Kodak TriX 400 shot at box speed, developed as 3200 ISO

Gear:
Ricoh GR1s

Recipe:
Kodak TriX 400 (shot at 400 and developed as pushed to 3200 ISO).
Adox APH 09
1+50
33 min

Using TriX at box speed and developing it in Rodinal as if it was pushed to 3200 ISO.

The Dev Chart says that for a Trix at 400 ISO in Rodinal 1+50, the right time is 13 minutes.
This one was developed for 33 minutes in Rodinal 1+50.

There was no dramatic increase in the grain and the film came out beautiful. It still holds detail in the shadows and has an overall fell of… grainy vintage smoothness.

On top of it all it did not blew up the highlights. It’s hard sometimes not ending up with a totally “washed white sky” unless we use a filter but those extra 20 minutes of development time, at the expense of a minor decrease in contrast, helps to achieve an overall uniformity.

 

Untitled-44

01

Click it for a 1:1 preview.

 

Untitled-56

Pretty extreme conditions, hard sunlight at 1:00 PM and strong shadows.

Pretty extreme conditions, hard sunlight at 1:00 PM and strong shadows.

 

Untitled-5303

 

Untitled-6406

 

Untitled-4702

 

Untitled-6105

 

Untitled-41

Untitled-63

Untitled-58

Untitled-62

Advertisements
12 comments
  1. Derek said:

    Now you want something fun, shoot tri x at 100, and dev to 100, shoot some higher contrast scene.

    • Maybe I will do just that.
      I’m going to a snowy landscape on Sunday, for a couple of days, and the weather forecast is clear sunny skies. Perfect for 100 ISO. šŸ™‚

      • Derek said:

        Shoot it against the sun

  2. jeremy north said:

    While I am no expert in B&W, (though my friend who is, and is currently in Portugal; Idid ask him to contact you for a meet up) The images seem to lack the punchiness I’d expect from Tri-X. Is that a fair comment?

    • I didn’t know that. I would love to meet up. Is he Portuguese or just visiting?

      Yes it is. As always you are a sharp observer.
      On one hand it did not blew away the sky and the shadow parts holds good detail but on the other hand the negatives came out very “even”.
      I can tell just by looking at them, that they miss that punchiness. Like cutting out all the absolute white and the absolute black.

      • jeremy north said:

        My friend Chris is on holiday there. I got him to follow your blog as he too is really into the chemistry of processing. You two could talk at length about chemicals, grain, stand developing vs agitation …

      • And I would introduce him to the famous grilled Codfish. šŸ™‚

      • jezzafox said:

        He’s back here now. He said he sent you a message but had no reply. It’s a pity.

      • ?? That a shame and I feel bad about it. A message? You mean an email? I always check my emails…

        I really feel bad about it.

  3. David said:

    Very interesting results. It makes sense considering my roll shot at 3200 that I developed for 400 that was just highlights (which worked perfectly for my subject matter). I’m going to try this.

    • Thank you so much David. This was my first attempt but in fact it did not increase the grain, it is still very… charming, and the highlights are not just a totally washed out white area.

      I’m very curious to see your results.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: