Jump to content

Tri-X HC-110 again


Don'tknowmuch

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all. Just a quicky (I hope).

I've seen on this forum a couple of bits of advice about Tri-X in HC-110, both contributors clearly happy. Both expose at 320asa, and both use Dil B, but one is happy with results at 6m.30s and the other at 3m.30s which is quite a difference.

I'm certainly not saying that either is wrong in any way, of course not, but should I aim somewhere in the middle?

Jim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes a difference if you want to wet print or scan

 

All I can say is that 6:30 @ 20C with two gentle agitations per minute works well for me and my 320 rated Tri-X. I use an acid stop bath and a rapid fixer, both at 20C. We have soft water with little or no chalk in it. My wash water is not straight out of the tap, it's tempered with warm water so that it's above cold tap temp. Final rinse is done with battery top-up water with two drops of Photoflo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't use HC-110, but I don't adjust for wet printing vs scanning. I just develop and have no problems getting decent results from either. Negatives that look good at grade 2 scan quite easily on a decent scanner like a Coolscan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all. I should perhaps explain what I have been doing and why I want to try a small alteration. First of all I should explain that I use a Coolscan and don't wet print any more. I have been exposing Tri-X at 200asa and then using Dil H for 9 mins, which equates approx to Dil B for 4.5 mins. Results dependable as you might expect because, after all, all these differences are quite small in the real world of being a stop or so off target here and there. However although my usual regime was honed in order to get a lower contrast neg, I have become aware of how I now regularly tend to want to drag the contrast up and darken the whole positive image a bit in post-scan Photoshop. My other regular films are HP5 and FP4 and I've realised that the development regimes I have for them do tend to produce the tones I'm after without too much Photoshopping at all, and I wanted to tweak the Tri-X regime in order to get the same sort of look straight off as well. Although I am rather at sea with all this it just occurred to me that by exposing and processing a little differently I may sort of access the curve at a slightly different point. Please excuse my ignorance of these matters; this is partly why I'm trying something out and certainly why I'm asking!

Thanks again,

Jim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry - I think I may have just realised what to do.

If I want a bit more contrast would I be right in saying that all I need to do is expose a little less (go to,say, 320 from 200) and develop a little more? And then just tweak it according to my preference. Is that it?

Jim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use 7 mins at dilution B. I get results that I'm very pleased with: easy to scan (also on a Coolscan) and with a full tonal curve so that very little work is needed after the scan. I rate TX at 400 if using HC-110.

 

3.5 mins seems very wrong to me. Not even in the ball park, based on my experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Neil on this.

 

The Massive Development Chart is always a good place to start from, but be warned that some of their times are for the previous version of Tri-X.

 

They also have a note to the effect that Kodak's recommendation of 3 1/2 minutes is considered too short.

 

Basically, once you find something that works for you stick to it. Don't be tempted to mess about any more.

 

And, it's worth remembering that the iPhone/iPod version of the MDC allows you to edit and store your own preferred options.

 

The Massive Dev Chart: B&W film development database

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - I think I may have just realised what to do.

If I want a bit more contrast would I be right in saying that all I need to do is expose a little less (go to' date='say, 320 from 200) and develop a little more? And then just tweak it according to my preference. Is that it?

Jim.[/quote']

Hi Jim

 

Yesish, but f you are doing an experiment I'd only alter one parameter at a time...

First you need to be aware that the scene contrast may vary a lot...

So you need to pick a 'standard' subject and burn of a roll at 200 320 400 etc...

keeping records...

Then process for longer then normal.

You need to look carefully at the negatives rather than the print, if you get halation on the negatives outside the frame you then need to decide do you like shadows or high lights.

People used to soup by inspection when plates were ortho and a deep red safe light was ok...

 

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I want a bit more contrast would I be right in saying that all I need to do is expose a little less (go to' date='say, 320 from 200) and develop a little more? And then just tweak it according to my preference. Is that it?

Jim.[/quote']

 

I would say if you want a bit more contrast and you don't mind losing a bit of shadow tones, yes, that is the right thing to do.

 

If you want a bit more contrast but want to continue to get the amount of shadow detail you have now, then just develop a little more, leaving the exposure the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim

as you know I have developed Dil B at 3,30' or 3,45' for the last years with good results.

It works for me but I see many others that develop for almost double the time.

Seems odd to me but I will stick with what works...if however with your current times you are just after more contrast then increase dev time by about 20% and see what you get.

 

best

andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just developed Tri-X in HC-110 for my first time. I used dilution B for 6 minutes. I got overdeveloped negatives back. Highlights were nearly blocked completely.

 

I should mention that I rated at 400 and all frames were in bright daylight with dark contrasty shadows.

 

Next time I will try 4.5 minutes. I have a feeling that will work better for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I learn from this thread (thank you), and conceive what I might risk by mucking about, the more I think I'll stick with the process that works albeit with having to perform a small Photoshop tweak. I wouldn't want to lose the detail in the lows which I get, or develop for longer and get more grain, so I think I'll just get better, maybe, at scanning.

AndyM's, no doubt succesful, shorter time-regime compared to others', may simply go to show how the entire procedure; conditions/water/mind-set when deciding on the "correct" exposure/how much agitation etc; all go towards how the final image turns out. I think if I've learned anything it is that one individual's methods can not be straightforwardly copied by another with any guarantee of success.

It is also interesting to consider how scanning is different from wet printing. I've always thought that although my standard process is now to scan negs, I would always be able to wet print from the same negs if the mood took me again, but maybe this is not the case? Maybe I've been adjusting the exposure/development regime to suit my scanner/ability in Photshop/printer/paper and my negs would be hopeless in an enlarger? That's not a good thought...

Jim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Came across this sort of a wiki for film and developers.

The Massive Dev Chart: B&W film development database

Photographic paper compresses highlights on printing but scanners do not.

The best result is a negative with a density range to suit the scanners optical density range.

Curves to match any paper characteristic can then be applied in Photoshop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tri-X in dilution B (1+31) is a bit short in time. Better to try dilution H (1+63) which gives a double dilution B time.

Kodak HC-110 Developer - Unofficial Resource Page

 

Alternative for Tri-X in HC-110 is Rodinal 1+50. Tri-X (E.I. 200-250) 9:00 minutes. Tight but regular grain. HC-110 generates much less grain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the Mironchuck recommendations for Dilution H which Pete (Stealth3kpl) posted earlier, and they work great. I usually expose Tri-X at 250 in order to get a bit more shadow detail, and then reduce the agitation to bring down the highlights just a bit--I use the times for rating it at 400, though.

 

Negs look great, and print like a dream! HC-110 is also very good for HP5+ and Delta 400, if you like or want to try Ilford films.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...