided to see what ORMD shipping cost. I added some Rodinal to the shopping cart, shipping, $4.99 standard ground.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Use this sites search feature and search for: dilute development. You will find a few technical comments about increased sharpness which also enhances grain or the appearance of grain. You will also find a lot of subjective judgment about the results. The main reason to use dilute development is to increase development time. I like dilute development for the slight increase in sharpness and the longer development times so that a few seconds does not have a significant effect on the results, pour in pour out is not as critical with dilute development. Many years ago I shot some TriX 400 at 3200 and processed in Microdol X 1:1. The scene was a play, black clothing, single spotlight, black backdrop curtain. The results were very dramatic, grain just noticeable, good facial detail in the actors faces and some detail in the curtain and costumes. <br>

If you have a single 35mm reel developing tank do not try using dilute development as you will not have enough volume to use the minimum amount of developer for the roll and it will not fully develop. The first paragraph of <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.pdf">tech pub J-78</a> (page 1) explains the advantages of 1:1 dilution with D76 and the second paragraph of Developing Times (page 2) explains the volume issue.</p>

<p>I would try a roll at 3200 in D76 1:1 and see what it looks like. At the end of each agitation cycle rotate the tank 2 turns to the right the 1st cycle then 2 turns to the left at the end of the 2nd, it has a smoothing effect on grain..</p>

[tracy_king1]

<p>charles: I'm not too worried about grain. don't mind too much just as long as it isn't overpowering. with 3200 I am expecting there to be grain anyway so I'm ok with that part I hope. thanks for the tip though with rotating the the tank. never thought about it but will give it a shot. what I am worried about though is contrast. I like a good strong contrast but I do have my limits on what I like and that is what I was hoping to do with changing dilution strength.</p>

<p>lars: the local camera store here I really think only has B&W film due to boise state, if it wasn't for them I could honestly see them getting rid of most of their black and white stuff or at least severly limit how much they keep in stock. though yeah all they have is just two types of tmax and the standard tri-x. don't even know if they carry anything for medium forbat stuff either. they work more with digital equipment instead.<br>

will look into getting film off the web soon enough though it's just I don't buy film all that often. though would be best to just stock and freeze as the local camera joint is 4.70 or so for the 24 shot rolls and 5.20 or so for a 36shot roll. plus I've been wanting to try velvia 50 (they don't stock it and instead have velvia 100 or 100f at I believe around 8 bucks a roll give or take) plus infrared film (which they don't stock at all). plus have to order online anyway to get the bulk rolls which I should be doing anyway soon enough here.<br>

I also still buy from the great auction site quite a bit. get lots of goodies there and I don't want to give that up. thought right now I'm honestly debating staying with the FD format. their lenses don't interchange with my XSI and I would like to be able to do that so thinking of getting a nikon or M42 based pentax instead. still not sure though. eitherway though I will get me a 50 1.4 one of these days :-)</p>

<p>allen: I shoot 3200 cause it's what works with my current lens(s) and common situations. :-) . sure I know shooting at 400-1600 instead or getting a 3200 based film would work better but I'm impatient and so took what I could get my hands on. plus I figure what better way to learn then to put more of a troubling problem up. to me as long as it is something that can be solved I figure best to learn by diving in rather then putting a toe in. if nothing else I can always back it up a step if need be. first roll I went straight into 1600. came out kind of ok. lacking contrast and little under developed but still livable at least. though if powder goes bad might of been the fact that this stuff was bought back in the 90's by someone and then held on to till he sold it to me. well that and it was a cold cold day down in the basement that doesn't have the greatest heating. still livable though I would say :-)</p>

<p>thank you all for the advice though. when I get them done might try to post scans up at least just to show the results.</p>

[conrad_hoffman]

<p>Not to be a killjoy, but there are no magic processes that will increase film speed. No matter what you do, there will be no shadow detail if the film didn't get enough light to expose it. The increased development can work on the midtones (which were exposed at a shadow level) so you get a printable result, but the contrast will be severe and that's just how things work. You have to shoot in a way that it doesn't bother you too much. Better results can be had with a tripod, faster film, faster lenses, a good digital body, or scanning the negs. Negatives that work well for scanning tend to be thinner and can be developed less, then you post process for the look you want. FWIW, TMax developer has no special properties with TMax films, but it *was* designed for pushing, so it would be my choice over D-76. IMO, it's too expensive for what it is.</p>

[tracy_king1]

<p>you are not being a killjoy conrad and this is what I expected was for the results not to be perfect, but I'm trying to figure out how to reduce the negative part of this as far as I can with what I have. tripod won't work better for me as it doesn't reduce subject motion. can't afford a lens with a 1.2 fstop and as is 1.4 is already limited enough DOF for me even more so when trying to manual focus on a moving toddler, I have a digital body as well but would rather use and learn film right now plus the body I have is limited to only 1600 iso plus the color noise really drives me crazy and fastest lens I have that works on that is too long for indoors and is still only 2.8. have a scanner but it is horrible for negative scanning.<br>

I am curious though as your comment read to me as though there is nothing I can do to lessen the increase in contrast. [ should just think of it as it's all going to be the same result or am I mistaken? I'm not expecting miracles here and in my first post accepted that the dynamic range will be limited but I thought there might be something to help out at least to yank as much dynamic range as I can even if it is more limited then just a normal EI speed.</p>

<p>sorry if I'm comming off as a grump. it's xmas eve and I'm tired grumpy and just bleh :-)</p>

[willscarlett]

<p>Tracy,</p>

<p>If you'd really like to shoot Tri-X at 3200, go for it! Of course, if you're able to, you may want to shoot a test roll first to see how it comes out. I tried Tri-X at 3200 once, in D-76, and I must say that it doesn't look that bad. I've also pushed Fuji Neopan 1600 to 3200 and compared to Ilford Delta 3200, the Neopan 1600 @ 3200 has better contrast and finer grain, also in D-76.</p>

<p>I'll post a sample of my Tri-X at 3200. Unfortunately, the developer at school was bad that day and all the rolls that were developed came out rather weird looking, but you'll get a pretty good idea from this particular shot.</p><div></div>

[tracy_king1]

<p>to me that is acceptable :-) sure it's a little strong on the contrast though I'm also sure the lighting wasn't the greatest but that is easily something I can live with. but yeah to me all this is tester stuff anyway right now, if the shot is that important I'm grabbing my flash and my DSLR.<br>

if you don't mind me asking what type of agitation/development/dilution ratio did you use?<br>

next on the list is for me to try to use dektol and pull trix down to 100 for laughs :p sure might not come out so well (ok from what little I know it sounds like it will be a mess) but isn't that part of the fun? learning and trying the new stuff out?</p>

[tracy_king1]

<p>to me that is acceptable :-) sure it's a little strong on the contrast though I'm also sure the lighting wasn't the greatest but that is easily something I can live with. but yeah to me all this is tester stuff anyway right now, if the shot is that important I'm grabbing my flash and my DSLR.<br>

if you don't mind me asking what type of agitation/development/dilution ratio did you use?<br>

next on the list is for me to try to use dektol and pull trix down to 100 for laughs :p sure might not come out so well (ok from what little I know it sounds like it will be a mess) but isn't that part of the fun? learning and trying the new stuff out?</p>

[willscarlett]

<p>Tracy -</p>

<p>Yes, the lighting was very bad - fluorescents only - where I took those photos, which was inside Gleason's Gym. It was also at night. I can't remember the agitation, but it was either 5 sec every 30 sec or 10 sec per minute. Agitating 5 sec every 30 sec will give you lower contrast than 10 sec per minute. I'm pretty sure this was developed in D-76 1:1 at Kodak's recommended time of 16 minutes and 68 degrees. If you were to use undiluted D-76, the time would be 11 minutes.</p>

<p>Speaking of developing in Dektol, try shooting a roll of Plus-X at EI 80 or 64 and develop it in Dektol diluted 1:3 for 1 min 45 sec. It gives continuous tone results!</p>

[conrad_hoffman]

<p>John, that shot looks darn good for those conditions! Long ago Tri-X and Acufine were a popular combination, shot at 1600 to 3200. I know Acufine is still around, though I don't know how it works with today's films, or if it's even the same formula. Not sure if it's shippable either. <br>

One reason I mix my own developers is because I always know what's in them, and can make up small quantities of whatever I need, when I need it, rather than a gallon of something I might never use again. Photographer's Formulary is your friend.<br>

