Pushing Tri-x

[cigardoc]

<p>i have recently begun to experiment with pushing tri-x to 1600. i understand that pushing tri-x is basically underexposing the film and subsequent overdeveloping. i do not develop my film, and i realize that is a short-coming. i have read multiple and more than multiple posts and forums regarding pushing tri-x. opinions differ in terms of develpers, times of development, shake/stir/stand/no-stand, etc. <br>

i loaded my f100, shot a roll of tri-x at 1600. i sent it to a reputable photo-lab and instructed them to process, push 2 stops. a call from the lab informed me that the negs are too thin to print or scan. most all of the posts in numerous forums indicated varied ability to print/scan, but rarely total lack of ability to do so.<br>

so, i am wondering if i should have been more specific, such as requesting a particular type of developing regimen, or something else, or maybe i should try another roll and send it to a different lab?<br>

thanks in advance for your resonses.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>You either exposed your film less than you thought, or they developed your film less than you wanted. (Or both.) You may be able to figure out which, if they send back the negs.</p>

<p>The thing about using a commercial lab (at least for black and white) is you give up control. You don't get to specify what developer they're using, or how fresh their chemistry is, and so on. You probably don't want to hear this, but if you plan to shoot any appreciable amount of film, the easiest thing is to develop your own. It's not that hard.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>I've used Acufine back in early 70's and shot some Tri-X at ASA 1200 & 1600 and the results were fine (gym performers @ 1/500sec)....even though the lighting was quite murky. Take a look at some discovery from this forum some years ago. http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00bhIJ</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

[dhbebb]

<p>If your F100 has delivered accurate exposure in the past and is producing plausible settings now (in line with "sunny 16" values, e.g. 1/500 at f22 1/2 @EI1600 in full midday sunlight), the most likely explanation is that the lab simply forgot to push-process the film. Unfortunately some labs will simply deny that they make mistakes - if you contact them, ask them what developer they used at what strength and for what time. Did they charge you extra for the push? I personally would push Tri-X only to EI800 unless I was working with very low contrast subject matter. I live in the UK and use Peak Imaging in Sheffield - never a problem. I did in the past use other labs, allegedly pro, some of which seemed to be totally incapable of reading my instructions.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>When sending 35mm B&W film to a lab for 'push' processing always save the last two frames and expose them at the normal ISO and 1/2 ISO. In your case that would have been 400 and 200. If the lab doesn't 'push' the film, those frames will prove it. They will be normal. If the lab does push the film those frames will be very dense due to over development. No arguments from the lab if they botch the job.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Were you shooting the pushed film someplace dark with a few bright lights in the image? Like nightclub, stage, something like that. It's EASY to violently underexpose in situations like that, since the bright lights "fool" the light meter into thinking there's light. You have to use incident metering in situations like that, not reflected averaged or center-weighted metering.</p>

 

[cigardoc]

<p>Dave S, i have done my own developing in the past, and plan on doing more in the future. i definitely understand the importance of having control over what i'm doing. thanks. <br>

Les, those are great photos. it shows i definitely need to head toward developing again.<br>

Anthony, that's a good idea, as otherwise i guess one would never really know. i shoot E6 with the f100, and get great results, or at least i think so.<br>

John, i can appreciate your response, as i have shot several, more than i like to admit, unintentional silhouettes, as a result of not adjusting for backlighting. and, although the f100 matrix meter is supposed to help with that, but i know that one should make his/her adjustments in those situations. <br>

thanks for the replies. i will attempt this again using some of these recommendations and advice.</p>

<p> </p>

[glen_h]

<p>So often, film is pushed when light is limited, and we really don't expose as much as we hoped.</p>

<p>As mentioned, having bright light sources in the frame is a common problem for indoor or night outdoor photography. </p>

<p>Kodak recommends no development change with Tri-X and TMY for EI800. That is, they believe that it is within the exposure latitude of the film with normal development. They do supply development times for EI1600 and EI3200.</p>

<p>Properly metered, and with subjects with shadows, highlights, and much in between, the results are usually good enough. </p>

<p>An averaging meter generates the value that is the arithmetic mean of the scene illumination. What you really want is the geometric mean, that is, the value whose log is the arithmetic mean of the log of the the scene illumination. Matrix metering can approximate the geometric mean, and so better handle many scenes.</p>

[jim_appleyard]

<p>David, if you'd like to get back into processing your own film, nothing is easier than Tri-X in Diafine. Diafine isn't as low cost as it used to be, but you'll get many rolls thru the solutions before it goes on you. <br>

<br />I get an EI of 1250, not the 1600 that Diafine claims, but this is a small difference.<br>

<br />Diafine is a two bath developer. 3 min in A, 3 min. in B and fix, wash and dry. <br>

The only drawback is that Diafine has only one EI to it, you can't push it further. Acufine works well for that.</p>

<p> </p>

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>I've done it as 1600. Ilfosol-3, no problem.</p><div></div>

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>That one is actually at 3200! It's fine, right. I just increase the temperature to 28'C or even 30'C to cut the time. The lab will have forgotten to push your film, or your ISO wasn't set right, or your metering needs work (no insult intended; just listing possibilities). I just point the camera at the ground or zoom in on the subject</p><div></div>

[cigardoc]

<p>thanks for all of the responses. all of the tips and advice are well taken. i definitely need to get back into developing my own film. i have found the err of my ways. it was ineptness. i inadvertently added -1.5 stops exposure compensation. so, i was pushing 3+ stops rather than 2. i had apparently set that on my f100 at some point and forgot to change it. i will send off another roll of tri-x pushed exactly 2 stops and a roll of delta 3200 shot at 1600. you only learn by trying. thanks for everyone's input</p>