Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

rko2015
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:16 am

Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Postby rko2015 » Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:40 am

Hi,
I need to push Tri-X 400 to 3200 ASA in ID11 (1+1).

massive dev chart indicates a 11min dev time.

but the dev time indicated on Ilford technical info for ID-11 indicates exactly the same time 11 min for 400 ASA !

thank you for your help.


Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Postby Ornello » Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:40 am

You cannot increase the sensitivity of film by 'pushing'. It's a waste of time to try. Underexposure cannot be remedied by overdevelopment. The sensitivity of film is determined at manufacture. Faster films have more latitude, and that can be confusing. They can be under-exposed a little more than slow films can. Fast films have a greater range of crystal sizes. Slow films have only very small crystals, medium-speed films have a wider range of crystal sizes, and fast films have the widest.

pirateoversixty
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Re: Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Postby pirateoversixty » Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:47 pm

Ornello:

Maybe we should look at what the OP needs, not at what the rules are......
If what he needs is a usable neg that would otherwise be trashed, the "push" is his answer. The shadow detail he will lose may not be important if the subject of the picture is reasonably well exposed.
Personally, shadow detail to me is over-rated. Would rather rather have hi-lite detail. My eye goes to the brighter part of a picture first since that is probably the most important part.

Having said all that, I would reconsider using D-76 , but if that is what you have, go for it.
Jim

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Postby Ornello » Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:22 pm

pirateoversixty wrote:Ornello:

Maybe we should look at what the OP needs, not at what the rules are......
If what he needs is a usable neg that would otherwise be trashed, the "push" is his answer. The shadow detail he will lose may not be important if the subject of the picture is reasonably well exposed.
Personally, shadow detail to me is over-rated. Would rather rather have hi-lite detail. My eye goes to the brighter part of a picture first since that is probably the most important part.

Having said all that, I would reconsider using D-76 , but if that is what you have, go for it.
Jim
It doesn't work, that was my point. The sensitivity of film is determined in manufacturing.

pirateoversixty
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Re: Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Postby pirateoversixty » Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:03 pm

Ornello:

If push-processing were to lead to total mish-mash, why would the manufacturer lead a photographer on to totally ruin his film?
Is this a diabolical plot by the manufacturer to put itself out of business, or do they see possibilities that you don't?
I understand what you are trying to say; you have said it for years. So many people don't agree with you.
Jim

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Postby Ornello » Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:26 pm

pirateoversixty wrote:Ornello:

If push-processing were to lead to total mish-mash, why would the manufacturer lead a photographer on to totally ruin his film?
Is this a diabolical plot by the manufacturer to put itself out of business, or do they see possibilities that you don't?
I understand what you are trying to say; you have said it for years. So many people don't agree with you.
Jim
What are you talking about? The latitude and speed of the film are determined at manufacture. Increasing development does not increase density in the shadow areas, only in the denser areas. Underexposure cannot be remedied by increasing development. I should know, I used to do it all the time until I realized my photos looked like ca-ca.

Fast films develop slower and have more latitude than slow films because they have a bigger range of crystal sizes.

pirateoversixty
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Re: Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Postby pirateoversixty » Fri Sep 25, 2015 10:50 am

To repeat:
Why do the makers give push-processing times? I have no quarrel with your statements. As I said, maybe the OP is looking for a usable neg rather than one that has "shadow detail" and a full range of "beautiful, full tones." Maybe he is looking for a compromise.

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Postby Ornello » Mon Sep 28, 2015 1:08 pm

pirateoversixty wrote:To repeat:
Why do the makers give push-processing times? I have no quarrel with your statements. As I said, maybe the OP is looking for a usable neg rather than one that has "shadow detail" and a full range of "beautiful, full tones." Maybe he is looking for a compromise.
I don't know why they do that. They never used to do it, and Kodak has stated that a one-stop underexposure needs no additional development. They don't explain with sufficient emphasis that extending development rapidly increases fog, grain and contrast, and does not actually compensate for the underexposure. Nothing can (well, there is chemical latensification, but it is a rarely-used technique).

Here's one method:

https://www.google.com/patents/US2938793

Digitaltruth
Site Admin
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Postby Digitaltruth » Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:24 pm

A lot of manufacturers do list times for push processing, but Ornello is correct in stating that every film has an optimal speed at which it should be exposed to get the fullest tonal range and most accurate contrast. Some films have more latitude than others, allowing them to be exposed within a wider range of speeds. Push processing typically increases apparent grain and contrast at the expense of tonality. Nevertheless, there are reasons you might want to push process film. When there is insufficient light to expose the film at the given ISO, increasing the film speed allows you to make an exposure which you would otherwise be unable to capture. If this is the case, then some loss of quality is less important than not being able to take the image in the first place. Equally, there can be artistic reasons for wanting to increase contrast and/or grain which render the correctness of the exposure as secondary. Shooting and developing film "correctly" is only important if you desire "correct" results. In either case, by modifying the development time you can partially reduce the effect of underexposure.
--Jon Mided

Digitaltruth Photo
http://www.digitaltruth.com

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Postby Ornello » Wed Sep 30, 2015 8:19 pm

Digitaltruth wrote:A lot of manufacturers do list times for push processing, but Ornello is correct in stating that every film has an optimal speed at which it should be exposed to get the fullest tonal range and most accurate contrast. Some films have more latitude than others, allowing them to be exposed within a wider range of speeds. Push processing typically increases apparent grain and contrast at the expense of tonality. Nevertheless, there are reasons you might want to push process film. When there is insufficient light to expose the film at the given ISO, increasing the film speed allows you to make an exposure which you would otherwise be unable to capture. If this is the case, then some loss of quality is less important than not being able to take the image in the first place. Equally, there can be artistic reasons for wanting to increase contrast and/or grain which render the correctness of the exposure as secondary. Shooting and developing film "correctly" is only important if you desire "correct" results. In either case, by modifying the development time you can partially reduce the effect of underexposure.
35mm film is capable of delivering fantastic quality if one is willing to make the effort to use optimum exposure and development. Kodak used to make a very fast film (T-Max 3200), but even it was only ISO 800 in reality. There still is Ilford Delta 3200 whose true speed is roughly 1000-1200.

pirateoversixty
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Re: Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Postby pirateoversixty » Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:43 pm

Digitaltruth speaks the truth. A "correct" result exists only in the mind of the person that is satisfied with the results of his efforts. Some prefer a contrastier result than another would consider "correct". Trying to push everybody to aspire to one standard would certainly make for a boring, and certainly less artistic, and innovative, process.

Ornello, some time ago you were going to write a book on photographic processing, and were going to share the fruits of your endeavor with anyone interested. Any news there?
Jim

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Postby Ornello » Thu Oct 01, 2015 8:49 pm

pirateoversixty wrote:Digitaltruth speaks the truth. A "correct" result exists only in the mind of the person that is satisfied with the results of his efforts. Some prefer a contrastier result than another would consider "correct". Trying to push everybody to aspire to one standard would certainly make for a boring, and certainly less artistic, and innovative, process.

Ornello, some time ago you were going to write a book on photographic processing, and were going to share the fruits of your endeavor with anyone interested. Any news there?
Jim
I wrote it, this was about 6 or 7 years ago. Unfortunately I lost interest in pursuing it because publishers were reluctant to invest in a book about B&W film at this stage, what with digital and all. People should learn how good their results can be from optimizing their technique, then they would be far less interested in off-beat approaches. The greatest power photography has is that it can capture reality. All the most famous and moving photos you can name are significant because of their content, not some manipulation.

http://www.damninteresting.com/rapatron ... otographs/

https://www.google.com/search?q=edgerto ... mwCzw3M%3A

pirateoversixty
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Re: Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Postby pirateoversixty » Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:56 pm

I guess I have to sign off on this thread. Nothing more to say.
Interesting link on Edgerton.
Jim

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Postby Ornello » Wed Oct 14, 2015 8:51 am

pirateoversixty wrote:I guess I have to sign off on this thread. Nothing more to say.
Interesting link on Edgerton.
Jim
The faster the film, the greater the size of the AgBr crystals, and the greater the range of sizes. Slow films have only very tiny crystals, which develop quickly (because they are small) and all about the same time (because they are all about the same size). This is why slow films have less latitude. With all films, in the shadow areas, the most sensitive (largest) crystals are exposed in greater proportions. Thus, shadow areas have the most graininess, but since the shadows are normally very dark in the print, this graininess is not apparent to the eye. When you underexpose, only the very fastest (largest) crystals are exposed, so the apparent graininess increases, because what should be shadow area is being used for mid-tone area. Over-development will not cause the slow grains to develop, because their threshold for exposure has not been reached. There is simply nothing to develop. So, the large grains keep developing (getting larger), and the small ones don't develop at all.

pirateoversixty
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Re: Pushing Tri X - dev time masive dev

Postby pirateoversixty » Thu Oct 15, 2015 5:50 pm

how does this translate to c-41 black and white film since the grain structure is different?


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests