Kodak Tri-X 400 Exposure Test

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am not sure I know what you mean by "need the light"...

There is nothing wrong with giving a little extra exposure to film like Tri-x and developing it at box speed, particularly where there is shadow detail that you want to capture (the 3 stop overexposure latitude will more than absorb this).  With the 3 stop (at least, and I would argue it has more) overexposure latitude, the extra 1/2 to full stop of exposure should in theory enable you to get more shadow detail and dial down the highlights to where they would be if you correctly exposed for the highlights.

 

 

It all really depends on what zone exposure values you want the subjects in your image to be.  There are inifite possiblities and there really is not right answer as long as you don't completely blow highlights or crush shadows (unless you are going for this effect from an artistic POV

 

[philipus]

Thanks for posting this Pete. It's an interesting article.

 

Something that came to my mind reading it is that it is one thing to carry out such a test in an environment where there's plenty of light. I've shot Tri-X and Double-X at EI800 and EI1600 during daytime and both look great, not much different from at EI 400, for instance.

 

But make the same comparison in, say, a darker environment like indoors at a dinner table, then the performance will be a bit different.

 

Also, if this had been a test with 135 film the results would be quite different, too. My experience is that Tri-X 120 and Tri-X 135 are two different films.

 

From UK Film Lab
http://ukfilmlab.com/2016/04/03/black-white-film-exposure-test-comparisons-kodak-tri-x-400/
 
Pete

Which developer do you use Adam?
 
I've tried Tri-X in HC-110 and Diafine and both have their well known benefits and drawbacks, of course.
 
In HC-110 I'd normally just find a time and dilution suitable to how I've exposed the roll EI-wise. I'm not sophisticated enough to take into account if there are high/low contrast scenes on a roll and adjust development accordingly, and in any event it would be pretty pointless because there are usually a great variety of scenes on my rolls.

 

Instead I aim at bringing out what I can from rolls shot at high EI and getting as flat a scan as I can. Then I leave it to post-processing to get the look I want for the image. I've recently discovered that Adobe Camera Raw is very nice for fine-tuning shadows and highlights, in fact much better and easier to use (and quicker) than going into Photoshop. But we all do it differently.
 
Can I just also add that there's just something about how the grain of most BW films looks when developed in HC-110; it's got a slightly crystal-like edge to it (poor explanation, I know). Diafine gives a very different look.
 
Philip
 

What works best for me is exposing at 800 and developing at 1250 (1.5 stop push)...

[A miller]

Thanks for posting this Pete. It's an interesting article.

 

Something that came to my mind reading it is that it is one thing to carry out such a test in an environment where there's plenty of light. I've shot Tri-X and Double-X at EI800 and EI1600 during daytime and both look great, not much different from at EI 400, for instance.

 

But make the same comparison in, say, a darker environment like indoors at a dinner table, then the performance will be a bit different.

 

Also, if this had been a test with 135 film the results would be quite different, too. My experience is that Tri-X 120 and Tri-X 135 are two different films.

 

Which developer do you use Adam?

 

I've tried Tri-X in HC-110 and Diafine and both have their well known benefits and drawbacks, of course.

 

In HC-110 I'd normally just find a time and dilution suitable to how I've exposed the roll EI-wise. I'm not sophisticated enough to take into account if there are high/low contrast scenes on a roll and adjust development accordingly, and in any event it would be pretty pointless because there are usually a great variety of scenes on my rolls.

 

Instead I aim at bringing out what I can from rolls shot at high EI and getting as flat a scan as I can. Then I leave it to post-processing to get the look I want for the image. I've recently discovered that Adobe Camera Raw is very nice for fine-tuning shadows and highlights, in fact much better and easier to use (and quicker) than going into Photoshop. But we all do it differently.

 

Can I just also add that there's just something about how the grain of most BW films looks when developed in HC-110; it's got a slightly crystal-like edge to it (poor explanation, I know). Diafine gives a very different look.

 

Philip

 

Hi Philip - my lab uses Kodak Extol, which they characterize as an "evolved D76," meaning that it produces finer grain and better tonal range, which the lab thinks is best suited for the hybrid digital scanning workflow (i.e., it is best suited to produce a "flat" editable scanned file).   And who am I to complain!?

[ChristianWard]

Hello Everybody,

 

The people who did the test could have saved themselves a lot of bother if they had simply read the Dx code on the film cartridge.

 

It say: " 3 stops over exposure latitude & 1 stop under exposure latitude with normal development as per the ISO written on the box".

 

Which means that the "optimal" film speed is ISO 200/24.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

I was the person who carried out this test. The test shows you what different exposures look like, which of course Dx coding gives you no clue about, so it has nothing to do with knowing the Dx code. This is where people fall foul of misunderstanding what latitude means. Latitude doesn't mean your image will appear the same as long as it's within the latitude of the film...exposure whether it's over or under has an impact on the aspects of image quality. For some people, shooting TRI-X 3 stops over-exposed would not give them an image that's acceptable to them, despite it being within the quoted latitude. Likewise, shooting an image that's 1 stop under-exposed could produce an image that's unacceptable to a photographer....it all depends on the application.

You can't look at a film stock just in terms of what the Dx code tells you.

[A miller]

I was the person who carried out this test. The test shows you what different exposures look like, which of course Dx coding gives you no clue about, so it has nothing to do with knowing the Dx code. This is where people fall foul of misunderstanding what latitude means. Latitude doesn't mean your image will appear the same as long as it's within the latitude of the film...exposure whether it's over or under has an impact on the aspects of image quality. For some people, shooting TRI-X 3 stops over-exposed would not give them an image that's acceptable to them, despite it being within the quoted latitude. Likewise, shooting an image that's 1 stop under-exposed could produce an image that's unacceptable to a photographer....it all depends on the application.

You can't look at a film stock just in terms of what the Dx code tells you.

 

I must say, I didn't follow the logic of Michael's post, either...

[AlanG]

Yes, it is a bit more than just some simple latitude numbers. Skimming a book such as "Photographic Sensitometry" by Todd and Zakia will show you that.

 

I'm not sure why I can't display these photos that I uploaded to this forum some time ago. I get this message: "You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community."

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=150129

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=150130

Edited April 8, 2016 by AlanG

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Cheers good read

Qusetion. When one says one stop or two stops are they referring to one full stop or like on my camera 1/3 of a stop (My thinking one full stop is three of these small stops??)

[AlanG]

Those are just "clicks" between stops, not stops. You need to double or half a shutter speed for a one stop change.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Those are just "clicks" between stops, not stops. You need to double or half a shutter speed for a one stop change.

Alan

So what you are saying is when you look at the exposure compensation dial you have 0iiIiiIiiI meaning in this illustration there is a total of 3 stops........is that correct ??

[AlanG]

Yes.

[adan]

I've got to toss a fly into this ointment. As it happens, I just yesterday shot and processed a "developer test" - same scenes on 4 rolls of film (TMax 400), developed in 4 developers, at "box" development times.

 

Just starting my analysis (I'm actually most interested in highlight curves), but one thing that leaps to the eye is that D76 (stock) produces the LOWEST shadow detail/effective ISO, for an identical exposure. So if XTol is just "evolved D76," it may be doing the same thing.

 

See attached - D76 image bottom right. Note how the overall brightness is lower, and the darkest areas in the evergreens are less open and detailed than with, say, Rodinal 1:50 (top left). Pictures all shot at, 1/250 second, f5.6, open shade.

 

(Scans "normalized" to reach black in the unexposed film base, and just touch white in the brightest pixels. Other than that, these samples are unprocessed, so only useful for judging density - not for grain or resolution (yet)).

 

DEVELOPERS can make a significant difference in all aspects of a particular film's imaging, from grain, to sharpness/acutance, to curve shape, to effective ISO/shadow detail. Even before getting into "expanded development" and other techniques.

 

Therefore, the original test referenced - at best - can say that Tri-X in XTol has an ISO of 200.

 

Tri-X in Rodinal 1:50, Tmax, D76 1:1, Microphen, HC-110 or Microdol-X may each produce a different ISO. And there is no particular reason (except tradition) to say that D-76 or XTol is the "gold standard" or best reference for developers. And I'd say it appears D76, anyway, is NOT a good developer for testing effective ISO (how much light a film needs to produce a full-range image.)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited April 23, 2016 by adan

[chrism]

I read the original article and found myself disagreeing with the author - the box speed images are far more pleasing to me than the one-stop-over-exposed images, which haven't enough contrast nor enough black in them to move me.

 

Chris

[pico]

Drifting here.

 

Something happened to 135 Tri-X and I do not know when. Perhaps an experienced old-timer can inform us. I processed it in the day as 1:2 with water and it was certainly grainier than today. I liked its character. Unfortunately I haven't a scanner good enough or the talent to scan old prints to show the old way it was. Does anyone?

[AlanG]

I'm an old timer and I believe Tri-X was changed many times.

[MrBan]

This post is old. For anyone looking at this post now the link in the OP has changed to (UK Film Lab became Canadian Film Lab a long time ago):
https://canadianfilmlab.com/2016/04/03/black-white-film-exposure-test-comparisons-kodak-tri-x-400/