Help me identify what went wrong ?

[lordvader]

Hey all !

On Friday I was at an xmas party, and given there was going to be a band and some performances, I took my camera along. Given the low light, the plan was to expose everything at 3200, so I ended up shooting a roll of HP5 and TriX.

The HP5 was developed in Microphen for 25 minutes (there have been a few rolls through that batch, so was at the +70% point). I agitate for the first 30s, then for 10 seconds every minute for the first 10 minutes, then 10 seconds every 5 minutes thereafter.

The TriX was developed in D76 for 14 minutes (this was at the +30% point), and was agitated for 30s, then 10 seconds every minute until done.

The HP5 came out great ! The TriX not so good. These were under the same lighting conditions, so the only difference was the development process.

Here are some samples (first was HP5, second the TriX):

[Clubmanmc]

they look underexposed by about 2/3rds to 1 stop...

not sure how you metered...

M

[lordvader]

Well that's the deal ... Both images were exposed exactly the same (I used the cameras built in meter), with the only different being the development process (and the film :P ).
On average, the shots were taken at 1/60, f/2 - f/2.8 .

All the shots done with the HP5/microphen combo came out well, everything with the trix/d76 looked underexposed.

... and I failed to mention that this has happened before. The HP5/microphen combo looked great, tri-x/d76 looked very underexposed.

[kiwi]

How do you know they were exposed the same ? Was the light the same in both, did you meter off the same object ? Im not sure you can say they are exposed the same, or correctly

[lordvader]

Light was definitely the same in both, and metering was performed the same across both rolls.

The two photo's I chose to upload emphasise the difference between the two rolls quite well, but the differences are there shot for shot across all 36 photos. When I get home tonight I'll try upload another pair of photos that are more similar in composition, and show the same differences.

Not entirely off topic, but has anyone else here pushed tri-x to 3200 in d76 ? What technique would you have used ? I followed what was on massive dev chart.

[lordvader]

So here are two more shots.

The photo of "inappropriate Santa" comes from the HP5 roll, the other shot from the Tri-X roll.

[Othrelos]

Ilford films tend to be much more forgiving than kodak emulsions. With D76, kodak films aren't so good when you are pushing them. If you have had this problem before then I suggest you try a few developing experiments before you use this combination again. If you can get/have access to some Xtol I would recommend that over D76 for push developing, though Xtol can be tricky to work with. Ilford DD-X has similar properties but is more expensive in comparison to Xtol but DD-x is without the difficulties in preparation.


Also bear in mind that TRI-X has more of a S curve irrespective of what developer you dunk it in, so bear that in mind when you are developing. I would extend my developing time to get the tones over zone IV on the higher portion of that curve I would suggest an increase of 8~10% over what you are presently using should do the trick. HP5 tends to have more of a linear response in microphen.

[lordvader]

Thanks for the advice :)
I wouldn't mind trying xtol. Seems pretty cheap, and with replenishment should last quite a while (which is kinda what I'm looking for in a developer).

I'll be cooking up some fresh microphen soon, so I'll do another trix@3200 test, both in microphen, and in d76 (with some more dev time), and see how things pan out.

I LOVED trix @1600 (in microphen). The grain was beautiful, and the negs had a lot of detail in spite of the high grain (perhaps it was the sharpness that gave them that punch)

[Longshots]

I use to shoot a lot on "pushed" film and there is almost no way I would have trusted TriX at 3200.

Quite honestly you're pushing both films to their absolute limits.

So I would personally suggest 1600 Fuji Neopan as a great fast B&W film, that can just about take being pushed 1 stop to 3200.


At the end of the day, one film is clearly screaming out, "hey I'm designed for 400ASA/ISO". So thats 3 stops. Seriously thats a lot to ask of both films. However I would suggest an increase in agitation as well as an increase in time to make up for additional pushing. But, eventually its got to the end of its ability at 3200. Frankly I think you've done very well to get these type of results from both films.

You also have to remember that the lighting in the room is all from the top. So the ability, or lack of of it, to show shadow detail in the dark areas, is more an issue on the spread of lighting.