Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > Film / Developing / Chemistry

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Tri-X @ 12800 ISO in Rodinal: Anyone have examples?
Old 04-26-2012   #1
Merkin
For the Weekend
 
Merkin is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 851
Tri-X @ 12800 ISO in Rodinal: Anyone have examples?

I was checking out the massive dev chart a few minutes ago, and I saw a listing for a 51 minute semi-stand development for Tri-X shot at 12800. Has anyone tried this, and does anyone have some example images they could post?

Many thanks!
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-26-2012   #2
tj01
Registered User
 
tj01's Avatar
 
tj01 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 356
I've tried pushing to 1600, and it didn't work. Grains the size of golfballs and very contrasty. Perhaps others have more success. However, I've tried Microphen up to 3200 and it was acceptable. But 12800, no idea.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-26-2012   #3
Mr. Fizzlesticks
Registered User
 
Mr. Fizzlesticks is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 17
Never going to happen. People lie on the internet all the time because they want to feel special. This is a particular egregious lie and people actually believe it. If you exposed Tri-X at a true 12800 you would be lucky if there was even the shadow of an image on the film after developing it. Don't waste your time.
__________________


It is not the camera in your hand dingleberry; it is the brain in your head.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-26-2012   #4
haempe
negative guy
 
haempe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 933
Not at 12800, but I tested TX at 6400; Rodinal 1+50; 40min; 20C



Have to say, the rest of the roll under more difficult light conditions was not printable. Blown lights and empty shadows.
__________________
*
There is still a analogue world out there...

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #5
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 41
Posts: 14,097
Of course it'll work, but would it be sensible?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #6
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 775
Of course it works. All you need to do is overexpose every shot five stops, or only shoot white cats on sheets that you want to print as black cats in coalbins.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #7
ColSebastianMoran
Registered User
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,061
But, it would still be interesting to see examples. haempe, thanks for your example at 6400.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

SLR, dSLR, and compact RF's. Black Yashica RFs; Nikon & Contax/Yashica SLRs; Nikon digital.
Where did all these cameras come from?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #8
Dana B.
Registered User
 
Dana B. is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton View Post
Of course it works. All you need to do is overexpose every shot five stops, or only shoot white cats on sheets that you want to print as black cats in coalbins.
Mmmm. Am confused. I thought pushing film at above its rated speed meant *underexposing* it, then compensating by developing it longer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #9
filmfan
Registered User
 
filmfan's Avatar
 
filmfan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana B. View Post
Mmmm. Am confused. I thought pushing film at above its rated speed meant *underexposing* it, then compensating by developing it longer.
You are correct.

Pushing Tri-X past 1600 is often useless, unless you are trying to go for a particular look. I have tried Tri-X @3200 twice just for kicks, developing it in D76 1+0 and XTOL 1+0. The results looked nearly identical. I don't recommend it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #10
grainhound
Registered User
 
grainhound is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 377
Merciful posted an EI 12,800 photo back in 2005 in the thread I've linked below. Of course the shot isn't there any more, but he re-posted it upon request in 2009: page 5, post 112 of the same thread. I would recommend you read the whole thread; in the discussion it comes out that this extreme push seems to work if you scan the neg rather than wet printing it, and there's a fair amount of interesting discussion on pushing with Rodinal.

I should have mentioned that there are three reposted images at these ISOs: 25,600; 12,800; 1600.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ead.php?t=4441
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #11
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
 
dcsang's Avatar
 
dcsang is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto Canada
Age: 48
Posts: 4,644
I say you go ahead and try it - see what you think - I've gone as far as 12,800 and, I think, 25,600 but the results are probably not what they should be because I messed up my exposures. It can work, in a pinch, but the negs are uber thin however they scan well.

I used this link for help (@6400):
http://www.photosig.com/articles/1461/article

Do a search here for the username "merciful" and the thread named "Push It, Push It Good".

Cheers,
Dave
__________________
I own a Leica and I am NOT a dentist (I don't even portray one on TV!!!)

I have an idea what I'm looking for but it only becomes real once I see it - Constantine Manos

ITS THE MAGIC I SEE IN THE Light, Texture, & Tone
that Intoxicates Me - Helen Hill

My Flickr - it's where I post my RF and P&S shtuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #12
mdarnton
Registered User
 
mdarnton is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana B. View Post
Mmmm. Am confused. I thought pushing film at above its rated speed meant *underexposing* it, then compensating by developing it longer.
My point was that there is no such thing as pushing film. There is a threshold below which film doesn't take an impression, and that threshold doesn't change with development. Increasing development changes higher values only, and as you progressively expose less and less, more and more of your darker values are pushed off into black, never to be seen again. Increasing the contrast, by development, fools people into thinking they are pushing, while larger and larger areas of the photo turn to black.

Thus my comment, that the way to get a good picture at 12,800 was to meter at 12,800 and then overexpose back to where you actually got a full range picture.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #13
varjag
Eugene Zaikonnikov
 
varjag's Avatar
 
varjag is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bergen, Norway
Age: 37
Posts: 2,943
When people tell you they shoot Tri-X at 12800, their metering technique is suspect.
__________________
Eugene

My Flickr | My Blog: cosmozoo
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #14
haempe
negative guy
 
haempe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 933
One of the less well...
TX at 6400; Rodinal 1+50; 40min; 20C
__________________
*
There is still a analogue world out there...

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #15
Moriturii
Unsui
 
Moriturii is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 659
More examples here of high ISO and Rodinal samples.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...6&postcount=47
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #16
Merkin
For the Weekend
 
Merkin is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 851
Thanks for the tips, links, and advice, folks. I have recently gone back to film after an unfortunate and unfulfilling foray in to the world of digital, and the only thing I find myself really missing is the high quality of the high iso (9000, 12800) shots I can get from my D700. Hence, I am looking for a film that I can reliably push to those kinds of speeds for darkroom printing. I have been pretty much exclusively been shooting tri-x (well, arista premium, but it is the same thing) since going back to film, so I think I might have to give rodinal a go. Does anyone have a film that they like more than tri-x for pushing in to the stratosphere?
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #17
varjag
Eugene Zaikonnikov
 
varjag's Avatar
 
varjag is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bergen, Norway
Age: 37
Posts: 2,943
The obvious candidates, delta 3200 and tmax p3200.
__________________
Eugene

My Flickr | My Blog: cosmozoo
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #18
haempe
negative guy
 
haempe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 933
For 3200-6400 my combi is TMZ (TMax P3200) in TMaxDev. (ei6400; 1+4, 12min; 24C)

__________________
*
There is still a analogue world out there...

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #19
Tim Gray
Registered User
 
Tim Gray is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkin View Post
the only thing I find myself really missing is the high quality of the high iso (9000, 12800) shots I can get from my D700. Hence, I am looking for a film that I can reliably push to those kinds of speeds for darkroom printing.
First off, you probably won't get results you like at those ISOs with film. Maybe 1600-3200, but much above that is going to be dicey and VERY dependent on how you expose.

Second, if it's really for darkroom printing, what I say goes double. Most of the examples you see of this kind of thing have a) questionable metering and b) are scanned. You will probably have a tough time getting all the contrast and range from your paper that you might need for a severely underexposed neg, like Tri-X at 12,800. You can do a lot of extreme contrast changes after you've scanned that are more difficult or impossible to achieve in the darkroom.

But, by all means, try things out. I'm of the camp that if you want speed, you should use a fast film, T-Max or Delta 3200, and stick it in a speed enhancing developer, like XTOL 1:1, DD-X, or Microphen. I've gotten great results from T-Max 3200 at 3200 in XTOL 1:1, though they are usually better at 1600.

I played around with doing some stand tests at higher speeds in XTOL 1:3 as well. The negs were definitely more developed (tones were shifted up much higher), but I'm not sure if there was really any more detail in the shadows...
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2012   #20
grainhound
Registered User
 
grainhound is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 377
I have difficulty believing that P. Lynn Miller and Merciful engage in suspect metering practices. Merciful does scan everything, didn't see anything about Lynn's printing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2012   #21
red snapper
Registered User
 
red snapper's Avatar
 
red snapper is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London UK
Posts: 89
First 11 photos are Tri-X shot at 1600-6400 ASA all processed in HC-110 1/100 according to this suggestion. http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?devrow=8775

Must say they came out lot better than I expected:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bolshie
__________________
ACAB
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bolshie
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2012   #22
steveniphoto
Registered User
 
steveniphoto is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 243
i only shoot tri-x @ 1600 now since i do a lot of street and need a faster shutter speed but 12,800 sounds ridiculous.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2012   #23
sniki
Registered User
 
sniki's Avatar
 
sniki is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 56
Posts: 261
I couldn't find right now, but somewhere I've read on a thread about a triple-soup developing method for tri-x at 12800, something like first soup in Diafine, then in Rodinal and in the end in a special chemical-recipe.
__________________
sniki
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2012   #24
sniki
Registered User
 
sniki's Avatar
 
sniki is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 56
Posts: 261
...finally I've found it:
Pushing Tri-X to 12800

by Larry Dressler

So how do you make Tri-X or any film go to a higher speed and still have shadows even if you have to go to ISO 12800 with it? Well it is not easy but then again it is not that hard. This is a method that will also still give you shadows and keep the highlights from blowing out.

You need to mix this up first: Super Soup*

6 ounces water
24 ml Dektol stock solution
8 ml HC-110 syrup (or 32 ml stock solution)
2 g ascorbic acid
1/2 tsp washing soda (sodium carbonate monohydrate)
2 g potassium bromide (optional) not needed unless your film is old
Water to make 8 fluid ounces.

*variant of original recipe by Donald Qualls
Development process:

Develop in Diafine for the normal 3+3.
Pour out developer and rinse in water for 2 minutes by filling and dumping the tank.
Next you put it in a bath of Rodinal 1+100 for 30 minutes. Agitate for 30 seconds then allow to rest undisturbed (stand development).
Pour out the developer
Add the Super soup. Agitate for 5 seconds, then one inversion every 3-5 minutes for 20-25 minutes
Pour out developer. Stop and fix as normal.

That is how you do it. Your speed is different for every film but this is the baseline. Yes you will see grain with 35mm, but not much more than you would see using a high speed film.
__________________
sniki
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2012   #25
Photo_Smith
Registered User
 
Photo_Smith's Avatar
 
Photo_Smith is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,490
There's no mystery you can develop Tri-x at 3200. I think Rodinal with low agitation or even stand is the only way to get an image.
I meter for the shadows (where I want detail to start) then stop down two stops. My spotmeter only goes to 6400 so if I use a higher EI I need to compensate also.

Here is Ilford 3200 (really a ISO 1000 emulsion) rated at 25,000 EI


Here at a milder 12,800 EI


The trick is to keep the contrast down, I've only ever been able to do this with really weak Rodinal say 1:100 and low agitation.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 18:06.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.