newtorf
Established
Recently I've developed a few rolls of Arista Premium 400 (rebranded Tri-X) that I shot in 2016 and put away on shelf without freezing. The expiration date of the films is 2013 -- they had always been frozen before I shot them.
I tried normal development for several rolls and pull development two rolls (just curious) in the past week but the results were just "boring" (a.k.a. normal). So yesterday I decided to experiment stand development with HC-110.
It has been well established that one roll of 36 exp 35mm film requires minimal 3ml HC-110 syrup for one shot development. Typically, I used dilution H and made 480ml developer solution from 7.5ml syrup. This solution allowed me to develop two rolls of 36 exp 35mm film in a 500ml stainless steel tank. It had worked very well in the past.
Call me cheap, I have always been wondering whether it is possible to use even less syrup, which would cut my negligible cost on the developer even further! I know many of you probably are already rolling your eyes at me. That's OK. Heck, even if it fails, it's just a small lesson of don't be cheap!
The true reason to use even less syrup is to make further dilution and still fit into the 500ml stainless steel tank. So after researching a lot online with no conclusive result, I decided to conduct an experiment yesterday.
I diluted 5ml syrup into 500ml developer AND soaked two rolls of 36 exp 35mm films. The temperature at the beginning of the development was 70F. After initial agitation of 30 seconds, I put the tank in the refrigerator for 40 minutes. At 20 minutes mark, I gently agitated the tank twice.
The result floors me! The contrast, the well-controlled highlight, the deep shadow, and the grain are among the best I've ever got out of Tri-X. The pictures really shine in front of the other rolls developed last week. The only flaw that I can see is some small highlight at the edge of some pictures, which looks like a bit light leak. I got this similar issue a few years ago when I tried stand development with Rodinal. Haven't figured out how to solve it.
At this moment, it is hard to say whether it's because the subjects of these two rolls were well thought through to make the pictures stand out, or the development method is the magic bullet. But I will definitely try this method again -- still have several rolls of Agfa APX 100 and Plus-X to go!
I tried normal development for several rolls and pull development two rolls (just curious) in the past week but the results were just "boring" (a.k.a. normal). So yesterday I decided to experiment stand development with HC-110.
It has been well established that one roll of 36 exp 35mm film requires minimal 3ml HC-110 syrup for one shot development. Typically, I used dilution H and made 480ml developer solution from 7.5ml syrup. This solution allowed me to develop two rolls of 36 exp 35mm film in a 500ml stainless steel tank. It had worked very well in the past.
Call me cheap, I have always been wondering whether it is possible to use even less syrup, which would cut my negligible cost on the developer even further! I know many of you probably are already rolling your eyes at me. That's OK. Heck, even if it fails, it's just a small lesson of don't be cheap!
The true reason to use even less syrup is to make further dilution and still fit into the 500ml stainless steel tank. So after researching a lot online with no conclusive result, I decided to conduct an experiment yesterday.
I diluted 5ml syrup into 500ml developer AND soaked two rolls of 36 exp 35mm films. The temperature at the beginning of the development was 70F. After initial agitation of 30 seconds, I put the tank in the refrigerator for 40 minutes. At 20 minutes mark, I gently agitated the tank twice.
The result floors me! The contrast, the well-controlled highlight, the deep shadow, and the grain are among the best I've ever got out of Tri-X. The pictures really shine in front of the other rolls developed last week. The only flaw that I can see is some small highlight at the edge of some pictures, which looks like a bit light leak. I got this similar issue a few years ago when I tried stand development with Rodinal. Haven't figured out how to solve it.
At this moment, it is hard to say whether it's because the subjects of these two rolls were well thought through to make the pictures stand out, or the development method is the magic bullet. But I will definitely try this method again -- still have several rolls of Agfa APX 100 and Plus-X to go!
Attachments
newtorf
Established
A few samples:
x-ray
Veteran
Not to hurt your or anyones feelings but this technique for average scenes turns a potentially nice image into something dead and lifeless. Stand development would work if you have a scene with way more contrast in it than typical development and film could handle. Perhaps if you have 12 stops or more of dynamic range that you're tying to hold information in.
newtorf
Established
x-ray
Veteran
It hurts. But I like the results.
That’s really all that matters.
shawn
Veteran
Fomapan 100 (120)
Ilford HP5 (120)
Fomapan 100 (120)
Tri-X (35mm)
Fomapan 200 (35mm)
All stand developed in HC-110. 68 degrees (then room temp) 100:1 for 60 minutes with 4 inversions at the start and at the 30 minute mark.
Shawn
newtorf
Established
KenR
Well-known
Nice results. You can always increase the contrast a bit if you want to; much easier than decreasing contrast especially if there is nothing in the shadows. But why did you put the tank in the refrigerator if the developer was at 70 degrees when you began?
shawn
Veteran
charjohncarter
Veteran
I've used Ansel Adam's semi-stand HC-110 development method a few times. I have only used it on rolls from the sunny beach in Mexico (High Contrast). But I have to say I can't really see a great difference between AA's method and my usual method, I do use minimal agitation.
mconnealy
Well-known
charjohncarter
Veteran
That is a good article. He does touch on Rodinal a bit, but I've found Rodinal to be too prone to uneven development (when doing stand development).
Like the author I like HC-110 but when it comes to stand or semi-stand I only use it for high contrast situations (as x-ray pointed out).
I've posted this many times here (John Sexton's), but it is also a good article on the use of high dilution HC-110 in high and very high contrast scenes.
http://johnsexton.com/images/Compensating_Development.pdf
newtorf
Established
newtorf
Established
Freakscene
Obscure member
I like 6mL of HC-110 in 500mL of water with minimal agitation as an approach to developing high contrast scenes. I always stick to 6mL per roll - I have had under- and uneven development with less, but usually only with TMX and high key scenes.
I'd also point out that this is a trial, not an experiment - you do not appear to have done a different thing as a point of comparison. That makes it hard to understand the effect.
shawn's photos look great - I'd be interested to see how much post processing was used, but again dilute HC-110 is a good way to develop Foma 200.
Marty
I'd also point out that this is a trial, not an experiment - you do not appear to have done a different thing as a point of comparison. That makes it hard to understand the effect.
shawn's photos look great - I'd be interested to see how much post processing was used, but again dilute HC-110 is a good way to develop Foma 200.
Marty
John Bragg
Well-known
My preferred developer has been HC-110 for the last 25 years. Like @Charjohncarter I use minimal agitation but not to the extent of semi stand or full stand. I use ei200 and dilution H and I give 15 seconds initial agitation followed by 2 invertions at 1/3 mark and 2 more at 2/3 of the total time. My times for Tri-X and HP5+ are both 12 minutes @ 20°C. Lately I have also been highly impressed with the results from Ilford Ilfosol 3 @ 1:9 dilution. Similar results obtained with time of 6 minutes @ 20°C. Same agitation regime as detailed above, except comparable results in half the time. Also very sharp and lovely tones. Examples below.
The Quiet Man by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr
Derelict Car by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr
Cake by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr
The Quiet Man by E.J. Bragg, on FlickrDerelict Car by E.J. Bragg, on FlickrCake by E.J. Bragg, on Flickrshawn
Veteran
Thanks, post processing is a good question. Took a look at the first one (Fomapan 100) to double check. That is a 617 negative so to digitize it was three shots from a Sony A7RII. Those were panoramic blended in LR6 to produce a 96.6mp negative image. I used Negative Lab Pro to invert. For that shot I set the Tones to Cinematic Rich and 'soft highs' was selected and Lab Sharpening. No other changes in Negative Lab Pro and no other processing beyond that. Full size here.
I think for the HP5 I did a little more with the shadows/highlights sliders in LR after the NLP conversion.
Shawn
BernardL
Well-known
Dan
Let's Sway
I agree, up to a point. The mid-tones are lovely and a little bleach followed by a selenium-toning bath will make the dead come back to life.
chrism
Well-known
I normally use HC-110 as 1+50, just because the arithmetic is simpler than 1+49!), but by chance yesterday I looked at some of the cheat sheets I have pinned to the inside of the cupboard door where I keep developing supplies. One of them was for semi-stand development with HC-110, using 1+125, using times of one hour for ISO400, with an extra 30 mins for every stop of increased film speed after that - so 1.5hrs for ISO800, 2hrs for ISO1600. An example using TMax 400:
