What am I missing, I want the pushed tri-x look.

[eskil_hess]

<p>Hey everyone.</p>

<p>I have currently made a drastic turn in my photography, and now almost only shoot film, especially tri-x.. The reason for this is that I want the pushed tri-x look, with the deep blacks, the gritty look and the insane contrast. I am pretty close to replicating this look, but I feel that I am missing something?<br /><br />First of all, this is the look I am trying to replicate:<img src="http://i.imgur.com/uzjasWJ.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="636" /></p>

<p>I know this shot is shot at 1600, and for now I have only done 800:<br /><img src="http://i.imgur.com/EU69TPr.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="645" /><br>

So my question is, what am I missing?</p>

<p>I have three teories:</p>

<p>1. I need to push the tri-x even one step further(1600 instead of 800)<br /> 2. I need to change developer? I currently use DDX<br /> 3. There is some magic in post processing I havent quite catched yet.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Current Tri-X (400 TX) is not the 'old' (i.e. 1980s) Tri-X, but I would suggest you try devvving it in Rodinal to emphasise the grain. And, contrary to what is said about Rodinal and pushing, you could try it at 1250 ASA in Rodinal at 1/25 dilution. Also, you could try shooting through an orange filter.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>You might want to give Rodinal a try - it will reveal more grain, and pretty high contrast but you have to agitate quite a bit less to keep it somewhat under control. I've used Tri-X at ISO800 with Rodinal and got results not unlike the first image you posted.<br /> <em>(Note: I am not very expert, so hopefully others will comment too, as there are plenty on this board that know a whole lot more than me - and luckily someone did already :-) )</em></p>

[eskil_hess]

<p>Actually Chris, both photographs attached here are taken in 2015 with new tri-x :) </p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>With the current Tri-X Rodinal is about as grainy as you can get. Rating at higher E.I. will increase the contrast. You might also try some Ilford HP5+ and see if you like its grain.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Print more low key with higher contrast?</p>

[eskil_hess]

<p>Actually I dont know if its mainly about the grain. I like the deep blacks, the "dirty" look and the huge contrast.</p>

[eskil_hess]

<p>John: Both photos are scanned digitaly. </p>

[eskil_hess]

<p>By the way, when you suggest Rodinal, do you mean stand developing or just normal development? I read that some people say Rodinal is not good for when you push film, but that's probably because they want a really flat negative? </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I meant normal development (ISO 800, Rodinal 1:50, around 15 min at 20°C); unfortunately I've got no examples available online at the moment, and it concerned mostly night-time shots, but by the sound of it the look you meant.</p>

[eskil_hess]

<p>So the fact that I am using DDX now, and not Rodinal, can be the reason to why I am not getting the look I want?</p>

[bruce_watson1]

<p>Think about what happens when you "push" film, maybe you can decide what to do to get the look you want.</p>

<p>First, there really is no such thing as "pushing". What people call pushing is really nothing more than underexposing. The reason for the "dramatic blacks" is that underexposing starves the shadow areas of sufficient photons to create a latent image. So... nothing to develop, resulting in clear film. In the print, this is indeed black. Featureless textureless black. Nothing magic about this.</p>

<p>Second, most pushing regimes want you to increase development time. This will in fact increase density in the highlights. And this in turn increases graininess, because increasing grain clump size is in fact how you increase density. </p>

<p>So what you end up with is a scene with crushed shadows, and grainy highlights, with what tonality there is pushed down the scale toward the shadows, thus increasing midtone contrast. With the increased development you can often end up with sufficient density that highlights "blow out", which also increases subjective contrast. So... crushed shadows, increased contrast, increased graininess.</p>

<p>Now that you understand what's happening, you can probably see many different ways to accomplish any of these things, alone or together.</p>

<p>Hint: It's really not about the developer. The emulsion is by far the greater determinate of just how grainy you can get. The new Tri-X variants are not nearly as grainy as older versions of Tri-X. You might have better luck with HP5+ since it hasn't changed in 25 years or more. That said, look for "acutance developers" instead of "fine grain" developers. Fine grain developers contain solvents to round off edges and smooth the grain clumps thus making them look somewhat smaller. For this duty that's not what you want.</p>

[eskil_hess]

Thank you for your answer. So right now I have Rodinal and DDX to choose between. Is Rodinal okay to get the look I am after even

though the film will be pushed to 800-1600? Is 1:50 okay for example?

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Attached an example of Tri-X (current), shot as ISO800 and developed in Rodinal 1:50, as described before.</p><div></div>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>One with a bit more balanced light; same roll.<br>

So, if this is more or less the look you're after, then yes, it can be done. As responded earlier, this roll was done in Rodinal 1:50 for 15-16min. at 20°C (don't recall the exact time, but I left myself this note).</p><div></div>

[eskil_hess]

<p>Okay everyone, I think I am getting pretty close now. I changed my post processing a bit, and like this a lot better now. I think the only thing I am missing now is to go up to 1600, and more importantly changing up to Rodinal. Thoughts?<br /><br /><img src="http://i.imgur.com/SAmZP8e.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>(view this high res here: http://i.imgur.com/SAmZP8e.jpg)</p>

[allen_gara]

<p>Funny, I was just about to post a "re-processed" version of your original. I think as you found there is more you can accomplish with post-processing. Personally, I've done Tri-X, rated at 1600, and used DD-X. I liked it, and results were pretty consistent. I usually exposed to try and preserve the highlights, if I had a choice, since the blacks were going to be "black" anyway. </p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>bruce + 1</p>

<p>If you want to add more contrast, try out D23. It's a simple developer and can add contrast reasonably quick while preserving some much needed detail. Nothing is free, you will have to make it yourself. It takes only two simple and easy to get a hold of ingredients. It's a nice simple developer.</p>

<p>Another thing to try will be a change in post processing with PS.</p>

<p>1: Scan your image in raw as a tiff. How to do it is specific to your scanning software.<br>

2: open up the file in ps<br>

3: crop the image as desired<br>

4: ctrl=i ..... invert the image<br>

5: ctrl-l .... level adjustments<br>

6: select "auto" to bring the range of light into range<br>

7: on the "input levels" box, adjust the middle slider to the right, until you see something you like<br>

8: on the "output levels" adjust for the range for the darks and lights. Left alone is maximum contrast.</p>

<p>This method is not for everything, as it is not a log conversion of the light. but that is why you get the "look". Low contrast development (detail rich) work better here. Pushing is not required, or suggested.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/556/20301143311_14eff61b20_c_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Done with above. Shot normally with a stain developer, which is mid tone rich.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/377/19683506013_f3910fe4f1_c_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>From the same roll. This is an example why you don't want to push and lose the details. This would not have fared well with missing darker details. </p>

[glen_h]

<p>At EI 800, Kodak recommends the same development time, suggesting enough latitude:</p>

<p>http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf</p>

<p>There are times for 1600 and 3200, so you might try one or both of those.</p>

<p>Tri-X at 1200 or 1600 in Diafine was my favorite when I was young. I learned about Diafine from my grandfather, not long before inheriting much of his photography equipment. I have negatives from my 5th grade class on Tri-X in Diafine. </p>

<p>But Diafine is supposed to be a compensating developer that can push without so much contrast increase. I am not sure what Diafine is supposed to do about grain. </p>

<p>If you want something else to try, find some TMZ (T-Max 3200) which is ISO 1000, but designed to be pushed to 3200. It will be old, likely with some fogging, but might make some interesting pictures at EI 1000 or 3200. (Fogging from age tends to get the larger grains first, so one result is some really big grain in what should be unexposed shadows.)</p>

<p>Note that the way films other than very high contrast films work is to have a variety of grain sizes. The larger grains are exposed at low light levels. As light levels increase, more and more, smaller and smaller, grains are exposed. This is the reason that pushing increases grain.</p>

<p>For reversal films, the final image is made from grains that were not exposed in the camera, so even in darker areas there isn't the huge grain from negative films. </p>

[James G. Dainis]

Underexpose and overdevelop. Use of the Zone system should help you to be more precise. To increase contrast in the first photo of the van that you show, here is what you do or should have done. The lightest part of the scene would be the top of the wall as seen outside of the side van door. That would be zone 9. Place it on zone 7 by reducing exposure two stops. Then give the film 50% more development time. This would bring the zone 7 back up to zone 9. The lower zones, 1, 2, 3, 4 would change very little. Zones 5, 6, 7 would change to about zones 6.5, 7.75 and 9. This would result in a greater increase in over all contrast.

 

In your photo of the van, the right hand wall in the sun in your photo looks like it is made up of zones 4 to 8. The reduction of exposure of two stops would make that zones 2 to 6. The 50% increased film development would make that zones 2 to ~ 8, decidedly more contrasty.

 

Increased development does not affect the lower zones only the upper zones. Knowing that is the key to obtaining increased contrast while maintaining the same tonal range, zones 1 to 9.

[James G. Dainis]

I tried to emulate in editing with tone adjustment what I visualize would be the end result. The deep shadow areas are lost as they fall from zone 2 to below zone 1.

[James G. Dainis]

Oops.<div></div>

[jim_appleyard]

<p>You can also try Acufine from EIs of 800 to 6400, just increase the time in the developer. The higher you go in EI, the more contrast you'll get. </p>