Tri-X 400 in HC-110 dill. H starting point ?

[alexz]

I'm going to runa ring-around test on Tri-X in HC-110 for both, dillution B and H.
The recommended starting point for B (Massive Dev. Chart) is 7.5 minutes which is what I'll start with, however dillution H (twice as weaker as B) doesn't appear there.
I heard recommendations to start with 13 min for H (which is less then twice as long as 7.5 min for B). Does it sound fair ? (all this of course for 20 deg. C)

I'll shoot reasonably contrasty scene (5-6 stops) with 1 stop under, normal (400) and 1 stop overexposures, per each set will develop in Normal, Normal + 1 (+20%) and Normal - 1 (-20%) so that at the final step obtaining two-dimension chart of exosure vs. development.

So, shall I start with 13 min for dill. H (as Normal) ?

 

[charjohncarter]

I'm not sure I understand what you are doing, but I was probably the one that gave you the 13 minute time for dilution H and Tri-X AT 400. I think I also gave you a time of 11 minutes for dilution H and Tri-X AT 200. Agitation, both number of times and aggression, is very important. I have been agitating normally for these times. My times for dilution B then would be 6.5 minutes and 5.5 minutes, respectively. If you back off on your agitation from normal you may have to lenghten your time.

 

[jfserejo]

This past week I also was looking for that kind of answers and in here:

http://www.digitaltruth.com/techdata/hc-110-h.php

and here:

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

you will find some of the answers.

Good luck,
Joao

 

[alexz]

I'm not sure I understand what you are doing, but I was probably the one that gave you the 13 minute time for dilution H and Tri-X AT 400. I think I also gave you a time of 11 minutes for dilution H and Tri-X AT 200. Agitation, both number of times and aggression, is very important. I have been agitating normally for these times. My times for dilution B then would be 6.5 minutes and 5.5 minutes, respectively. If you back off on your agitation from normal you may have to lenghten your time.

Yes, indeed, you're one of those to whom I listened carefully...😉
For my first two rolls I applied your recommended times for B (6.5 minutes while exposed at 400), however with probably a bit more agressive agitation regime that might be needed (constant during first minute, then 10 second at each subsequent minute).
I may also heard from you as well regarding 13 minutes for H (exposed at 400), though I think I read about this approach more then once...

I just read quite broad range of optinions regarding Tr-X processing, so do in B for 6, 6.5, 7, 8 minutes while some expose at 200, others at 250, 320 and 400.
Others also use H at at the times from 12 to 15 minutes with similar range of EI...
I realize that might be more personalized thing and may also depend of particular local conditions (such as how hard is local water, contrast of scences that once encounter most often locally, etc....).
Besides, while most texts I saw so far advise process calibration to fit particular printing technique, I do not print at home, but rather scan and I suspect development for scanner may somewhat differ from development goals for optical print by particular equipment.

So I'd like once take the plunge and run a test that will provide me with reasonably reliable aproach bearing my own conditions.

What I intend to do is to pick two types of scenes: one is cnotrasty (at leats 5-6 stops), the other one of low constrast (2-3 stops). The for each scene do the following: follow with 3 sets of exposures, each set contains nominal (400), -1 (800), +1 (200). Per each set for each of B and H dillutions develop at starting point, -20% and +20% of time.
Then ideally will obtain 9 reference exposures of each scene (table 3x3) - on one axis are exposure variations, on the other - development time variations.

By then I'll be able to evaluate which of the combinations works best for my flow (scanning as end-process) for high and low-contrast scene for HC-110.

BTW, I wasn't aware you utilize both B and H dillutions. Can you please enlighten me why do you use both if you already settled for one of them ? Perhaps there are cases where either is preferrable over the another one ?

 

[charjohncarter]

Sorry, Alexz, I don't use both dilutions, I just use H, but it seems that HC-110 is linear so doubling the time of B gets you the time for H. I was using the B times as an example for you. I either expose at 200 or 250, for Tri-X, depending on what I'm doing, I don't use 400 any more, it was too hard to get the shadow details. Scanning negatives is a whole different 'can of worms,' I found shadow detail was very hard to obtain scanning so I make sure that it is really there on the negative, if scanning. You will find that it is easier to get rid of shadow detail in PhotoShop than to try to create it. That is why I develop for highlights, as the old 'chestnut' goes, but I also make sure that there is shadow detail.