Another possibility, if one has any sort of "in" at the location, is to set up a bit more light, say a reflector flood discreetly placed to provide some fill off a wall or ceiling. Just bright enough to help, but not enough for anybody to really notice.<br>

FWIW, I consider moving toddlers to be very difficult. You really need the DOF and autofocus is a joy. Long ago I shot with a TLR quite a lot. Once you get used to tracking a subject with the reversed motion, and focusing by feel or range, it helps you get down low and the larger negative allows nice print quality with fast films and brutal processing. Maybe pick up an old Yashica D or similar for cheap. A 'Blad with a fast lens would be nice, but is still way out of my price range ;-)<br>

CH</p>

 

[murray_kelly]

<p>Long ago I used TriX at even faster speeds but took no further interest in doing it, so I admit I forgot the details except I used ID-11 (D-76) as instructed in Pop photog.<br>

It was at university and as an orchestral member I had access to the pits during rehearsals. No flash and used a Retina Ia - wide open at f2.8 and about as slow as I could hold it. It is contrasty but there's greys in there despite the harsh spotlighting. EI 12000.<br>

Murray</p><div></div>

[murray_kelly]

<p>Sorry - make that spoof 'Guys and Dolls'. I was looking thru the collection and am easily confused these days! :-(<br>

Murray</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>As others have pointed out (here and in other threads) there is no magic way to increase film speed. But, if lighting is flat you can usually get by with a higher rating. Also, reducing agitation will lower contrast. The best results with pushed Tri-X that I've gotten were rating it at E.I. 1200 with Diafine developer. I can go to 1600 in other developers, but there is less shadow detail. If you are going to stick with D-76 and Tri-X, try to make some tests first. You may find a combination of exposure, developing times, and agitation that will produce acceptable results.<br>

BTW, if the high shipping is just for liquid concentrate developers, there is a powdered developer that is good for pushing that you might try: Ilford's Microphen.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'll definitely second the recommendation to try Ilford Microphen for hard pushes. It's routinely delivered good results for me with Tri-X and T-Max 400 up to 3200, and even produced salvageable negatives with TMY pushed to 6400. Naturally it can't create true shadow detail where none was captured, but it will help produce pushed negatives that are easier to print conventionally or scan.</p>

<p>Over the years other members have produced credible results with various developers for hard pushes: DDX, Acufine, Xtol, T-Max, a few others. D-76/ID-11 is a terrific developer for normal processing but wouldn't be on my list of choices for pushing.</p>

[murray_kelly]

<p>Lex is right. It's not something I'd try nowadays either.<br>

'D-76/ID-11 is a terrific developer for normal processing but wouldn't be on my list of choices for pushing.'<br>

All I remember after 55 years is that's about all I had access to as a tyro so whatever it was, it must've been real easy for me to get and try this technique. Sorry I can't recall any details.<br>

The shutter on the Retina is really quiet and I took pictures at the opera from the 'gods' and of a stage production of 'South Pacific' on the same roll. Don't think anyone noticed. If they did - not a word was said.<br>

Murray</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Long ago I used to use Ethol Blue for pushing film; I think it is long gone. The last bottle I had was a dinky 4oz bottle; it was a dark blue super concentrate; it looked like bluing for clothes washing! I used it more than acufine because it was easy to mix up customs small batches. Results were fair.</p>

[tracy_king1]

<p>well finally managed to get around to developing it. ran it in a single tank 1:2 dilution of d76. agitation was for around 3-5 seconds every 3 min roughly. honestly I didn't keep a set time between agitations and even took a smoke break in between there somewere which would be around 5 min or so for that. total dev time was at 16min.<br>

no negative scans yet as my scanner doesn't seem to do well with negatives. but will hopefully have some print scans up in a bit as I would that that is more were it matters anyway is in the print not the negative right? though might still at least get some scans of the negatives up.<br>

all in all some of the negatives seem printable but not all of them. few of them seem to have no shadow detail and at points I was having a hard time cutting the negatives due to them registering as clear as the surrounding sprocket hole area though that wasn't most frames.</p>

<p>so I'm curious though as I also have dektol which I know is a print developer. how would that work with pushing as it has quite a bit more kick to it so it seems.</p>

[baisao]

<p>And the wait for those scans continues...</p>