Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'HC-110'.
-
Hi, I have started to get funny looking grain on my B&W shots that I've developed with HC-110. This has been the way the last two rolls have looked. I'm suspecting that my fixer is old but that's just a random guess. I'm using Dilution B and this was stock box speed Tri-X. Has anyone seen this? They sort of look like rice grains.
-
Beer in Dorset, South coast of UK. Beer as in the place, not the beverage. Mind you, they had beer in Beer, but that came later.
-
This is about Tri-X/HC-110. All this talk of exposing and developing film properly (Annibale’s thread) has been going on at the same time as I’ve been wondering if I’m doing the right thing with my Tri-X processing. I need to explain that, to my shame really, I currently scan and print. I would like to say that I was a master printer using an enlarger, but I wasn’t when I was doing it, and certainly am not now. I can’t imagine how I could ever, using an enlarger, approach what I manage in Photoshop. Sorry, it grieves me too, but there it is. I would welcome opinions/advice about how I’m tending towards greater exposure in order to get the shadow details, and then finding that, in order to keep the highs, I'm quite seriously under-developing the film. This, obviously, leads to rather pale and, frankly, poor-looking negs, but, after scanning and a bit of levels work in Photoshop, I find I get what I want better than if I had denser negatives. In addition to keeping the range inside the latitude of the film, I find grain is often reduced in skies. (Currently rating Tri-X@ about 125asa and then developing for 5m30s in Dil H HC-110). This is, of course, perfectly legitimate if I get the results I want, but I am concerned that I might be going to end up with boxes full of negs that work for my current scanner but which may not scan well in other scanners and even may not conventionally print at all. I’ve been through lots of examples this morning, re-scanning and analysing what worries me, and I think the above says what I want. However, I almost feel I don’t know what it is that is bothering me, but that something is. The obvious response (if anyone even feels like responding to this vague post) is to say that if I get what I want, then go with it; but I feel I may be doing something wrong – possibly something fundamental – and am then doing something else wrong, or, at best, unnecessary, in order to overcome it. Thanks for your time (if you’ve got this far!) Jim.
-
Out with the M2 with its 35mm Elmar on the front (only lens I have). I took this with my OM/Zuiko too, and have just decided I like this better although the detail and flare and (actually) the exposure's better on the OM image, I like the look of this more. On the South Downs in recent snow. Anyone would think us English never get any snow. Well; we don't! Jim.
-
Where the chalk of the South Downs meets the sea. Elmar 35mm again, Tri-X Hc-110 etc. Jim.