alexz
Well-known
Will be souping two rolls of Plus-X in HC-110, checked Massive Dev. Chart for times - appears to be a bit controversary info.
For dill. B, suggested are 3.5 minutes for E.I 125-250 or 5 minutes for E.I. 125.
I exposed at 125.
So, should I take 7 minutes or 10 at dill. H ? (temp. is 20 deg. C, my regular, modest agitation)
I remember I did one roll of it some time ago following their recommendation for 5 minutes (thus did 10 minutes in H) - if my memory serves me well, obtained excessively contrasty negs. Perhaps should I start with 8.5 minutes ?
What user's experience tell us ?
Thanks, Alex
For dill. B, suggested are 3.5 minutes for E.I 125-250 or 5 minutes for E.I. 125.
I exposed at 125.
So, should I take 7 minutes or 10 at dill. H ? (temp. is 20 deg. C, my regular, modest agitation)
I remember I did one roll of it some time ago following their recommendation for 5 minutes (thus did 10 minutes in H) - if my memory serves me well, obtained excessively contrasty negs. Perhaps should I start with 8.5 minutes ?
What user's experience tell us ?
Thanks, Alex
charjohncarter
Veteran
Hi alexz, my E.I. for Plus-X is 64 and I develop it in HC-110h for 12.5 minutes. I use 68 F, 30 seconds agitation at first then 3 inversions each minute. My negatives are contrasty but Plus-X is contrasty. It is kind of ironical that a slow speed film is best in low flat light. As you know, I like a lot of shadow detail, so this is the E.I. that I use and I try to use Plus-X on cloudy days in the winter. (Or inside a dark building.)
Here is one taken outdoors and in very bright sun light, but the subject, except of the light shinning though the holes in the equipment, was in the shade.
Here is one taken outdoors and in very bright sun light, but the subject, except of the light shinning though the holes in the equipment, was in the shade.
Attachments
Last edited:
alexz
Well-known
Thanks John, understood.
For a street stuff I figure even E.I 100 isn't always secure - we have quite extreem contrast here in Israel, even during bright daylight, shooting on streets one can easily found himself in deep shadows when the exposure suddently plummets from Sunny 16 (under open sunny skies) to f/4 - f/2.8. I found I can more easily handle such broad dispersion by ISO 400 films (or at least 200) while perserving highlights by an appropriate development. I considered Plus-X though to serve as a portraiture film at 100-125 range (however, now not sure, perhaps Tri-X at 200 will be ample enough for that).
I developed this night that roll of Plus-X (shot at 125) for 8.5 minutes in dill. H. Hopefully today evening will be scanning the roll....
For a street stuff I figure even E.I 100 isn't always secure - we have quite extreem contrast here in Israel, even during bright daylight, shooting on streets one can easily found himself in deep shadows when the exposure suddently plummets from Sunny 16 (under open sunny skies) to f/4 - f/2.8. I found I can more easily handle such broad dispersion by ISO 400 films (or at least 200) while perserving highlights by an appropriate development. I considered Plus-X though to serve as a portraiture film at 100-125 range (however, now not sure, perhaps Tri-X at 200 will be ample enough for that).
I developed this night that roll of Plus-X (shot at 125) for 8.5 minutes in dill. H. Hopefully today evening will be scanning the roll....
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Alex: If you need to control highlights with Plus X, I would definitely go with Dil. H, or even go to 1:100. Especially with Dil. H I would cut back on agitation. With all respect to John's regimen of 3 inversions every minute, which is a very common schedule, 3 inversions every 3 minutes would help reduce highlight development. On a test roll you might even try "stand" development, where no do not agitate at all after the initial agitation. Stand development is very common with Rodinal, but I don't recall reading any results from HC-110 with this method.
alexz
Well-known
Thanks.
Well, in fact I tuned by agitation technique to kind of modest mode with TriX and indeed considering similar approach for other films (if I ever will be trying them). I just do two gentle inversions per minute for regular E.I. or one single inversion at longer periods when push is necessary (single gentle inversion per 4 minutes when pushing Tri-X to 1600 in H for 32 minutes).
Of course, dill. H is my main one...
Well, in fact I tuned by agitation technique to kind of modest mode with TriX and indeed considering similar approach for other films (if I ever will be trying them). I just do two gentle inversions per minute for regular E.I. or one single inversion at longer periods when push is necessary (single gentle inversion per 4 minutes when pushing Tri-X to 1600 in H for 32 minutes).
Of course, dill. H is my main one...
charjohncarter
Veteran
Alexz, please post your results when you get them. I sort of gave up on Plus-X because of the 64 E.I. and the extreme contrast also with California skies (although they were not as bad as a Panamanian sky). Anyway, I have been using TMax 100 at E.I. 100 and dilution H. It is working well, less grain, I don't give up 2/3s of a stop, and I don't have the contrast.
alexz
Well-known
I will John (BTW, you may call me Alex, Z is the first eltter of my family name 
).
I'm still not sure whether I like Plus-X or not, i just was willing to explore slow B&W films and Plus-X was one of these at hand...
As I mentioned though, chances I'll be sticking to Tri-X for all slow and medium speed stuff thanks for Tri-X great "pullability" to 200, and I really value that kind of versatility (single film for different lights). I'll probably add up Neopan 1600 in my arsenal for low-light stuff... (leaving Tri-X push to 800 or 1600 only in emergency cases).
BTW, I tried out Tmax 400, managed to nail down the development point right away (just straight Massive Dev. Chart advise adjusted to dill. H) - made very balanced negs. However, under close inspection on the screen in PS, I wasn't able to note any significant grain difference between Tmax 400 and Tri-X (perhaps very slight one, doesn't warrant consideration), so I decided to stick with Tri-X.
Having said that, what I may consider is Tri-X shot at 200 in Perceptol...
).I'm still not sure whether I like Plus-X or not, i just was willing to explore slow B&W films and Plus-X was one of these at hand...
As I mentioned though, chances I'll be sticking to Tri-X for all slow and medium speed stuff thanks for Tri-X great "pullability" to 200, and I really value that kind of versatility (single film for different lights). I'll probably add up Neopan 1600 in my arsenal for low-light stuff... (leaving Tri-X push to 800 or 1600 only in emergency cases).
BTW, I tried out Tmax 400, managed to nail down the development point right away (just straight Massive Dev. Chart advise adjusted to dill. H) - made very balanced negs. However, under close inspection on the screen in PS, I wasn't able to note any significant grain difference between Tmax 400 and Tri-X (perhaps very slight one, doesn't warrant consideration), so I decided to stick with Tri-X.
Having said that, what I may consider is Tri-X shot at 200 in Perceptol...