Tx400 push process

[ryan_aoki]

<p>I'm exposing my film at 800 and developing with D-76. I like the contrast I get from d-76 and really don't want to venture to other developers... I know kodak information says that there is no need to change development times for 400-800.. but I've found the negatives to be a little drab. Any suggestions on time,agitation, etc for a 1 stop push? <br>

And should I use the developer straight? I usually develop it 1 to 1. </p>

<p>thanks.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Depends on the desired contrast, lighting and subject matter. If the subject matter is a textured wooden fence on an overcast day, that recommended developing time might be a bit short, assuming you'd prefer more contrast. If the same wooden fence is photographed on a sunny day with harsh shadows, the recommended time might be too long and make it difficult to wring out the desired detail without extensive dodging/burning.</p>

<p>Regarding the "drab" negatives, it's also a matter of taste and working style. Some darkroom traditionalists preferred slightly less contrasty negatives, since variable contrast paper can be used along with selective application of yellow/magenta filters to wring out the desired look. But if the negatives are too contrasty it may limit the versatility of the variable contrast paper/filter process.</p>

<p>It also depends on the reproduction tools. Some darkroom workers preferred slightly lower contrast index or gamma for condenser enlargers, slightly higher CI, gamma or contrast for diffusion heads and dichroic (color) enlargers.</p>

<p>With scanning, some folks may prefer a slightly less contrasty negative for a couple of reasons:</p>

<ol>

<li>To minimize grain. Extended developing usually increases grain as well as contrast.</li>

<li>Some scanners struggle with dense highlights, so less development can make scanning a bit easier.</li>

<li>Contrast can always be handled as desired in post processing, assuming you begin with a good scan.</li>

</ol>

<p>So in some cases, describing a negative is like describing a an artist's sketching pencil. Besides preferring a #2, #4 or charcoal may depend not only on the desired effect, but also the artist's technique, pressure, and type of paper used, whether inexpensive sketch pads, rough textured paper or smooth Bristol board.</p>

<p>If you're scanning, and the scanner can handle the densest highlights, and the negatives show the desired shadow detail, then the exposure and development are probably appropriate. The rest is a matter of post processing, which is no different from the manipulations used in the traditional darkroom when making enlargements or even contact prints (some manipulations can be done with contact prints as well).</p>

<p>But if you prefer the ultra-contrasty, nearly line-art type of look, with jet black shadows and highlights that only suggest hints of detail, along with lots of grain, then 25% to 50% longer development may make it easier to get the look you prefer. But keep in mind that you're locked into that look once the negative has been pushed that hard. It's difficult to go backward toward more conventional contrast.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>If you have plenty of film you might try experimenting with adding additional time until you get the contrast and scanning ease that you want. </p>

[ryan_aoki]

<p>I'll be wet printing!</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>So just print it.</p>

<p>If results on paper grade 3 are still right, keep the times. If you need to use a higher contrast paper, increase the developing time. Notice that there is no magic, underexposure leads to lack of shadow detail, despite of the developer you use. D76 is a good developer for push processing.</p>

<p>A one stop push could be negligible development time wise, depending on the overall densities of the roll. If you notice that highlights are well under control at 800, just increase development by a percentage, say 15-20% as a starting point.<br /> Film exposure and development is an art by itself; there are loads of parameters to take into account. Think that you can play with exposure times as well as developing times to get the right densities in each frame. If you`re shooting roll film, you may need to shoot a given frame at say, 250ISO, while the next one should be at 200. And the first could be shot to be developed at N, while the other at N+2.</p>

<p>If you use D76 @ 1+1, keep this solution. I use straight D76 because I look for the smallest grain and for the shorter times; diluted developers reduce the solvent action, making grainier but also sharper looking negatives. If you like the "classic pushed grainy TX look", go ahead.<br /> IMO, one need to get used to a given developer, so it`s better to keep it constant in order to achieve some experience. This way you`ll be able to notice small changes.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Since no-one has suggested Diafine so far, I will mention it. It has been my favorite since my grandfather told me about it 46 years ago.<br>

If you are so used to D-76, maybe you don't want to know about anything else.<br>

Many like Diafine and Tri-X, though. The box says EI 1600 for Tri-X, but that might be a little high. But 1200 or 800 should be fine. It also has the advantage that you don't have to worry about time or temperature, as you do with most other developers.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Diafine is a versatile developer but it tends to produce lower contrast negatives. Ryan has already described his negatives as "drab" using D-76. It's possible his negatives are fine and that the most appropriate approach may be to increase contrast during printing via magenta filters, or other techniques. Switching developers and exposure methodology at this point would only confuse matters. Many photographers for many decades have attained excellent results using Tri-X and D-76, so there's probably no real reason at this point to switch materials until other techniques have been explored. </p>

[glen_h]

<p>Yes, I wasn't so sure what Ryan wanted.<br>

He never did say why he wants Tri-X at 800, though.<br>

Otherwise, a 10% or 15% increase in development time might not be bad.<br>

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.pdf<br>

Intersting, Kodak recommends 8 minutes (full strength) for EI 400 and 800, but 13 minutes for EI 1600. Seems to me that 10 or 11 minutes at 800 would not be a bad idea.<br>

They don't seem to recommend pushing at 1:1.</p>

[scotty_elmslie]

<p>I find that Tri-X in Diafine at ISO 400 produces plenty of contrast. The higher you set the ISO, the thinner the negative. The apparent reduction in contrast seems to come from dropping the exposure down toward the toe of the curve.<br>

The result of shooting Tri-X at high ISO is not much different when using Diafine or HC110(B) pushed a couple of stops.<br>

I like Jose Angel's suggestion - if you have to use a higher contrast paper, stick with your favorite developer and just increase the negative's development time.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>I now have some HC-110 (in the new 1L bottle, which should last me a long time).<br>

I mostly bought it because it is supposed to be good for older film, which I tend to have a lot of.<br>

I wonder how pushing HC-110 on old film compares to Diafine?<br>

It is supposed to be that Diafine allows bringing up the shadows with extra development, while not blowing out the highlights. Stand development might also do that. It would be interesting to see actual curves with various films in Diafine, and compare them to the published curves.</p>

[ryan_aoki]

<p>I mixed a bag of x-tol and added 30 seconds to development and was pleasantly surprised. I had plenty of detail in highlights and shadows. I think I'll be using this developer from now on.<br>

Thanks for the replies.</p>