alexz
Well-known
Well, this is my first step into "darkness" of wet darkroom and B&W in general...
, zero experience, lots of ambitions...., you know...
Anyway, have Tri-X 400 and bought Kodak HC-110 dev. syrop (half liter bottle).
Readign their HC-110 PDF the dev. time table suggests 3 3/4 min. for Tri-X 400 in dillution B (1:7). On teh other hand, there is the Note mentioning that development time less then 5 min may lead to an unsatisfactory uniformity...doesn't that sound like a contradiction ?
Besides, researching net a bit, I figured numerous reports claiming that Kodak tables recommended time is indeed too short and many advise for considerably longer development time (some up to as much as twice the recommended in the tables) for particular dillution and film.
So, where the truth lies ?
, zero experience, lots of ambitions...., you know...Anyway, have Tri-X 400 and bought Kodak HC-110 dev. syrop (half liter bottle).
Readign their HC-110 PDF the dev. time table suggests 3 3/4 min. for Tri-X 400 in dillution B (1:7). On teh other hand, there is the Note mentioning that development time less then 5 min may lead to an unsatisfactory uniformity...doesn't that sound like a contradiction ?
Besides, researching net a bit, I figured numerous reports claiming that Kodak tables recommended time is indeed too short and many advise for considerably longer development time (some up to as much as twice the recommended in the tables) for particular dillution and film.
So, where the truth lies ?
John Bragg
Well-known
Hi, Alex.
There is much said and written about the Kodak time being too short. My personal preference is to develop in Dilution H which is half the strength of B and is the choice of many others with this excellent and versatile dev. I rate my film at EI200 and dev for 9mins at 20c. The results suit me and are 100% predictable. (useful link below)
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/
Best wishes in your endeavors,
John.
There is much said and written about the Kodak time being too short. My personal preference is to develop in Dilution H which is half the strength of B and is the choice of many others with this excellent and versatile dev. I rate my film at EI200 and dev for 9mins at 20c. The results suit me and are 100% predictable. (useful link below)
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/
Best wishes in your endeavors,
John.
Attachments
alexz
Well-known
Very nice picture John.
Well, yes I visited the link you provided and also http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html and all these seems to be confusing a bit:
Both agree that the actual dev. times must be longer then officially advertised by Kodak, both suggest dillution H which is as you mentioned half-strength of B. But
at http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/ they suggest 6.5 min (rated ISO 400) in dillution E (not H as they referred earlier) while on http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html the guy develops 9.5 min once rated at nominal (400) in dillution H. On the otчer hand you said your time is 9 min in H but rated ISO 200. Yet appears to be confusing to a newcomer....
Just to set the things up in my mind, I'll try to make it clear (starting point):
1. Tri-X rated at nominal (ISO 400), dillution H (half of B, yields 1:14 proprotion, 0.5 liter bottle European Kodak HC-110 syrop).
Dev. time = 9.5 min (with minimal agitation) according to http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html
Dev. time = 6.5 min ?? what agitation ? dillution E or H ? - this is according to http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/
If to follow "straight mind" - twice weaker dillution leads to twice longer dev. time, i.e. dillution H (1:14) leads to 3 3/4 x 2 = 7.5 min. Should it be a good starting point ?
2. Tri-X exposed at ISO 200 (1 stop pull). Dillution H, acording to your experience leads to about 9 min development. http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html takes approx. the same time for ISO 400 rated Tri-X, go figure....
But the idea of being able to shoot the same film at both 400 and 200 sounds very appealing to me. I tend to prefer 400 for general usage, but often, shooting at daylight wishing to have slower film loaded to allow wider apertures. Now, realizing that Tri-X can successfully handle both 400 and 200 will allow me to carry just one type of film and adjust in development (after working out corrent dev. time and dillution to settle on).
Well, yes I visited the link you provided and also http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html and all these seems to be confusing a bit:
Both agree that the actual dev. times must be longer then officially advertised by Kodak, both suggest dillution H which is as you mentioned half-strength of B. But
at http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/ they suggest 6.5 min (rated ISO 400) in dillution E (not H as they referred earlier) while on http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html the guy develops 9.5 min once rated at nominal (400) in dillution H. On the otчer hand you said your time is 9 min in H but rated ISO 200. Yet appears to be confusing to a newcomer....
