Reducing contrast during development with Tri-X @ 1600

[dwmitchell]

<p>I recently shot some rolls of Tri-X rated at 1600 under stage lighting. I developed the first roll using stock Microphen solution at 20 degrees for 16 minutes with 10 seconds agitation every 1 minute. The resulting scanned negatives ended up with pretty high contrast and, I believe, blocked highlights.</p>

<p>For developing the next few rolls I'm looking at ways of reducing contrast. I have read that reducing agitation may help in this regard, but would I want to dilute the Microphen as well? I also have HC-110 at home but from my research it appears that Microphen would be the better choice here. Unfortunately Diafine is not readily available in Canada.</p>

<p>Any specific suggestions on dilution and agitation techniques with Microphen are appreciated...thanks.</p>

[dwmitchell]

<p>Sample photo</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>You should be able to get somewhat better control of highlights with Tri-X at 1600 in Microphen. While stock solution will deliver the best results it'll work fine at 1+1 if you need extra development time.</p>

<p>My trick is to agitate normally for the first few minutes - at either 30 second or one minute intervals, whichever you prefer - then after the first 3 to 5 minutes switch to a modified technique with longer intervals between agitations. For example, you might try normal development and agitation for the first 5 minutes. Then switch to agitating every 2, 3 or even every 5 minutes.</p>

<p>This technique seems best with development times of 15 minutes or longer. I've used it for development up to 30 minutes with some extreme pushes.</p>

<p>It's potentially risky but so far I haven't experienced problems with uneven development using this technique with Microphen to push Tri-X up to 3200 or TMY up to 6400. I don't always resort to this modified agitation technique, but it does seem to help minimize contrast problems with stage lighting at music shows or live theatre. There are examples in my photo.net portfolio.</p>

[dwmitchell]

<p>Thanks Lex for this very helpful advice. For my next roll I will stick with the stock solution, but try agitating nomally for the first 5 minutes, and then every 3 minutes after that to see if this improves things. I also have one roll of Tri-X shot at 3200 to develop so I'm definitely interested in getting contrast under control.</p>

<p>On a related note, I typically re-use Microphen stock solution and increase the dev time by 10% after each use as per Ilford's recommendation. I was wondering if this could cause overdevelopment which is increasing contrast further? For lighting like this in the past I had used Ilford Delta 3200 and hadn't had any such issues with contrast.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>While I won't personally advise anyone to ignore Ilford's recommendations, I haven't bothered to add time with each reuse of Microphen stock solution. I'll use a liter for 10 rolls of film (not necessarily 10 times, since I might develop 2 or more rolls at a time), then discard the stock solution.</p>

<p>I'm not sure than adding 10% to the time would significantly increase contrast. I once inadvertently developed a roll of normally exposed TMX for 20 minutes and it turned out okay for both printing and scanning.</p>

<p>BTW, are you printing with an enlarger or scanning? If scanning, you might want to reduce development time a bit. Some scanners have difficulty with dense highlights but can cope with thinner negatives. And, if scanning, try Vuescan. I got better results than with the stock software supplied with my film and flatbed scanners, especially when scanning pushed negatives.</p>

[gary_stallsworth]

<p>I'll second what Lex said. Actually got the idea from him. I like to shoot events/performances in low light without flash. I don't use TriX, but have used the modified agitation on Delta 400@1600 and 3200 in Microphen 1+0 and 1+1. I agitate 10 secs each minute for the 1st 50% (approx) of the development time and 10 secs each 2 minutes for the last 50% (approx). I vary a little based on the lighting at the event. Never did thank Lex for the idea--Thanks Lex.</p>

[dwmitchell]

<p>Thanks Gary. It's definitely more cost effective for me to push 400 speed films than work with Delta 3200, so I'm really hoping that reducing agitation will solve my problems with highlights in these situations.</p>

<p>Lex, my primary purpose is scanning but I will be printing the best ones with an enlarger. For scanning I use a Nikon Coolscan V with Nikon's software. I've played around with VueScan and couldn't see much difference in the results, but admittedlly I haven't spent enough time with it. Thanks again for your help.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>What about Diafine? For stage lighting would it compress the tonal scale? Diafine and Tri-X seem to be made for each other.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>John, Derek mentioned in his original post that Diafine is not readily available in Canada. And, yup, it's perfect for this type of extreme contrast with Tri-X. But Microphen will do the trick pretty nicely as well, and works much better with a variety of films while Diafine works well only with a limited number of films, in my experience and opinion: Tri-X, Pan F+, even Delta 3200.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Ah, my mother always said, 'listen (or read thoroughly)before you speak' you would think I'd have learned by now <G></p>

[dwmitchell]

<p>Thanks John. I will order some Diafine with my next Freestyle order and give it a try.</p>

<p>In the meantime, I developed two rolls with Microphen over the weekend. The first suffered from similar contrast issues as in my original example, but for the second I reduced development time a bit and further reduced agitation. I was pleased with the results of the second roll as I was able to hold detail in a white dress. A sample is attached.</p><div></div>

[tim gray]

<p>Even though it's already been discussed, Diafine. Haha. Though when I've pushed Tri-X to 1600 in XTOL in the same situation (concert photos), they came out fine. Diafine is a lot easier though.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Derek, the ballet photo is very much what I'd expect to see from Tri-X or TMY at 1600 in Microphen. Reasonably good highlights, mid-tones - especially skin and facial features - that are easy to "read" in a print or scan, contrasty but not chalk-and-soot level, and appealing grain. To me, it's a good look but I'm biased in favor of pushing b&w film for this type of photography.</p>

[andrea_ingram2]

<p>Or you could try Rodinal 1:100 for 1 hr 45 min . Works really well for HP5.</p>

[sd_woods]

<p>I'm trying to come up with a really curt, dry response, but I know so little about developing film that I can't. Just pretend I did and in about a year I'll have some decent ones :o</p>