View Full Version : First Impressions: Tri-X @ 3200 in Rodinal
Ok.. I'm guessing at times here because the chart only goes to 32 minutes but seeing as how, according to Digital Truth, the dev time for Tri-X in Rodinal @ 3200 is 33 minutes @ 20C I guesstimated that it would be about 27.5 minutes @ 22 C.
I've noted that if it's an "evenly lit" scene, the results are quite nice. If it's not evenly lit, then I'm basically SOL when it comes to the shot - this, of course, is a problem with me and not metering correctly and likely has nothing to do with the film itself.
All the same, it does turn out with nice "normal" grain (imho) and has a different "feel" than Tmax 3200 does.
The bus image below was shot with the Voigtlander 21mm @ f16 (if memory serves correctly) and around 1/60 second (I spot metered the "hound" as the R3A meter was coming up at 1/250). I was playing "Zone-boy" and figured it was in Zone VII - don't pick me apart on this one since I obviously have a long way to go with respect to zone work :D
I'd like to try the film at 6400 and then, perhaps, at 12800 but for now I'm pretty pleased with most of the results.
Cheers
Dave
back alley
09-18-2005, 19:47
shot at 3200?
looks great!
i need to play more.
joe
Your results look very nice. One thing, though - using EI 3200 in order to get to 1/60 at f16 vs. 1/15 at f 1.4 is pretty different, in terms of quality of light. The grain and shadow detail in your example really does look great, but it really gets interesting when you put it in some seriously difficult and low light.
allan
Gabriel M.A.
09-18-2005, 20:16
Very nice indeed. Absolutely better than when rated @ 1000 on Diafine. OK, I'm definitively encouraged to do this now; I've seen enough examples to push Tri-X to 3200. I don't like pushing film at all. My only exception was with Diafine. Now it'll be Tri-X @ 3200 in Rodinal...
I wonder just how luscious it would look with the 50 Summicron (collapsible or tabbed)...mmmmmm, acutaliscious...
I wonder just how luscious it would look with the 50 Summicron (collapsible or tabbed)...mmmmmm, acutaliscious...
As and you shall receive :)
Here's a full size unsharpened copy of the "hat" photo attached (http://www.chang-sang.com/photo/091905/full_size/crop0004.jpg) below.
This was at f8 or f11 (I'm leaning to f8 though) on the collapsible cron.
Kaiyen, I do agree with you that the differences in low/available light would be interesting and really test what the film will look like - I will look to get some of that soon I hope. The closest I could get was the second attached photo which was shot at f4.5 on the 15mm @ about 1/15.
Cheers
Dave
Nice :) I've got five or six rolls of concert shots (tri-X at 3200) that I'm going to develop in Rodinal, ill try and put a few up here too :)
sockeyed
09-19-2005, 09:32
I love pushing Tri-X in Rodinal. I think that I prefer the look of images shot at 1600 than at 400; there's just something luminous and crisp about them. I recently shot a roll at 3200 (not the first time) and here are some samples.
Bessa R3A, Nokton 40/1.4 (wide-open or nearly so), souped for 32 mins in Rodinal 1:50 with the 5 minutes/5 inversions agitation cycle.
I love pushing Tri-X in Rodinal. I think that I prefer the look of images shot at 1600 than at 400; there's just something luminous and crisp about them. I recently shot a roll at 3200 (not the first time) and here are some samples.
Bessa R3A, Nokton 40/1.4 (wide-open or nearly so), souped for 32 mins in Rodinal 1:50 with the 5 minutes/5 inversions agitation cycle.
It was your info (along with Digital Truth ) that I used as a guide. I'm pretty happy with it at 3200 and the grain is more than acceptable when it's "agitated" (more like "gently swished") with the 5 min/5 inversions method. I'd like to bump up one more stop and then see what it's like shooting with the Cron wide open in low light.
OT but did you get the lens?
Cheers
Dave
lulalake
09-19-2005, 09:58
This really looks nice. Was the Rodinal @ 1/100?
Thansk
Jules
This really looks nice. Was the Rodinal @ 1/100?
Thansk
Jules
1/50
Cheers
Dave
Dave: Looks really nice, especially the grain structure. It's hard to tell on a monitor (and I'm viewing on a laptop LCD), but it seems like maybe the highlights are just slightly blocked. Have you made a print to see what the highlight separation is like? I'm not trying to dampen your enthusiasm :D cause the shot really does look nice, especially for 3200. If you do find the highlights could stand more separation, maybe a higher dilution would help out.
Trius
Dave: Looks really nice, especially the grain structure. It's hard to tell on a monitor (and I'm viewing on a laptop LCD), but it seems like maybe the highlights are just slightly blocked. Have you made a print to see what the highlight separation is like? I'm not trying to dampen your enthusiasm :D cause the shot really does look nice, especially for 3200. If you do find the highlights could stand more separation, maybe a higher dilution would help out.
Trius
I'd like to get one of the shots in to print at some point - hopefully sooner rather than later since I'd like to use this method/film for an upcoming wedding I have to shoot - Sad thing is, it will be printed by a minilab digitally rather than "properly" on quality paper etc. But at least I should be able to have some idea.
Cheers
Dave
Problem is that in that kind of light you don't need 3200 speed film. Here's a shot I took in a coal mine with tmax3200 rated at 3200 dev'd in HC110.
Nick,
<drool>...I love that shot. Very nice.
allan
Problem is that in that kind of light you don't need 3200 speed film. Here's a shot I took in a coal mine with tmax3200 rated at 3200 dev'd in HC110.
Sadly, in a subdued lit church, you do.
Cheers
Dave
Dave,
That's what I mean. In a dimly lit church, like a coal mine, you need 3200. The bus shot isn't a fair test, IMO.
------------------
Thanks, Allan.
I took that shot with my Hexar AF. Would have been hard to focus an RF in that light.
Dave,
That's what I mean. In a dimly lit church, like a coal mine, you need 3200. The bus shot isn't a fair test, IMO.
------------------
Thanks, Allan.
I took that shot with my Hexar AF. Would have been hard to focus an RF in that light.
Yep... I concur.. take a look at the other two shots I posted :)
Cheers
Dave
The lockerway shot looks great for tri-x 3200. But I guess the only way to really know in cases like these is to use a spot meter and compare zones after processing. For example, Let's say I meter a scene at 3200 speed, take my shot, then process and print my photo. Let's say I get a very usable print. I may say that I succsessfully used the film at 3200 speed. But suppose in reality, what I metered to be zone V is Zone VII on the negative, yet I make up for this in printing a relatively flat scene. That means that I really shot at 800 speed which would be only a 1 stop push for Tri-X.
I'm not trying to knock your work or photos. I just think rating film speed is tougher than it seems, at least for me. I know that when I think about it too much my head hurts :)
<snip>
I'm not trying to knock your work or photos. I just think rating film speed is tougher than it seems, at least for me. I know that when I think about it too much my head hurts :)</snip>
Totally agree :)
I know that if I get my spot metering correct; I'm usually getting very good negs etc. but my problem with Zone work is 1) I don't do the whole development part of it - and really, I should be ensuring that the development is n or n+1 etc shouldn't I? and 2) I don't have a densitometer for the film density. So I always look at my Zone work as being a "poor man's" zone :D (really though, how poor can I be.. I've got cameras and film right???) :D
Cheers
Dave
At a risk of sounding overly sceptical, I'd question the use of Zone System with severely pushed 35mm roll film. What benifit it has there over "ordinary" metering? You're killing the shadows either way, and the separate exposures on the roll would deviate wildly from the optimal.
In this case, we're just using Zone system nomenclature as a way to define film speed. We could speak in terms of negative density but it's less intuitive, I feel. I don't use the zone system for shooting and processing, but I do use zone system terminology when I describe how dark or light a gray appears in a scene. I think a lot of us do that. Film speed becomes a meaningless term without some kind of standard to compare negs to.
Yar, you only end up with about 3 zones really anyway, and thats enlarging with a 0,5 filter and a LOT of patience ;)
pedro.m.reis
09-23-2005, 08:43
I'm trying to develop Tri-x in Rodinal, without pushing, but i get more grainy pictures than you :).
Anyone has times/inversion cycles for developing Tri-X @400 in Rodinal ?
PR
Pedro,
What time and agitation are you using? What dilution of rodinal?
Grain is a result of how long the film is in the developer and the temperature of the soup. Well, exposure has to do with it, too, of course. Agitation has little to do with grain (though it has impact on time).
If you decrease the temperature, then you leave it in the developer longer. If you take it out of the developer sooner, then you have to increase the temperature. OR, you can just agitate a lot more, but then you start to lose some of the contrast/tonal control from more intermittent agitation.
Also, are you wet printing or scanning?
allan
<snip>
Grain is a result of how long the film is in the developer and the temperature of the soup. Well, exposure has to do with it, too, of course. Agitation has little to do with grain (though it has impact on time).
</snip>
allan
Allan, I was always told that agitation does have an impact on grain - extremely slow moving agitation vs rapid twists and turns apparently produces a "smoother" grain structure over a "blocky" one.
Mind you, I have no "official" (i.e. text based manuals etc.) word on this but just what I've experienced. Can someone point me to some literature that would advise otherwise? Only so that I can go back to agitating like a monkey trying to break open a can of cling peaches.. :D
Cheers
Dave
Dave,
I'm pretty sure I've seen it in the FDC. otherwise, here are some threads:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007vcN
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DFhG
Also of note is that there have been a number of discussions about there being no such thing as too much or too vigorous agitation, at least unto itself. The goal of agitation is to get fresh chemicals moving around the tank. Therefore, even violent agitation is fine. However, this has the one caveat of dealing with 35mm film - the sprocket holes can lead to surge marks. So there is a fine line there, of course. But it is possible to be too gentle, as well as too violent. I tried looking for these threads but no luck. I know Ronald Moravec (sp?) on PN has made that comment a few times.
allan
pedro.m.reis
09-23-2005, 13:15
Pedro,
What time and agitation are you using? What dilution of rodinal?
Grain is a result of how long the film is in the developer and the temperature of the soup. Well, exposure has to do with it, too, of course. Agitation has little to do with grain (though it has impact on time).
If you decrease the temperature, then you leave it in the developer longer. If you take it out of the developer sooner, then you have to increase the temperature. OR, you can just agitate a lot more, but then you start to lose some of the contrast/tonal control from more intermittent agitation.
Also, are you wet printing or scanning?
allan
My last try:
Dilution 1:100, 24m@20Cº
3 inversions every 30s
I'm scanning my negatives, in attach an example of this last try.
Pedro,
Wow. That is grainy. And quite contrasty.
I think you could get away with less development time, for starters. However, that certainly does not explain all of that grain.
What scanner are you using? I wonder if it's a combination of Rodinal's strong tendency towards grain clumping, TXT's graininess, and grain aliasing.
allan
pedro.m.reis
09-23-2005, 14:47
My scanner is an Epson 4180 Photo.
The high contrast is maybe a combination of my poor skills at developing combined with litle ones at photoshop.... :)
Pedro,
I'll try and soup some TXT in Rodinal 1+100 this weekend, or early next week. Let me see what results I get with that combination and my Nikon IV. Of cousre, someone else might give you more helpful feedback between now and then.
Definitely consider reducing your time in the developer, though. It shouldn't be that contrasty straight out of the scan, even if you're using the EpsonScan software, which is pretty crummy to begin with, IMHO.
allan
pedro.m.reis
09-23-2005, 18:03
Pedro,
I'll try and soup some TXT in Rodinal 1+100 this weekend, or early next week. Let me see what results I get with that combination and my Nikon IV. Of cousre, someone else might give you more helpful feedback between now and then.
Definitely consider reducing your time in the developer, though. It shouldn't be that contrasty straight out of the scan, even if you're using the EpsonScan software, which is pretty crummy to begin with, IMHO.
allan
Ok ... let me know your results.
In attach is the straight out scan, without any color correction or unsharp mask.
Is there any other scan software i can use?
Tks,
PR
Well, it isn't going to help you much, but I highly recommend Vuescan. It can be gotten from http://www.hamrick.com/.
You get a lot more control of your scanner using Vuescan than with EpsonScan. Case in point - when scanning medium format on the 3200 at work (where I have to use EpsonScan), even if I set levels to get a nice, full histogram, I still need to make significant adjustments in Photoshop. With Vuescan with my Nikon IV, what I see in Vuescan is what I get in Photoshop.
My thought is that the Epson just isn't well suited to a high grain combination like TXT and rodinal. Add in the inherent issue of scanning 35mm with a flatbed and that might be what you're getting.
What kinds of results are you getting with other film/dev combinations?
allan
allan
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.