Just to set the things up in my mind, I'll try to make it clear (starting point):
1. Tri-X rated at nominal (ISO 400), dillution H (half of B, yields 1:14 proprotion, 0.5 liter bottle European Kodak HC-110 syrop).
Dev. time = 9.5 min (with minimal agitation) according to http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html
Dev. time = 6.5 min ?? what agitation ? dillution E or H ? - this is according to http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/
If to follow "straight mind" - twice weaker dillution leads to twice longer dev. time, i.e. dillution H (1:14) leads to 3 3/4 x 2 = 7.5 min. Should it be a good starting point ?
2. Tri-X exposed at ISO 200 (1 stop pull). Dillution H, acording to your experience leads to about 9 min development. http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html takes approx. the same time for ISO 400 rated Tri-X, go figure....
But the idea of being able to shoot the same film at both 400 and 200 sounds very appealing to me. I tend to prefer 400 for general usage, but often, shooting at daylight wishing to have slower film loaded to allow wider apertures. Now, realizing that Tri-X can successfully handle both 400 and 200 will allow me to carry just one type of film and adjust in development (after working out corrent dev. time and dillution to settle on).
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Alex: As you are using a European bottling of HC-110, make absolutely sure which part# you are using, as detailed on the Covington site.
Also, re-read Mironchuk's page which emphasizes that his results are only his results under his conditions, including water. He describes how developing to his times in water at a friend's house the next town over gave TOTALLY different results. So the suggestions @ Covington and Mironchuk are suggestions for their conditions.
The latest iteration of Tri-X does seem to be faster than older emulsions. Whereas I used to shoot Tri-X @ 200, I now expose @ EI 250. Not a big jump, but I haven't really done formal testing so I suspect that if I did, I might adjust that to 320 or even 400. But 250 is working for me right now, so I'll stick with it until I do more rigorous testing. Also, sooting at the lower EI works particularly well for diffusion and cold light enlarging; IOW, you need to calibrate how you work with Tri-X to the entire workflow.
If you have already exposed Tri-X @400, then I would use Dil. H @ ~9.5 or 10 min, AS A STARTING POINT. (Our friend GeneW shoots Tri-X @ 400 and develops in HC-110, 1:100 for 21 min... that's another approach.)
I have to run to work, I'll check in this evening.
Earl
Also, re-read Mironchuk's page which emphasizes that his results are only his results under his conditions, including water. He describes how developing to his times in water at a friend's house the next town over gave TOTALLY different results. So the suggestions @ Covington and Mironchuk are suggestions for their conditions.
The latest iteration of Tri-X does seem to be faster than older emulsions. Whereas I used to shoot Tri-X @ 200, I now expose @ EI 250. Not a big jump, but I haven't really done formal testing so I suspect that if I did, I might adjust that to 320 or even 400. But 250 is working for me right now, so I'll stick with it until I do more rigorous testing. Also, sooting at the lower EI works particularly well for diffusion and cold light enlarging; IOW, you need to calibrate how you work with Tri-X to the entire workflow.
If you have already exposed Tri-X @400, then I would use Dil. H @ ~9.5 or 10 min, AS A STARTING POINT. (Our friend GeneW shoots Tri-X @ 400 and develops in HC-110, 1:100 for 21 min... that's another approach.)
I have to run to work, I'll check in this evening.
Earl
mr_phillip
Well-known
My favourite combo for Tri-X is to rate it at 400ASA and develop in HC-110 dilution b for 6 1/2 minutes (20 degrees celcius, 10 seconds agitation per minute).
Examples here.
Examples here.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
I'm with Trius - for "normal" shooting, I rate my TriX at 250 with HC110.
I personally use the unofficial dilution of 1:100 at about twice the times for Dillution H. Roughly 20 minutes dev.
Works very well for pushing, when using a semi-stand processing technique. ie. agitate by inversion 4 times, then let it rest for 5 minutes, agitate again, let it rest, etc.)
I personally use the unofficial dilution of 1:100 at about twice the times for Dillution H. Roughly 20 minutes dev.
