A Site for Photographers by Photographers

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

Featured Equipment Deals

Latest Equipment Articles

The Week in Photography News Read More

The Week in Photography News

November 15-21, 2014: Hear the latest goings-on in the photography world, from product releases to event and campaign announcements and more.

Latest Learning Articles

Introduction to Creating an Album in Lightroom - Part I (Video Tutorial) Read More

Introduction to Creating an Album in Lightroom - Part I (Video Tutorial)

Learn to create an album in the Book Tab of Lightroom that you can publish and present to clients.


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

Responses


    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.

Yes.

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.

http://www.terracom.net/~mpenner/the_frames

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

http://www.terracom.net/~mpenner/gogol_bordello

Cheers

Colm

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.

alex---

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?

Greetings,


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses