bert26
-
Hi,
I have been shooting Tri-X for quite some time and am developing with HC-110 1:31. When processing at box speed, I develop for 6 minutes, and when pushed to 1600, I develop for 16 minutes.
Now for some reason, my 1600 negatives are nice, dense, and punchy whereas the box speed negatives.. eh nice so much. I'm just getting better negatives pushing 1600.
Back in the day I shot hp5+ for a while and was having a lab develop them and overall those negatives look really nice. A friend recommended switching to hP5+ but from what I'm reading, it's a less contrasty film?
What should I do? Increase development time for Tri-X at box speed by a minute? Switch to HP5? What would you do?
Thanks,
Rob
I have been shooting Tri-X for quite some time and am developing with HC-110 1:31. When processing at box speed, I develop for 6 minutes, and when pushed to 1600, I develop for 16 minutes.
Now for some reason, my 1600 negatives are nice, dense, and punchy whereas the box speed negatives.. eh nice so much. I'm just getting better negatives pushing 1600.
Back in the day I shot hp5+ for a while and was having a lab develop them and overall those negatives look really nice. A friend recommended switching to hP5+ but from what I'm reading, it's a less contrasty film?
What should I do? Increase development time for Tri-X at box speed by a minute? Switch to HP5? What would you do?
Thanks,
Rob
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
HP5+ in HC-110 doesn't looks like contrasty for me at all. Pushed or not. But it is subjective, I think.
You better get roll or two and try, to see if you will like it. It is different from TriX.
You better get roll or two and try, to see if you will like it. It is different from TriX.
Doddle
Established
Contrast is controlled by development, a film isn't inherently more or less contrasty.. or at least that's my experience.
As for HC-110, B doesn't always get the best results. Try Dilution H next time, some films do better with the longer times.
As for HP5, most likely you were getting nice lab processed results because they stick it in D-76 or XTOL, and it shines in both (especially D-76 imo)
As for HC-110, B doesn't always get the best results. Try Dilution H next time, some films do better with the longer times.
As for HP5, most likely you were getting nice lab processed results because they stick it in D-76 or XTOL, and it shines in both (especially D-76 imo)
bert26
-
Cool, thanks. Looks like I’ll stick with Tri-X then since I have a bunch of HC-110 left.
Ronald M
Veteran
D76 has become a pain with gallon size and shelf life in partially full bottles. I love it , but mix a liter from scratch at a time and decant to one time use bottles.
Some films have more contrast than others but in the middle tones. The deep shadows and highlights are kind of stationary.
Film does not push. All extended development does is add contrast to make it somewhat printable , but you lose some or all of shadow details. If you get shadows at 1600, check your meter or shutters.
Axiom of photography forever is exposure controls shadows, development time controls overall contrast. Been that way forever and always will be.
If you wish to plug along the way you are, extend the development time as suggested above for 400.
But you really need to put the time and work in to get exposure correct and proper development time so a properly exposed and developed FULL TONAL RANGE neg prints on 2 or 2.5 grade paper WITH NO DODGING OR BURNING.
I worked it all out 40 years ago with 6 exposure made on a roll leader. That is 12” of film.
Now if the film is changed, one test or at most two will get me perfect prints every time.
Good luck.
Some films have more contrast than others but in the middle tones. The deep shadows and highlights are kind of stationary.
Film does not push. All extended development does is add contrast to make it somewhat printable , but you lose some or all of shadow details. If you get shadows at 1600, check your meter or shutters.
Axiom of photography forever is exposure controls shadows, development time controls overall contrast. Been that way forever and always will be.
If you wish to plug along the way you are, extend the development time as suggested above for 400.
But you really need to put the time and work in to get exposure correct and proper development time so a properly exposed and developed FULL TONAL RANGE neg prints on 2 or 2.5 grade paper WITH NO DODGING OR BURNING.
I worked it all out 40 years ago with 6 exposure made on a roll leader. That is 12” of film.
Now if the film is changed, one test or at most two will get me perfect prints every time.
Good luck.
Dogman
Veteran
You want better shadow detail with Tri-X? Give this a try. I used this in the 70s with night football shot at ISO/EI 1600 when it should have been shot at 12,800. Process like normal and then give the film a water soak before stop bath without agitation for one to two minutes. Just try it if you're having difficulty.
charjohncarter
Veteran
With Trix I do HC110h with Trix at 200: 11:15 minutes (68 degrees), 30 seconds initial agitation, then 3 agitations a 10, 6, 2, minutes counting down, stop bath with stop bath chemicals, then fix and hypo fix, and of course wash.
This is my interpretation of DF Cardwells development scheme. This is a little different from the old expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. His is expose for the shadows, develop for the midtones (which seems to be your problem), and agitate for the highlights.
I have never had a Trix problem with this scheme: thank you DF Cardwell wherever you are.
I over agitated on this a little (but it was a roll of film), but I wouldn't have it any other way:
trix at 200 HC110h Olympus 35RC by John Carter, on Flickr
This is my interpretation of DF Cardwells development scheme. This is a little different from the old expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. His is expose for the shadows, develop for the midtones (which seems to be your problem), and agitate for the highlights.
I have never had a Trix problem with this scheme: thank you DF Cardwell wherever you are.
I over agitated on this a little (but it was a roll of film), but I wouldn't have it any other way:
trix at 200 HC110h Olympus 35RC by John Carter, on Flickr
Solinar
Analog Preferred
I've been using John's describe method with Tri-X for about three years - and I must say it does work well. Thank you John Carter wherever you are.
ElectionProtection by Andrew in Austin,
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
Thanks for the compliment, but I'm just repeating what DF Cardwell past on to me. And that is what this forum is about; passing on experiences and previously learned knowledge to others.
I used to stumble around in the darkroom (what an appropriate word) and here it is an open free for all.
I used to stumble around in the darkroom (what an appropriate word) and here it is an open free for all.
aizan
Veteran
Hard to tell what's going on without example images, but if you've got enough exposure for the shadows, the first thing to try is increase development time by 25% until the contrast looks good.
Highway 61
Revisited
The problem with Tri-X isn't with the developers, whatever they are, it is with Tri-X. Since 2012 Tri-X has more or less become a poor 200 ISO film which you have to soup in D76 1+1 for about 13-14 minutes at 20°C to get some acceptable negatives. It has nothing to do with what Tri-X used to be but for the marketing name. And it now costs $10 per 135-36 roll.
OTOH, HP5+ has kept its original qualities over the years and its price, while increased, is still in the normal ballpark. Ita missa est. Bye bye, Tri-X. :angel: