Jump to content
Stealth3kpl

Tri-X @200 in HC 110

Recommended Posts

KodakAlaris time For dil B, 1:32,  is 3.75 minutes.  Pretty short but no different from C41 which I used to do in a small tank.  Rule of thumb is -20% at one half box speed.  It never fails me.

 

If you want a longer time,  1:64 ,  increase time by 50%.  I am basing this on D76 and D76 1:1 tri x.

 

3.75 x60 = 225 sec   225x1.5= 436 sec    436  -20% = 349 sec   back toi minutes  5.8 minutes.  

 

I would use other developer like D76

 

Well I just checked my chart for D76 and found I had a time for HC110.      1.45 dilution for 4.5 minutes for a condenser enlarger or scanner.   Add 10% for diffusion enlarger.    

 

I use Chicago water, calibrated thermometer, agitate 5 sec every 30.   Film is dropped into prefilled tank  and agitation begins immediately.    Pour out 15 sec before end of time.  Invert 4 times in 5 sec.  Leave room in tank so developer can move.  With plastic tanks,  just pour in as fast as it will go.  They fill nicely bottom up.   Stainless does not wet the film fast and even if you pour in through the top.  You will get marks at your own peril unless you drop in.

 

I have no samples as I have not used HC110 for decade.  I would run 12" or 6 exposure strip to get a start incase your water or thermometer enlarging lens contrast is different.  There are a ton of variables.

 

For what it is worth,  my times match Kodak times perfectly.  That means my equipment is perfect or there are balancing errors.  

 

Good luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually use root-2 for figuring 1-stop pull or push developing - e.g. for ever minute of normal time, use 1.4 minutes to push 400 to 800, or use 0.7 minutes (43 secs.) to pull 400 to 200. That's a 30% reduction compared to Tobey's 20%. Not a large enough difference to be critical (Tri-X is rather forgiving), so take your pick.

 

Some users have always been suspicious of Kodak's very brief listed time for "new" (post-2003) TX in HC-110 anyway - I've always used the same base time as for TMax 400 in HC-110 (5.5 minutes @ 20°C @ 400). It works.

 

Which would give 0.7 x 5.5 = 3:50 minutes @ 20°C @ 200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What am I missing here? The Massive Development chart suggests TriX 400 @200 in HC110 B for between 4.75 mins to 6.75 mins. Some one on a blog I follow has used TriX at 200 in HC110 B for 7minutes, yet, as you both point out, Kodak suggests 3.75mins when shot at 400. All times are for 20C. I'm very confused!!

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do some film speed tests using your own consistent workflow and assess. Just like any other photo procedure. Real shutter speeds, metering results, etc. often vary by camera. Maybe 200 should be 250 or other for your circumstances. Same with development times; test using your own consistent procedures... temp, agitation time and method, etc. and assess.

 

Guidelines give a good starting point. Actual tests will nail your situation, if you're picky and determined to find the 'best' approach for you. There are many variables that affect outcomes in a total workflow. But the world won't collapse if you're in the ballpark, as this film and developer are somewhat forgiving..

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do some film speed tests using your own consistent workflow and assess. Just like any other photo procedure. Real shutter speeds, metering results, etc. often vary by camera. Maybe 200 should be 250 or other for your circumstances. Same with development times; test using your own consistent procedures... temp, agitation time and method, etc. and assess.

 

Guidelines give a good starting point. Actual tests will nail your situation, if you're picky and determined to find the 'best' approach for you. There are many variables that affect outcomes in a total workflow. But the world won't collapse if you're in the ballpark, as this film and developer are somewhat forgiving..

 

Jeff

 

I endorse Jeff's advice completely. The best approach comes from your well ordered tests using your equipment and detailed approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What am I missing here? The Massive Development chart suggests TriX 400 @200 in HC110 B for between 4.75 mins to 6.75 mins. Some one on a blog I follow has used TriX at 200 in HC110 B for 7minutes, yet, as you both point out, Kodak suggests 3.75mins when shot at 400. All times are for 20C. I'm very confused!!

 

Pete

 

Always assume "human error" - and you will rarely be confused in this life.

The consensus has always been that Kodak simply screwed up in listing the 3.75-minute time for TX400/HC-100( B ).

 

Possibly that is a correct time for the more concentrated "A" dilution, that crept into the paperwork for "B". Or perhaps just a typo for "6.75" or "5.75" minutes.

 

Here is a 2002 data sheet for HC-110 (just before the "new" Tri-X was introduced). Ektapan film in dilution "A" is - 3.75 minutes - interesting coincidence. Ektapan in "B" is 6 minutes. Equally - the time for roll-film TX in A is - 3.75 minutes

 

Tri-X roll (i.e. 35mm, 120) film gets 7.5 minutes @ 68F/20C in "B" - very consistent with what most people use today with the new emulsion.

 

http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j24.pdf

Edited by adan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd forgotten I started his thread. I eventually got around to developing my films having developed a cold so finding myself with a lot of time kicking around the house. It was my fiirst time using HC110, and my unopened bottled had just drifted past it's expiry date. After checking a couple of forums I settled on this starting point.

Film shot at 250

HC110 dilution 1+49 for simplicity (Kind of dilution E)

7 minutes.

This gave me this histogram off the scanner using Vuescan

 

 

And using Levels and a little curves in Photoshop, then a little dehaze in Lightroom, arrived at this:

 

 

The tonal range seems pretty good, and it's a look I like. I'm interested in comments.

 

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now a days I load only few frames on the reel and try out the development time. This way from the same roll you can try three or four developments. Shoot multiple test photos with same exposure and same light condition. Don’t worry about slicing arbitrary after loading in changing bag. As long as you get four five frames on the reel, it should be good test strip.

 

Sure it wastes chemicals but you get your own processing recipe that is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd forgotten I started his thread. I eventually got around to developing my films having developed a cold so finding myself with a lot of time kicking around the house. It was my fiirst time using HC110, and my unopened bottled had just drifted past it's expiry date. After checking a couple of forums I settled on this starting point.

Film shot at 250

HC110 dilution 1+49 for simplicity (Kind of dilution E)

7 minutes.

This gave me this histogram off the scanner using Vuescan

 

TriX HC110.jpg

 

And using Levels and a little curves in Photoshop, then a little dehaze in Lightroom, arrived at this:

 

065-Edit.jpg

 

The tonal range seems pretty good, and it's a look I like. I'm interested in comments.

 

 

Pete

Very nice result. Beaut tonal range...excellent.

 

Lovely picture too.

 

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd forgotten I started his thread. I eventually got around to developing my films having developed a cold so finding myself with a lot of time kicking around the house. It was my fiirst time using HC110, and my unopened bottled had just drifted past it's expiry date. After checking a couple of forums I settled on this starting point.

Film shot at 250

HC110 dilution 1+49 for simplicity (Kind of dilution E)

7 minutes.

This gave me this histogram off the scanner using Vuescan

 

TriX HC110.jpg

 

And using Levels and a little curves in Photoshop, then a little dehaze in Lightroom, arrived at this:

 

065-Edit.jpg

 

The tonal range seems pretty good, and it's a look I like. I'm interested in comments.

 

 

Pete

Nice output after adjusting. However I am wondering whether the picture was underexposed to start with (and development is ok). How did the other pictures came out on the same roll?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice output after adjusting. However I am wondering whether the picture was underexposed to start with (and development is ok). How did the other pictures came out on the same roll?

That's interesting, what makes you say that? It may well have been underexposed slightly. The day was very dull, and I recall shooting at 1/60 at times with the Summiicron wide open. The other lens was an Elmarit 28 asph. The exposure may have creeped to underexposure with both, and partic the Elmarit. I recall thinking it will probably be alright as I was shooting at 250.

The other frames came out pretty similar. I'll upload some for you to look at, but they have been manipulated so might not be a very good guide.

I'd love to hear some guidance.

Pete

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×