A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > B&W Photo - Film & Processing > Films > Does Tri-X 400 become grainy...

Featured Equipment Deals

Which DSLR Camera Is Right for Me? (Video Tutorial) Read More

Which DSLR Camera Is Right for Me? (Video Tutorial)

Are you in the market for your first DSLR camera? With this video tutorial you will learn what factors to consider so you can narrow down your options.

Does Tri-X 400 become grainy when pushed to E.I. 1600?

K Michael , Nov 13, 2002; 08:21 p.m.

I used Tmax developer to develop the film and I think it came out grainy. I'm looking for some feedback on this. I was forced to push the film because the event I was at barred the use of flash.

Jazz Singer


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Paul Frank , Nov 13, 2002; 08:35 p.m.

all films become more grainy when pushed. especially two stops.

Michael Erlich , Nov 13, 2002; 08:39 p.m.

You have to expect two things when you push film with extended development: increased contrast and increased grain. The graininess in your posted image looks pretty good to me for a 2 stop push of Tri-X.

Scott Eaton , Nov 13, 2002; 09:00 p.m.

Yes, Tri-X will 'grain-up' when pushed. Yes, it's capable of EI 1600, although 1250 is more like it.

TMAX developer is mediocre enough with Tri-X at rated speed....pretty bad when pushed, which is bad^2. Get yourself a can of Acufine if you wan't to see what Tri-X is REALLY capable of at the edge of it's envelope.

Personally I think Tri-X at EI 1250 in Acufine looks better than processed in TMAX developer for EI 400.

Ollie Steiner , Nov 13, 2002; 09:10 p.m.


Colm McCarthy , Nov 14, 2002; 10:37 a.m.

I've pushed several rolls of Tri-X to 3200 in straight D-76. The grain and contrast are actually pretty acceptable, so I keep a roll or two of Tri-X as a backup to my normal film (Neopan 1600) when shooting concerts. At 3200 Tri-X gives much better results than TMAX 3200 at 3200. Go figure.

All of the shots at these two sites were shot using Tri-X at 3200.


Actually, that's a lie...several of the Frames shots are on Delta 3200. I can't tell which ones - can you?




Alex Hawley , Nov 14, 2002; 02:10 p.m.

I did this one at 3200 and developed it in Xtol 1:3. Visible grain? Yes, but pretty fine and not detracting even when enlarged to 11x14. I shot a roll of Tmax 3200 at the same event, developed it the same way. It was much more grainy than the Tri-X was.

Tri-X, 3200, Xtol 1:3

Leslie Cheung , Nov 14, 2002; 07:10 p.m.


what temp and time did you do tr-x@3200 with xtol 1:3? around 25 minutes? is it very different than say xtol 1:1. i would like to try if there's a big difffent. i can't find the time nor do i like develpoing more than 20mins for a roll though.

Alex Hawley , Nov 14, 2002; 08:32 p.m.

Tak-Fu - I used 20 minutes at 20C. Check out the massive development chart at http://www.digitaltruth.com/. This is the only place I know of where the development times for Xtol 1:2 and 1:3 can still be found. Kodak deleted these from their data quite a while ago. Despite what Kodak says, I've had the best results using the 1:3 dilution, not just with Tri-X, but also with Tmax 100 and Ilford Pan F.

Henk , Nov 15, 2002; 04:46 a.m.

The times for new Tri-X in Xtol are about 15% longer, guess why that is.... This means about 23 minutes in 1:3 Xtol in comparison to the older Tri-X pan. Xtol is the best choise for pushed TX IMO. Good tip... Anyone tried mixing xtol with rodinal when pushing BTW?


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses