View Full Version : Tri-X / HC-110 1:100 Experiments
This is a parallel thread to ray_g's thread on Tri-X and Rodinal partial-stand development for pushing Tri-X: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=100069#post100069
I made some inquiries about the same approach using HC-110, which I happened to have in stock last time I needed to do some push processing. My main problem with HC-110, as a one-shot developer, has been measuring the small fractional quantities required for those funny dilutions 1:32, 1:64 etc. A query on pnet elicited a reply from a photographer who uses HC-110 1:100 -- a far easier ratio to work with (e.g. 3ml HC-110 concentrate and enough water to bring the solution to 300ml). He also had some partial-stand development experience with this dilution.
As a starting point, he suggested a time 3x that of dil B, and agitation of 5 gentle inversions every 3 mins. For highly contrasty scenes, he changes that to a 5 min interval. I tried the 3 min agitation intervals for Tri-X rated at 800 and 1200 and found it to be in the ballpark for me. Depending on the temperature, I was developing between 27-30 mins.
I found decent shadow detail in the negs, though the negs were on the thin side. That was actually a bonus since I scan them. For a traditional darkroom, I'd try increasing dev time by maybe 15-20%. That's using my water supply, natch. ymmv
Here are the types of results I was getting with Tri-X at 800 -- no big push. Camera was a Zorki 3M with Jupiter-8 50mm lens.
Gene
Things got decidedly more interesting with the HC-110 1:100 technique with Tri-X rated at 1200. These are shots I took on a family visit to attend my mom's 82nd birthday. Camera was a Bessa R with Ultron 35/1.7. One shot outdoors and the rest in a moderately lit room with one window providing light. I haven't yet scanned the rolls where I worked in a darker environment. I'm still impressed with the shadow detail, lack of blown highlights, good tonality, and not-bad grain.
The images have all been slightly warm toned in Photoshop.
Gene
Gabriel M.A.
07-04-2005, 09:52
Oh, wow! I think I like the Tri-X @ 1200 better! The grain is much better than Tri-X @ 1000 with Diafine, at least as far as I can tell. Supoib!
Thanks, Gabrielma. I don't have personally have any Diafine experience, but everything I've heard about Diafine is first rate. I simply have a preference for traditional, easy-to-obtain developers that can be used at a variety of iso values.
Gene
Very nice results, Gene! The shadow detail is excellent. Thanks for sharing these. I normally use HC110 with TriX at normal exposures, but I have never tried it for pushing. Nice to have another combination to play around with.
I started with 110, am currently infatuated with Diafine, and have an unopened box of Microphen powder stashed under the sink. I've settled on Tri-X for the next little while, but I've never played with 110 any more dilute than dilution H (1/2 strength dilution B). I like the results you're getting, and it's nice to have another option for film shot in the ISO 1000 - 1200 range.
I recently had a roll that looks like it got shot at ISO 100 (bulk film, I think I must've forgotten to set the ISO manually). In additon to this, I had the center column in my tank upside down, and it took over a minute for the developer to seep in, but once I poured soln A in, everything was wet, I didn't know WHAT the problem was yet, and I use a changing bag rather than a darkroom. One roll looks just a shade darker than normal but the other one came out with 24 little lumps of coal. I scanned some of them and they're ok on sharpness but the color depth is just about as flat as a pancake, and the grain is absolutely horrible. Makes me wonder about the conventional wisdom of under vs over exposing with the film/dev in question.
based on the info here, I gave it a try. Dilution B made Tri-x look muddy, dilution E was quite nice. diluting 1:100 makes it sharp enough, but more grainy I think. still have to compare a bit
sample photo with an olympus XA: http://www.pbase.com/teus/image/73195450
quite nice, exposure and contrast are quite nice. gotta love this camera.
100% crop: http://www.pbase.com/teus/image/73195797
nightfly
01-17-2007, 07:40
Here's some Tri-X pushing info I clipped from god knows where but it's for super extreme pushes with HC-110 Replenisher and then some lesser pushes with 1:100 at higher temps (shorter times):
To process Tri-X at ISO 5000, you use not HC-110 Developer, but rather,
HC-110 REPLENISHER. You can buy a 16-ounce container of the stuff at a
good camera store, although they may need to order it from Kodak, so you
may have to wait a while to get your hands on it.
To make a solution of this special developer, make a 1:15 solution of
HC-110 Replenisher. That means, one ounce of the replenisher to 15 ounces
of water. So, if you're processing 4 rolls of 35mm film, or 2 rolls of 120
film in a one-quart tank, mix 2 ounces of replenisher with 30 ounces of
water. Unlike many developers that use a 68-degree temperature, this
formula requires that you bring the working solution of HC-110 replenisher
to 75-degrees. The processing time is 5-3/4 minutes at 75-degrees, with
agitation for five seconds every thirty second.
That's all there is to it! Expect to see grain and heavy highlight
areas--that's part of the look. Send me a print if you try this formula.
I should note that this is a one-shot usage. When you're done, toss the
developer. Don't try to replenish the replenisher!
I'm sure this is a little more information than you expected, but I hope
you'll find it useful. If you're interested in learning more about
developing Tri-X and learning about some other developers, stay tuned to
B2B&W. NYI teacher Jerry Rice is about to offer his thoughts on processing
black-and-white film. I promise you'll learn a lot. In the meantime, feel
free to contact me with questions or comments.
Less Extreme:
Andrew, try pushing triX400 to 1600 with HC110. 1+100 29 Degress C for 14 mins with NO agitation to bring out the shadow details via compensating effect. Agitate only for the first 10 secs and that's all you do.
3200
1+100 hc110 19mins 30 degress Celcius. Minimal agitation.
Oh yes Ron, ei 400, 800, 1250, 1600 all in trix with Hc110.
at 29Degress C, 1+100 from stock: 7 mins, 8.5mins, 10.5mins, 14mins respectively, all without agitation except first 10 secs.
Gene,
Nice experiment. As usual, I have my nitpicky questions:
- how did you meter? with the built-in averaging meter? or with a spot meter on the shadows? I ask because someone on PN (Donald Qualls) has gotten a legit, densitometer 640 out of HC-110 out of TXT using this high dilution, minimal agitation technique. But that's spot metered on shadows.
- technically, you're using 1:99. But at that diluation there is no difference, really, between that and 1:100.
nice tests.
allan
Overall I like the look of these images on first blush but with further inspection find the grain a bit more than I like (and I generally do like grain) and contrary to some other's comments I find the shadows much too dense and too quickly going to black.
It could be a result of Tri-X pushed to this level but I find the first aspect all too common with HC-110. I find Rodinal, while sometimes showing as much, if not more grain, than HC-110, to have better edge effects and less "mushy" grain (for lack of a better way to put it).
I really tried to like HC-110 as it's so convenient, but simply find the grain not pleasant. As to the latter objection I'm not a big fan of pushing films as I appreciate and desire more very subtle gradations of detail and tone in the shadows---and I do not see this here.
Successful photos, yes, but I'd personally try to use a faster lens or a tripod when and if I can and shoot the film slower.
Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth! ;-)
But thanks Gene, really appreciate you taking the time to experiement and share your results.
back alley
01-17-2007, 09:16
this post is from july '05...just an fyi
You're right! I did not see that! Oh well, funny how one reply can bring a post back to life.
a happy coincidence, as I was looking at this thread the other day to find suggestions for Tr-X in HC110 at 1600 lol.
Nachkebia
01-17-2007, 12:14
Fantastic stuff!!!
You're right! I did not see that! Oh well, funny how one reply can bring a post back to life.
sorry for that, I just found it was the right thread to bump :D
interesting with the HC-110 replenisher, but I won't try it now. how does HC-110 react to higher temperatures, otherwise?
27 minutes is too damn long to develop...
sorry for that, I just found it was the right thread to bump :D
interesting with the HC-110 replenisher, but I won't try it now. how does HC-110 react to higher temperatures, otherwise?
27 minutes is too damn long to develop...
From my experience it seems to be pretty linear. If it takes 27min at 20C you can
up the temp to 25C and 13min. See Covingtons HC110 unofficial Resource Page (http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/)
for a nice temp time chart and formula.
just did a roll of TriX ahot at 1600EI in HC110 @ 4 ml plus enough water to 400ml, guess that's 1:99? For 14 mins. @ 29C, no agitation beyond the first ten seconds. Negs look good so far, but they are still drying. Will scan and wet print some frames tonight.
Just wanted to leave feedback for anyone who ses this thread and wonders like I did.
Looking forward to seeing your shots. Gene has been posting some really nice shots of TX @ 800 on flickr.
Stephanie Brim
01-20-2007, 17:14
I've been wanting to get some HC-110 for a while so that I can do a direct comparison with my Rodinal...and now that you've done this I just might have to! It's been a while since I've done a good film test. ;)
I do like the results a lot at 1200.
just did a roll of TriX ahot at 1600EI in HC110 @ 4 ml plus enough water to 400ml, guess that's 1:99?
That's 1:100, expressed this way, or 1+99 if you want to think of it in these terms. The scientific notation for ratios uses the colon. The dilution logic of one part developer + 99 parts water uses the plus symbol.
I'll be watching for your results. Hope it turns out well. This dilution with the somewhat odd partial-stand times works a treat for me with every film I've tried so far.
Gene
What is the logic behind the lack of agitation for pushed developing?
Bill
Agitation will increase grain. Greatly reduced (or no) agitation therefore helps tame the grain and enhance acutance/sharpness. Pushed development usually depends on longer times; the increased wet time swells the emulsion which degrades sharpness and can make for mushy grain. Standard agitation would only emphasize that. I'm not sure of the physics of this, I only have experienced the benefits of being gentle.
Decreased agitation with higher dilutions of developers yields compensation. This is when development continues in the shadow areas after it has been exhausted in the highlight regions. This gives you more effective speed, better shadow and mid-tone detail, and controlled highlights.
