alexz
Well-known
I'm more or less settled on Tri-X as my main film establishing my workflow for E.I. of 400 and 200 with it in HC-110, now, to round up the "circle of trust" in Tri-X I want to work my way through E.I. 1600 and 800. I'm be pushing it at a times, mostly for indoors events, so that both E.I.s are important.
According to the Dev.Chart , the suggested starting point for dill. B is 16 minutes (in 20 deg. C), from this I infer 32 minutes for dill. H (my regular one).
Are there any actual experience with these particular settings ? (HC-110 in particular)
Dev. Chart doesn't refer to any particular agitation regime. I used to a moderate one with my 200 and 400 processing (first 30 sec. - continuous slow, then 2 slow turns upside down each subsequent minute), btu with a proonged development like that, I'd consider to "dillute" the agitation more - probably something like 2 turns each 3 minutes...
Does that sound reasonable ?
I'm going to establish two separate settings for each of 800 and 1600:
1. For low-to mid contrast shooting conditions (such as indoors social events like weddings, corporate, etc....)
2. High contrast conditions: on-stage performance, rock concerts and similar.
The approach described above I intend to apply to the first case, for the secdon case I'll need to restrain contrast, so either to weaken down agitation regime (probably 1-2 turns each 5 minutes ?) or to shorten down the development time.
I'll be glad to see your comments ...
Thanks, Alex
According to the Dev.Chart , the suggested starting point for dill. B is 16 minutes (in 20 deg. C), from this I infer 32 minutes for dill. H (my regular one).
Are there any actual experience with these particular settings ? (HC-110 in particular)
Dev. Chart doesn't refer to any particular agitation regime. I used to a moderate one with my 200 and 400 processing (first 30 sec. - continuous slow, then 2 slow turns upside down each subsequent minute), btu with a proonged development like that, I'd consider to "dillute" the agitation more - probably something like 2 turns each 3 minutes...
Does that sound reasonable ?
I'm going to establish two separate settings for each of 800 and 1600:
1. For low-to mid contrast shooting conditions (such as indoors social events like weddings, corporate, etc....)
2. High contrast conditions: on-stage performance, rock concerts and similar.
The approach described above I intend to apply to the first case, for the secdon case I'll need to restrain contrast, so either to weaken down agitation regime (probably 1-2 turns each 5 minutes ?) or to shorten down the development time.
I'll be glad to see your comments ...
Thanks, Alex
alexz
Well-known
Well, it appears nobody is willing to pick the glove, so I'll drop my few cents further...
just developed/scanned half of that roll: Tri-X shot at E.I. 1600 during my friend's wedding. Processed in HC-110 dill. H according to Dev.Chart whicih suggests 16 minutes for dill B in 20 deg. C. Assuming linear behavior of the developer, I took 32 minutes for dill. H with moderate agitation such as: slow continuous for the first 30 seconds, then 2 turns upside down each subsequent 3 minute interval.
The place was lit by bulbs (that was garden) which explains potentially hard contrast.
Many of the frames out of 14 developed so far exhibit somewhat exaggerated contrast indeed (at least to my eyes), so perhaps it would be wise to adjust the approach in order to restrain a bit the contrast. Other images show more balanced results though.
Next will follow several frames that show what I'm talking about regarding exaggerated contrast issue):
BTW, the middle one (13) is my favorite out of these..
just developed/scanned half of that roll: Tri-X shot at E.I. 1600 during my friend's wedding. Processed in HC-110 dill. H according to Dev.Chart whicih suggests 16 minutes for dill B in 20 deg. C. Assuming linear behavior of the developer, I took 32 minutes for dill. H with moderate agitation such as: slow continuous for the first 30 seconds, then 2 turns upside down each subsequent 3 minute interval.
The place was lit by bulbs (that was garden) which explains potentially hard contrast.
Many of the frames out of 14 developed so far exhibit somewhat exaggerated contrast indeed (at least to my eyes), so perhaps it would be wise to adjust the approach in order to restrain a bit the contrast. Other images show more balanced results though.
Next will follow several frames that show what I'm talking about regarding exaggerated contrast issue):
BTW, the middle one (13) is my favorite out of these..
Attachments
Last edited:
alexz
Well-known
alexz
Well-known
alexz
Well-known
And now few of those that exhibit marginally high but yet acceptable one (probably squeezing out of the film as much as it can handle in such conditions):
Overall, did pertty nice considering my first attempt. I'l have to refine slightly my approach in otder to restrain a bit mor of highlights.
Now, I'm off to process the second half of that roll, now will do the same 32 minutes but with modest agitation: probably single turn every 5 minutes (aside of usual 30 first seconds of continuous).
Will report further..
Overall, did pertty nice considering my first attempt. I'l have to refine slightly my approach in otder to restrain a bit mor of highlights.
Now, I'm off to process the second half of that roll, now will do the same 32 minutes but with modest agitation: probably single turn every 5 minutes (aside of usual 30 first seconds of continuous).
Will report further..
Attachments
tajart
ancien
hc110h
hc110h
from what i see on the monitor i have to say i'm pretty impressed. i like hc110 dil h too, though i've been using hp5+ rated @200 to try for extended tonality.
so, when i first looked at your thread i thought to suggest, as many here have in the past, why not try diafine, which with tri-x people seem to recommend 1250-1600...but then i looked at your images and i thought, yeah, hc100/h rocks!
hc110h
from what i see on the monitor i have to say i'm pretty impressed. i like hc110 dil h too, though i've been using hp5+ rated @200 to try for extended tonality.
so, when i first looked at your thread i thought to suggest, as many here have in the past, why not try diafine, which with tri-x people seem to recommend 1250-1600...but then i looked at your images and i thought, yeah, hc100/h rocks!
alexz
Well-known
Thanks. In fact I'm aware about Diafine and the other one (forgot the name) developers aimed for push, but I remember people also used the regular HC-110 for that with good results, and I'd like to minimize on the variables and try to sqeeze as much as I can from a snigle film/developer combination. So far I like what I get from Tri-X at 200 and 400 all in HC-110, so thought probably it will also work for push. It appears I'm on the right track...just a bit fine tuning...
Perhaps in some foresabel future I'll try out one of these particular pushing developers. Just curious how good they can be for pushed Tri-X comrapative to HC-110...
Perhaps in some foresabel future I'll try out one of these particular pushing developers. Just curious how good they can be for pushed Tri-X comrapative to HC-110...
tajart
ancien
i've got a roll of plus-x in the camera this weekend (@400) with plans for diafine (i'm still experimenting w diafine in part because of limited darkroom set up). but i have to agree that learning all you can about one developer makes a lot of sense.
i keep coming back to hc110.
i keep coming back to hc110.
alexz
Well-known
latest update:
two examles of teh same roll, same processing except of more modest agitation - as usual continuous one durign first half minute, then single turn over each 5 minutes (32 minutes of total dev. time in dill. H)
This time apparently nailed the point. Highlights are kept reasonably restrained.
Perhaps the valid approach in a botom line would be as above but to make things a bit more even: an agitation os single turn over each 4 minutes (then we have 8 even intervals throughout entire 32 min. dev. session).
two examles of teh same roll, same processing except of more modest agitation - as usual continuous one durign first half minute, then single turn over each 5 minutes (32 minutes of total dev. time in dill. H)
This time apparently nailed the point. Highlights are kept reasonably restrained.
Perhaps the valid approach in a botom line would be as above but to make things a bit more even: an agitation os single turn over each 4 minutes (then we have 8 even intervals throughout entire 32 min. dev. session).
Attachments
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Alex,
Nice work. I am working on the same project with Tri-X except I am working with D76 since that is most readily available developer here in Sydney.
Lately I have been pushing Tri-X with D76 1:1. I am quite pleased with the results.
1600 -
Nikon F with Nikkor 135mm f2.0 AI-s on Tri-X EI 1600 - D76 1:1
Exposure - 1/30 sec @ f2.0
Developed at 20°C(68°F) for 13:15 with standard Kodak agitations.
3200-
Bessa R2 with APO-L 90mm f3.5 on Tri-X EI 3200 - D76 1:1
Exposure - 1/125 sec @ f4.0
Development was 16:00 minutes at 20°C(68°F) in D76 1:1. I modified the agitation to 5 slow inversions at the beginning. Then I used 3 slow inversions over 10 secs at the beginning of each minute till I reached 13 minutes. I left the film in the tank to stand develop till 16:00 minutes.
Nice work. I am working on the same project with Tri-X except I am working with D76 since that is most readily available developer here in Sydney.
Lately I have been pushing Tri-X with D76 1:1. I am quite pleased with the results.
1600 -
Nikon F with Nikkor 135mm f2.0 AI-s on Tri-X EI 1600 - D76 1:1
Exposure - 1/30 sec @ f2.0
Developed at 20°C(68°F) for 13:15 with standard Kodak agitations.
3200-
Bessa R2 with APO-L 90mm f3.5 on Tri-X EI 3200 - D76 1:1
Exposure - 1/125 sec @ f4.0
Development was 16:00 minutes at 20°C(68°F) in D76 1:1. I modified the agitation to 5 slow inversions at the beginning. Then I used 3 slow inversions over 10 secs at the beginning of each minute till I reached 13 minutes. I left the film in the tank to stand develop till 16:00 minutes.
Last edited:
alexz
Well-known
Looks good in D76 as well.
I'm willing to try also the highly diluted semi-stand development in HC-110 as was advised in related threads for ISO 1600 of Tri-X, perhaps it will provide somewhat more relaxed tone curve at the puch.
I'm willing to try also the highly diluted semi-stand development in HC-110 as was advised in related threads for ISO 1600 of Tri-X, perhaps it will provide somewhat more relaxed tone curve at the puch.
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
I would like to see your HC-110 results, please post when you get a chance.
alexz
Well-known
Sure, I already attached the fwe examples earlier in this thread for two agit. regimes (2 turns per 3 minutes and 1 turn per 5 minutes, all in HC-110 dill. H for 32 minutes at 20 deg.C)P. Lynn Miller said:
Here I attach my final approach for 32 minutes: one single turn over per 4 minutes:
Attachments
Last edited:
alexz
Well-known
What I'm not really fond of is the appearance of the frames where low contrast is prominent (like flat indoors lighting in large halls). Images appear quite grainy and somewha "dirty".
It appears for flat, low contrast situations Tri-X push to 1600 in HC-110 processed as I did isn't most appropriate, however it seems to work better for high contrast situations.
I'll be trying low-dillution semi-stand approach for both, low and high contrast situation to see how it will turn out...
It appears for flat, low contrast situations Tri-X push to 1600 in HC-110 processed as I did isn't most appropriate, however it seems to work better for high contrast situations.
I'll be trying low-dillution semi-stand approach for both, low and high contrast situation to see how it will turn out...
Attachments
charjohncarter
Veteran
alexz, I like what I see. Maybe cut the dilution h in half, double the develop time. And just let it stand. This may give you a little more shadows. I don't know just guessing. I've never pushed film before. Be sure there is enough syrup to develop a roll of film.
alexz
Well-known
Yes John, I remember an RFF fellow (can't recall the name) advied on highly dilluted semi-stand development in HC-110. I intend to try out this approach...(about 1.5 times more diluted solution then H for about 50 minutes with very modest agitation: once eah 5 minutes)...
mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
Alex,
I've long given up on Tri-X, because the shops in Jerusalem and Foto Film in Tel Aviv don't have it anymore. I'm getting excellent results with Tmax, which has a smooth grain pattern. See Link:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikegoldberg/1320606580/in/photostream/
Cheers, Mike
I've long given up on Tri-X, because the shops in Jerusalem and Foto Film in Tel Aviv don't have it anymore. I'm getting excellent results with Tmax, which has a smooth grain pattern. See Link:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikegoldberg/1320606580/in/photostream/
Cheers, Mike
40oz
...
good work, alexz. :thumbup:
On the "exaggerated contrast" shots, it appears the film had a bit less exposure. The foliage in the background, for instance, is mostly featureless black, while the white tables appear to show any present detail. Other shots from the same roll and development, under what *appears* to be similar lighting, shows more detail in the background while still not losing anything in the white shirts and tables. Obviously it's tough to get enough light onto the film when shooting at night. Especially when your subjects aren't standing still and posing.
I think you've nailed the developing. Your second set looks like either the developing was more appropriate for exposure, or the film consistently saw more light. Perhaps more agitation needs a bit more time, I don't know. But all of the shots look acceptable to me.
I have found that a bit of over-exposure relative to development results in more grain and "dirty" looking frames when pushing Tri-X in D-76. I see it alot when I try to use a red filter when shooting Tri-X at 1600 EI in daylight (something about film or meter sensitivity to red light, I'm guessing).
Thanks for sharing this, BTW. My D-76 is almost gone, and I have a bottle of HC110 I have only broke open once. I like your results better than my one time with HC110, and will be trying your times/dilutions myself.
On the "exaggerated contrast" shots, it appears the film had a bit less exposure. The foliage in the background, for instance, is mostly featureless black, while the white tables appear to show any present detail. Other shots from the same roll and development, under what *appears* to be similar lighting, shows more detail in the background while still not losing anything in the white shirts and tables. Obviously it's tough to get enough light onto the film when shooting at night. Especially when your subjects aren't standing still and posing.
I think you've nailed the developing. Your second set looks like either the developing was more appropriate for exposure, or the film consistently saw more light. Perhaps more agitation needs a bit more time, I don't know. But all of the shots look acceptable to me.
I have found that a bit of over-exposure relative to development results in more grain and "dirty" looking frames when pushing Tri-X in D-76. I see it alot when I try to use a red filter when shooting Tri-X at 1600 EI in daylight (something about film or meter sensitivity to red light, I'm guessing).
Thanks for sharing this, BTW. My D-76 is almost gone, and I have a bottle of HC110 I have only broke open once. I like your results better than my one time with HC110, and will be trying your times/dilutions myself.
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Alex: I would not have doubled the time to compensate for the EI 1600 setting, as I wouldn't have made the assumption of a linear relationship between exposure and development. But, you have shown that with the "correct" agitation scheme, it works. This give me an idea for my APX100 (as well as guidance on Tri-X "pushed") ... I'm going to reduce my agitation on shots that are high contrast. I use Rodinal 1:100, but the principle is the same. And I'm considering getting some HC-110 anyway.
Thanks for posting this.
Earl
Thanks for posting this.
Earl
alexz
Well-known
mike goldberg said:
Mike, I'm surprised you couldnt' figure Tri-X in the country. I buy one routinely from Jugend (TA), last time purchased a bunch of these amonth and half ago, apparently will be there again probaly this upcoming week to stock up on Tri-X again (probaly also take few Neopan 400 to try out). Moreover, Tri-X turns to be the cheapest of the all major 400 B&W films available locally, just about 13 NIS per roll.
In fact, I did try Tmax 400 as well and nailed it with HC-110 quickly. It does produce nice rendition, but I wasn't really discern any grain size difference worht of consideration between Tmax and Tri-X, so I stay with Tri-X for tis versatility (I can shoot one at 200, 400 or higher, while both 200 and 400 produce quality results).