First Impressions: Tri-X @ 3200 in Rodinal

dcsang · 09-18-2005

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

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

peter_n · 09-18-2005

Looks pretty good to me!

back alley · 09-18-2005

shot at 3200?

looks great!

i need to play more.

joe

kaiyen · 09-18-2005

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

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...

dcsang · 09-19-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by gabrielma

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 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

Stephan · 09-19-2005

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

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.

dcsang · 09-19-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by sockeyed

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

This really looks nice. Was the Rodinal @ 1/100?

Thansk

Jules

dcsang · 09-19-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by lulalake

This really looks nice. Was the Rodinal @ 1/100?

Thansk

Jules

1/50

Cheers
Dave

Trius · 09-19-2005

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

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

dcsang · 09-19-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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

Nick R. · 09-19-2005

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.

kaiyen · 09-19-2005

Nick,

<drool>...I love that shot. Very nice.

allan

dcsang · 09-19-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick R.

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

Nick R. · 09-19-2005

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.

dcsang · 09-19-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick R.

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

Nick R. · 09-20-2005

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

dcsang · 09-20-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick R.

<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

(really though, how poor can I be.. I've got cameras and film right???)

Cheers
Dave

varjag · 09-20-2005

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.

Nick R. · 09-20-2005

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.

varjag · 09-20-2005

Oh, I see.

Stephan · 09-20-2005

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

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