Compensation will occur with any developer at a higher dilution with less agitation.
allan
Thanks I will give it a try, I have some film to push. Is the effect useful at rated film speed?
Bill
Bill: IMO, yes. My standard for TX is Rodinal 1:100, 30 sec. initial agitation, 4-5 inversions every 3 minutes. Nice grain and tonality.
Trius, I will try it. I have always used the standard every 30 sec. inversion without a thought.
Bill
OK here are two shots taken with my "new" Jupiter 3 on my Kiev 4a, developed per nightfly's post:
"Andrew, try pushing triX400 to 1600 with HC110. 1+100 29 Degress C for 14 mins with NO agitation to bring out the shadow details via compensating effect. Agitate only for the first 10 secs and that's all you do. "
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=54204&ppuser=4407
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=54205&ppuser=4407
I was testing a new lens, so I wasn't doing much more than seeing if it worked. I used a Calcu-flash meter I recently bought, so it is also a test of that. I was expecting more contrast, but IDK if I can blame the lens given the number of variables (lens, meter, developing process) :) It was a bright overcast sky, if that might have an effect. (The only reason I shot it at 1600 was because I *thought* I had other evening shots on the roll at that speed. Turns out I didn't lol)
Overall, I am satisfied the method works. I think the shots were a bit under-exposed for 1600, especially after looking at some other shots from the same roll. There wasn't enough detail in the shadows on pretty much every shot, IMHO.
I like how simple and easy the stand process was. The grain is fine, but I can't help thinking I like D76 1:1 better. I can't believe I am saying I can tell the difference between developers even with the huge number of other variables, but I think I can, based on my last few rolls in HC110. I think it would be worth adjusting the stand time to see if my opinion changes.
Either way, I will keep HC110 around, and am sure to use it again. Thanks all for the info, I feel like I have another tool in my toolbox. :)
That's 1:100, expressed this way, or 1+99 if you want to think of it in these terms. The scientific notation for ratios uses the colon. The dilution logic of one part developer + 99 parts water uses the plus symbol.
I'll be watching for your results. Hope it turns out well. This dilution with the somewhat odd partial-stand times works a treat for me with every film I've tried so far.
Gene
Gotcha. That actually makes sense. But it seems Kodak doesn't follow that logic. Straight D-76 would technically be 1:1, right? Kodak differentiates between straight D76 and 1:1, which I took to mean 1 part D-76 solution and 1 part water, or technically 1+1. At least Kodak provides the actual volumes for concentrate and mix in the same chart where they describe the ratios for HC-110, clarifying their notation.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that the same notation can mean different things in different contexts, however :) Ilford seems to use the 1+4 instead of 1:5
Gotcha. That actually makes sense. But it seems Kodak doesn't follow that logic. Straight D-76 would technically be 1:1, right? Kodak differentiates between straight D76 and 1:1, which I took to mean 1 part D-76 solution and 1 part water, or technically 1+1. At least Kodak provides the actual volumes for concentrate and mix in the same chart where they describe the ratios for HC-110, clarifying their notation.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that the same notation can mean different things in different contexts, however :) Ilford seems to use the 1+4 instead of 1:5
I may be totally off-track here (correct me if I'm wrong) but 1+1 and 1:1 are the same thing - 1 part developer and 1 part water, leaving a solution which is half of each.
Thus n:m and n+m are also the same. You end up with n+m of solution if you dilute that way, but the ratio of the two parts is n:m.
eg. 1+100 is for example 1ml dev plus 100ml water, making a total of 101ml, whereas 1+99 is 1ml dev plus 99ml water, ie. put the dev in and top up to 100 with water.
I may be totally off-track here (correct me if I'm wrong) but 1+1 and 1:1 are the same thing - 1 part developer and 1 part water, leaving a solution which is half of each.
Thus n:m and n+m are also the same. You end up with n+m of solution if you dilute that way, but the ratio of the two parts is n:m.
eg. 1+100 is for example 1ml dev plus 100ml water, making a total of 101ml, whereas 1+99 is 1ml dev plus 99ml water, ie. put the dev in and top up to 100 with water.
I think we are talking about two ways to write a ratio. On the one hand, you have a ratio of concentrate to the end solution (HC-110 1:100). On the other, you have the ratio of concentrate to water (D-76 1:1). Kodak appears to be consistent in the use of ratios of concentrate to water, but some people tend to write ratios in terms of concentrate to solution when talking about Kodak products, which can get confusing if we don't clarify the recipe.
I think we are talking about two ways to write a ratio. On the one hand, you have a ratio of concentrate to the end solution (HC-110 1:100). On the other, you have the ratio of concentrate to water (D-76 1:1). Kodak appears to be consistent in the use of ratios of concentrate to water, but some people tend to write ratios in terms of concentrate to solution when talking about Kodak products, which can get confusing if we don't clarify the recipe.
Ah, now I get it! I thought nearly everybody used concentrate to water for the ratios... ah well. Thanks for the clarification!
This was a huge bruhaha on PN a while ago. It's nice to see it get resolved so peacefully on RFF :-)
I always use n+m for this reason. Always.
allan
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.