Pushing Tmax 400 to 1600 and 3200 with HC-110

[ibcrewin]

I am playing around with pushing some tmax 400 to 1600 and 3200 with HC-110. I would like to use xtol or microphen, but since I am broke and this was the donor developer I have, I'm going with hc110. Any suggestions on start times? Agitation? Dilutions?

Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

Ivan

 

[ruben]

definitely. For each subsequent ISO push, multiply your time for Tmax400 x 125%. This will give you ISO 800 push. Take this latest time and again multiply per 125% and so forth.

Of course, this will work only if your time/developer for Tmax film is accurate.

-----------

As for my own experience in pushing Tmax 400, my conclusions are that one push is undisguisable. At iso 1600 Tmax 400 will be easily defeated by Neopan 1600, and somewhat challenged (depending on your taste for grain and contrast) by Tri X pushed to 1600.
Out of these tests I made a cardboard with the 10x12 inches prints showing the above conclusions.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[ibcrewin]

You know what.. I'm about two frames in at ISO1600.. I think I'm going to cut my losses and either wait for some microphen or just go for the neopan 1600.

I haven't heard too many good things about pushing with hc100. I should save the developer.


Thanks Ruben!

 

[40oz]

Don't worry about it. Take pictures with the film and developer you have.

Honestly, there is ALWAYS something better than what you have. Once you have the "perfect" film and developer, why bother taking any shots until you have the "perfect" camera and lenses?

Just use what you've got. The difference between Tri-X and TMAX400 at 1600 is subjective, not objective. The difference between developers is meaningless until you know how to use at least one.

If you haven't heard "good things" about HC-110, it's not because it's bad - it's been used for ages for a reason, with legions of quiet fans. Raving about HC-110 would be like raving about water - it just works and is very versatile 🙂 You will see zero benefit from Microphen if you haven't used anything else. What is "better" for one person is simply better for them. I've never, ever heard someone criticize a photograph because of the developer used. Or even the film.

TMAX400 pushes nicely, but it has a different "look" than Tri-X. You don't need Neopan 1600 to shoot at 1600 or 3200 EI. It's worth learning how to use TMAX at those speeds, especially if you want to use a faster film. You lose range but are often shooting in contrasty lighting, so you get a better sense of how to capture what you want in a scene. This, in my experience, improves your exposure with any film - you get much better at identifying differences in lighting and how those differences get translated onto film.

I shoot Tri-X right now, but some of my favorite low-light pushed shots are on TMAX400. I think Tri-X might have more usable range when pushed to 1600 or more, but it's not a big difference, and certainly not one I would consider a deal-breaker.

FWIW, Kodak suggests 7.5 mins. in HC-110 (dil. B) for TMAX400 shot at 1600. I'd start there. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[charjohncarter]

Why would you think that HC-110 would not do just as good a job as any other developer (especially if you have established an ISO/EI for Tmax400)? I do Tmax400 (at 250) (extrapolate from there) at 12 minutes, 30 seconds agitation to start then 3 inversions every minutes, and i do this at 68F (HC-110h). I like my negatives a little overdeveloped, so adjust. (So you have time/temp/agitation.)

 

[ibcrewin]

Why would you think that HC-110 would not do just as good a job as any other developer (especially if you have established an ISO/EI for Tmax400)? I do Tmax400 (at 250) (extrapolate from there) at 12 minutes, 30 seconds agitation to start then 3 inversions every minutes, and i do this at 68F (HC-110h). I like my negatives a little overdeveloped, so adjust. (So you have time/temp/agitation.)

Maybe i'll try that with a 12 frame roll. Doesn't the grain get out of control with hc110? I've read that xtol and microphen are generally prefered so as to control the grain.

 

[charjohncarter]

I don't know about 1600 but at 250 it is fine. Here is one taken at 250 indoors, handheld. Developed 11.5 minutes HC-110h and as above.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=67137&ppuser=8685

 

[ruben]

Don't worry about it. Take pictures with the film and developer you have.

Honestly, there is ALWAYS something better than what you have. Once you have the "perfect" film and developer, why bother taking any shots until you have the "perfect" camera and lenses?

Just use what you've got. The difference between Tri-X and TMAX400 at 1600 is subjective, not objective. The difference between developers is meaningless until you know how to use at least one.

If you haven't heard "good things" about HC-110, it's not because it's bad - it's been used for ages for a reason, with legions of quiet fans. Raving about HC-110 would be like raving about water - it just works and is very versatile 🙂 You will see zero benefit from Microphen if you haven't used anything else. What is "better" for one person is simply better for them. I've never, ever heard someone criticize a photograph because of the developer used. Or even the film.

TMAX400 pushes nicely, but it has a different "look" than Tri-X. You don't need Neopan 1600 to shoot at 1600 or 3200 EI. It's worth learning how to use TMAX at those speeds, especially if you want to use a faster film. You lose range but are often shooting in contrasty lighting, so you get a better sense of how to capture what you want in a scene. This, in my experience, improves your exposure with any film - you get much better at identifying differences in lighting and how those differences get translated onto film.

I shoot Tri-X right now, but some of my favorite low-light pushed shots are on TMAX400. I think Tri-X might have more usable range when pushed to 1600 or more, but it's not a big difference, and certainly not one I would consider a deal-breaker.

FWIW, Kodak suggests 7.5 mins. in HC-110 (dil. B) for TMAX400 shot at 1600. I'd start there. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Hi 40oz,
I find myself very much in agreement with you. Upon the poster saying he is playing I went for the best results angle, but you are right from the practical point of view.

Yet two reservations. If you definitely know you will be using ISO 1600 for some time, it makes sense to buy Neopan 1600 and learn to refine your processing. If you don't know what will you be using, it makes sense to buy Tmax, or Tri-X. (Tri-x for sunlight, Tmax for rainy or clouded days)

The second issue concerns Kodak's time recomendations. With Israeli water and M.E. climate, and at Jerusalem hills, Kodak's time recomendations are cathastrophically wrong towards overdeveloping.

Paradoxically, Ilford's time recomendations under the same conditions, show accurate to last detail.

No wonder the Brits arrived to the Middle East first.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[40oz]

Maybe i'll try that with a 12 frame roll. Doesn't the grain get out of control with hc110? I've read that xtol and microphen are generally prefered so as to control the grain.

Just try it first. As you can see, people are fond of whatever. Some will always rate film slower than ISO, some gag at any deviation from box speed, some won't take a shot without "testing" and exhaustive analysis, and some make an art out of pushing films. Some people even make an effort to learn how to use a single film in all kinds of lighting, learning how far one can push or pull a film so they can use it to it's full extent to capture what they want on a negative.

One person's idea of "out of control grain" is another's "fine-grained and very sharp." you can't take someone else's word on what you will like. And HC-110 is so cheap to use I can't see "saving it" for anything.

Here's a link to a gallery pic I shot at 1600 and dev'd in HC-110. it was stand development, and the first and only time I tried that method. I'm not super fond of the results in this image, but it will at least let you see what the grain looks like and the general efficacy of pushing in HC-110. Granted, not using stand development will improve things, and a small amount of experiementation with exposure and dev time will easily benefit your images.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=54204&ppuser=4407

Bottom line? IMHO HC-110 is fine for pushing film, you need to use it yourself to see if you like the results. I prefer D-76, but that's because I use it more often than HC-110. I have no doubt I could get what I wanted from HC-110 with equal effort.

 

[rogue_designer]

you can help control grain with HC-110 when pushing, by using stand and semi-stand development techniques.

A bigger problem here is using T-grain film. I don't like Tmax 400 in anything except Tmax developer. And it's reciprocity characteristics are pretty bad in general. I prefer TriX for high pushes.

But that's just me. Other people have great luck with it.

I'll be curious to see your results. Keep us posted.

 

[40oz]

No argument with your posts, Ruben. It's just that pushing film gets a different look than using a faster one. And controlling the appearance of the image on the negative is what it's all about. The term "better" is only in service to the image and how it represents the intent. The fact that another film might have better technical qualities is moot if the image sucks.

FWIW, Kodak times are "suggested starting times," acknowledging that preference varies and there are any number of factors that influence the negative.

As far as the Brits being first to the Middle East - they didn't have as far to go 🙂

 

[lZr]

TMAX at 1600, HC-110, dil B for 18 min.

 

[jackc]

The first one looks great. But the second one looks grainy. Are these both at 1600?