Works very well for pushing, when using a semi-stand processing technique. ie. agitate by inversion 4 times, then let it rest for 5 minutes, agitate again, let it rest, etc.)
John Bragg
Well-known
Hi, Alex.
I too learned a lot from both links, but bear in mind that Greg Mironchuk does his souping at 24c. I too started at 7.5 mins for 400 asa but my shadows lacked density so I changed to EI 200 and things improved dramatically
Best , John.
I too learned a lot from both links, but bear in mind that Greg Mironchuk does his souping at 24c. I too started at 7.5 mins for 400 asa but my shadows lacked density so I changed to EI 200 and things improved dramatically
Best , John.
Santafecino
button man
You really need to decide your development time based on the contrast level that suits your printing system. For me, printing onto Ilford Ilfobrom variable contrast paper with a cold light enlarger--i.e., completely nondigital--it suits to develop in HC-110 dilution B for 5 min at 68 F. It took a few experimental runs focused on the Zone 8 density to arrive at that number. Yes, it may vary with changes in the film. But for me, the lesson is that you can't decide development time without reference to your whole picture-making system, and you need to focus on exactly what your standard is. It isn't a general feeling. For me, it is the time that produces an almost-white print tone when exposed at zone 8.
alexz
Well-known
Wow, some wonderful images there, very gentle gray tones gradations and rouchy images, thanks a lot for sharing.mr_phillip said:
Your solution appears to serve as a good starting point for me, will follow that for my first time being...BTW, do you agitate as you mentioned right from teh start or do somewhat prolonged agitation during the first minute (as many suggest) ?
What B dilution do you mean ? For Europena HC-110 syrop as (half liter bottles, cat. 500 1466) as per Kodak (1:7) or per
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/ (also for European syrop): 1:9 ?
Also, will try John's approach of 9 min in dil. H once exposed at ISO 200 (handful at times), or perhaps will prefer to standartise on single dillution varying times (for nominal ISO and pulled).
BTW, guys, what you usually mean by agitation: just a slowish circular revolving of the tank in your hand or top/bottom inversions ?
Ah, one small note - analog printing it out of my reach - all my films undergo scanning and then printing (if reasonable which isn't very often with my unfortunate hit rate) from files.
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
I found the 'new' Tri-X times to be off. I develop Tri-X at 10:45 min/sec, 68 degrees, HC110h, 30 seconds agitation then 3 inversions every minute, this is for Tri-X rated at 200. At 400 everything the same but 13:30 min/secs. Dilution h is half of dilution b so if you use b cut these times in half. Here is one that I recently did in full sun with no filter. http://www.flickr.com/photos/8178676@N04/502669696/
mr_phillip
Well-known
alexz said:
Thanks
I forgot to mention that I agitate constantly for the first minute, then it's the 10 seconds per minute thereafter.
I always use the full-strength 1ltr bottles (it works out cheaper in the long run), so dilution b to me is 1:31. For the 1/2ltr bottles just mix it 1:9 to get the same dilution.
My agitation method is a simple invertion with a slight twist of the wrist in the same movement. One full invertion and return takes about five seconds, so I only do two per minute.
alexz
Well-known
charjohncarter said:
OK, your method sounds to fit inline with mr_phillip's one considering you use dilution H which is wtice as weaker then B, thereby making your times about twice as longer the of mr_phillip's. These are good news, I like consistancy...
40oz
...
According my 2002 revised Kodak Black & White Darkroom Dataguide, Tri-X 400 TX in HC-110 Dilution B is 7.5 mins. at 68* F.
All the times given by the book line up with the times given in the following document for "TRI-X Pan / TX," not "PROFFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 Film / 400TX."
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...24/j24.jhtml?id=0.2.22.14.18.14.7.22.14&lc=en
I'm not sure where the confusion in the PDF comes from. The PDF is dated October 2002, while the dataguide is the 6th edition, revised 2002 according to the title page. I find it hard to believe the dataguide was revised in 2002 with no knowledge of a pending change in Tri-X 400 rollfilm.
I just got of the phone with a support rep at Kodak, and he told me that the old times for Tri-X (7.5 mins @ 68*) was valid, but the new time (3.75 mins. at 68*) resulted in a lower contrast that matched the contrast of their other B&W products. If you had been using the "old" Tri-X, you can use the same times for the new Tri-X (suggested adjustment is only 6%) in the same chemicals. If you've never used Tri-X 400TX before, using dilution B for 7.5 minutes will give you higher contrast than you'd see with say, T-MAX400 in HC-110 dil. B @ 6 minutes. If you want the contrast to be the same for all your films using Kodak recommended times as a starting point, you would want to use a weaker dilution of HC-110 to get the time to something over 5 mins. (based on the "new" 3.75 mins., and adjusted accordingly) or use a different developer for Tri-X 400TX.
He did say that it would be perfectly reasonable to use the times for dil. A and dil. B to arrive at a time for a new dil. Z, with the caveat that these are all "starting times," that would be adjusted for your taste. Say, 1+63, syrup to water, for 7.5 mins (half the dilution of B for twice the time). Again, that would acheive a lower contrast than using the times given in the past. It sounds like the new Tri-X is not much different than the old, but the new development times reflect an effort to align the contrast of the film to the contrast standard of other Kodak products.
All the times given by the book line up with the times given in the following document for "TRI-X Pan / TX," not "PROFFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 Film / 400TX."
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...24/j24.jhtml?id=0.2.22.14.18.14.7.22.14&lc=en
I'm not sure where the confusion in the PDF comes from. The PDF is dated October 2002, while the dataguide is the 6th edition, revised 2002 according to the title page. I find it hard to believe the dataguide was revised in 2002 with no knowledge of a pending change in Tri-X 400 rollfilm.
I just got of the phone with a support rep at Kodak, and he told me that the old times for Tri-X (7.5 mins @ 68*) was valid, but the new time (3.75 mins. at 68*) resulted in a lower contrast that matched the contrast of their other B&W products. If you had been using the "old" Tri-X, you can use the same times for the new Tri-X (suggested adjustment is only 6%) in the same chemicals. If you've never used Tri-X 400TX before, using dilution B for 7.5 minutes will give you higher contrast than you'd see with say, T-MAX400 in HC-110 dil. B @ 6 minutes. If you want the contrast to be the same for all your films using Kodak recommended times as a starting point, you would want to use a weaker dilution of HC-110 to get the time to something over 5 mins. (based on the "new" 3.75 mins., and adjusted accordingly) or use a different developer for Tri-X 400TX.
He did say that it would be perfectly reasonable to use the times for dil. A and dil. B to arrive at a time for a new dil. Z, with the caveat that these are all "starting times," that would be adjusted for your taste. Say, 1+63, syrup to water, for 7.5 mins (half the dilution of B for twice the time). Again, that would acheive a lower contrast than using the times given in the past. It sounds like the new Tri-X is not much different than the old, but the new development times reflect an effort to align the contrast of the film to the contrast standard of other Kodak products.
Last edited:
nightfly
Well-known
I use Tri-X at 1:50 for 7.5 minutes. Makes everything simple, not sure what Kodak letter dilution this equals but it works really well for both 35mm and 120.
I don't really use HC-110 anymore in 35 because I prefer the punch and graininess of Rodinal at 1:25, but the fuller more pleasing tones that HC-110 brings out are nice for certain subject matter like landscapes.
I don't really use HC-110 anymore in 35 because I prefer the punch and graininess of Rodinal at 1:25, but the fuller more pleasing tones that HC-110 brings out are nice for certain subject matter like landscapes.
John Bragg
Well-known
My agitation regime (with Dilution H), is as follows, 30 secs continous or about 15 inversions, followed by only 2 gentle inversions at the start of each subsequent minute. This seems to build some density fairly quickly overall, and then the more gentle approach allows shadows to develop fully whilst keeping highlight density within a reasonably normal contrast. In my personal experience, this suits my printing style and equipment, allowing a range of interpretations from a negative containing all the tones required, from a full black, to textured whites. I no longer struggle to make the neg fit the paper as I once did with dilution B and a more conventional agitation regime of 10 secs per minute. That is just what works for me, and as Mironchuck says, those are my times, and it is ok to get results that differ.
Regards, John.
Regards, John.