 

[alexz]

Xmm, frankly, regarding scanning I'm experiencing quite different thing.
Because of Tri-X substrate (film base) is not really clearly transparent, but rather somewhat violet/gray-transparent (there is noticeable violet tint), the scanner (at least my Nikon LS-40) just compresses the shadows, so that I saw no problem to retain shadow details on normally exposed/developed negs. In fact, the histogram always shows black point limited on about 15-18 points (from the left - out of entire 255 range) for darkest one - this is due to the fact that darkest or totally black of the image corresponds ideally to clear transparent on B&W negative, but in practice, with Tri-X it is somewhat darker then that. The scanner doesn't know that unique feature of particular film (unless you specifically calibrate it for the required black point), which leads to compressed shadows. This is the reason of obtaining shadows details quite reliably in my particular case.
On the other hand, I noticed the highlights may get easily blown out once exposing/development/scnning chain isn't calibrated as needed. In spite of many complaining of blocked shadows on scans, I see my issue much more in blown out highlights, which means I have to fit my processing for scanning...

Today I conducted a non-scientifical short-handed test on my latest Tri-X roll I shot at 400: I cut it into two pieces of approx. similar number of frames and then developed the first one in dill B for time recommended in Massive Dev. Chart - 7.5 minutes (this is contrary to 6.5 minutes I did for my two previous rolls) and the second part wa developed in dill. H for 13 minutes as per your recommendation.
The roll itself wasn't exposed for strictly testing purposes - just as a regular one - ordinary images as I usually do. However, I intended to check the general trend in highlights in two types of development.

Scanned the first part already - what I clearly notice is that in general 7.5 minutes lead to burnt out highlights more often and more noticeable then when I did for 6.5 minutes. Naven't noticed any noticeable different in shadows rendition - in both cases appears to be good. The conslution I'm leaning to draw from that experiment that 7.5 minutes is too contrasty and makes hard to control highlights in my particular case, so meanwhile for dill. B I'll be backing up to 6.5 minutes.

Right now I'm scanning the second part of the roll which was developed in dill H for 13 minutes. Albeit haven't yet checked the results and histograms in PS - I already see that the negs are much more controlled in contrast and highlights are noticeably restrained and well rendered. So far it appears dill H for 13 minutes is the real winner for Tri-X @ 400 for my particular case (per scanner)....

Tomorrow I'll be developing and analyzing the ring-around test I mentioned above (today shot that roll) - this time for dill B at starting point of 6.5 minutes. Then, after a rational conclusions will be drawn on dill. B, I'll do the same for dill. H.
Hopefully that will clarify the issue once for all for my film/development/scanning chain and will allow me to built up an approach to follow from now on....

 

[Xmas]

If your scenes are high contrast (and they may be where you live) then you may have to think about low contrast development.

Water bath or two bath techniques.

Even with these techniques and the dull light here I have trouble and have to derate by a stop, the high lights normally survive this, but I dont have your scean contrast.

Noel

 

[alexz]

Doug, thanks, but there is one detail I probably left out of the discussion: I use European HC-110 (in half liter bottles) which is less concentrated to beging with then US version. Dillution B for US HC-110 is 1:31, while for European it is 1:9, similarily dil. H for US is 1:63 as you correctly noted, however for European HC-110 it is 1:19.
So for my standard Jobo 240mm tank I do 12 ml of HC-110 with 228 ml of water at 20 deg. C. 13 minutes appears an optimum - well controlled highlights, excellent shadows, well rendered yet sufficiently restrained. Really good on scans.
I should post few examples of these a bit later....

Agitation: continuously durign frist 30 seconds, two single agitations at the end of each subsequent minute.
Stop bath - just a water at close to 20 deg. C temperature - filling the tank, agitate 5 times, pour down, fill again, agitate 10 times, pour down and repeat two times the latter.

 

[markinlondon]

I still say empty shadows are the result of underexposure and not underdevelopment, Alex and extra development ain't going to fill them. I could never get 400 out of HP5 with some meters and just had to downrate and develop normally. My Bessa R had one of those meters. The trouble with developing for scanning is that we have no standard to work to. In the darkroom we can at least talk about paper grades and be fairly consistent, but scanner software is just too random to standardise.

European HC110 is just diluted syrup, Doug, like that stock solution Kodak say you should make which we all happily ignore. Ilfotec HC and LC29 have the same relationship if I remember aright.

 

[alexz]

Doug, will be posting soon - now finishing scanning ...😉.
I wasn't aware about European/US HC-110 issue until that was mentioned somewher here in the forums. Than I checked what is written on my bottle and it was indeed all instructed fro Eurpean one...

Mark, I probably confised you somehow - (in fact I clarified that in my another thread) - the shadows issue turned to be nothing - it was just a slight misinterpretation of my scanner due to Tri-X film base not being clearly transparent for black image areas. The scanner produced compressed shadows, i.e. good details but shadows with low contrast (too light). So the problem wasn't lack of details but rather lack of shadow constrast. That is corrected by placing an approrpiate black point (ni PS for instance) taking into acount Tri-X substrate property...
Now I realize that extended development will mostly affect highlights rather then shadows. I clearly see differences between 7.5 minutes development and a shorter one - the longer one burns out highlights noticeably more....

Doug, here are few examples from dill. H batch, developed for 13 minutes...
Just corrected the shadows by setting the black point to compensate for Tri-X substrate scanning issue. Sharpening added up some more contrast making shadows slightly clipped (wasn't such before sharpening).

 

[alexz]

One more....

 

[charjohncarter]

For DougFord, everyone has what they like. And although this not my favorite image with Tri-X, I did this one at ISO 250, 11 minutes HC-110h, 68 degrees. As anyone can see there are lots of possible areas for blowout. But at dilution B that would be 5.5 minutes, still longer than your 4.75 minutes for 400 ISO. You develop what you like. http://www.flickr.com/photos/carter3john/626288064/

 

[gregg]

Haven't used Tri-X in a while (now a Foma/Freestyle 400 fan) but my old HC-110(H) notes show the following at 20c:

ISO 250 - 13 mintues (agitate 30 seconds and 3 inversions at 4, 7, 10 min)

ISO 400 - 15 minutes (agitate 30 seconds and 3 inversions at 4, 8, 11 min)

ISO 800 - 19 minutes (agitate 30 seconds and 3 inversions at 4, 8 , 12, 16 min)

The point being, HC-110 at any dilution keeps working without a lot of agitation. Agitate too much and you'll overdevelop the highlights. These may be a starting points for you - take a high contrast situation with a lot of shadows and do your own testing though.

 

[charjohncarter]

You are 100% correct Gregg. I agitate slightly more than you so a slightly shorter time. You processed Tri-X at 250 only 18% longer than I do. Or 13% longer than my time for Tri-X at 400.

 

[gregg]

John Carter is really onto the right thing. HC-110 is extremely flexible and responsive to your development/agitation pattern.

When I developed prints traditionally for the newspaper (back in the DAY!) I used Tri-X with HC-110 Dilution B and agitated every 30 seconds. Tri-X developed in 4.5 minutes, BAM. Stop and fixed in another 5, hypo cleared and washed in 5 minutes and into the warm forced air dryer for 5 and I was ready to print in about 20 minutes. Printed with lower (1-2) contrast filtration or paper it was perfect for newsprint setup.

Digital display and printing are more precise with midtones than duo-tone newsprint could imagine. HC-110 was engineered for speed and in most cases the agitation needs to be adjusted for "fine" printing. It will work well for most films in my experience but the big mistake is following the film manufacturer's generic agitation guidelines. Lower the concentration (dilution H), double the recommended time, and agitate every 3-4 minutes and it remains a winning solution.

Ansel Adams has a fine section in "The Negative" on his use of Tri-X and HC-110 that may be helpful. I'm not a Zone System guy but found his advice useful.

 

[alexz]

Yes, I think for me the optimim point is 13 min. dill H or nearby which coincide with that of John, except of the fact that in my case this is for Tri-X at nominal 400 (John use this setup for 250). This is interesting...
I'll be processing the test roll (hopefully today) that is aimed to nail down the perfect (or near) setup (for my particular flow, of course).
Will post the results and my conclusions soon after that.

 

[lZr]

Very good toned images, Alex. Yet you need horizontal fleeps to #1 and #3 (The car) and water drops are still there.🙂

The Euro dil H is 1:19. My times at 20 C are somewhat longer. There is strong dev. time dependency on the water used. I go 1 min. more with my Brita filtered water.
You know you have good negative if the celluloid is clear and the letters on it are nice black.

 

[alexz]

Very good toned images, Alex. Yet you need horizontal fleeps to #1 and #3 (The car) and water drops are still there.🙂

The Euro dil H is 1:19. My times at 20 C are somewhat longer. There is strong dev. time dependency on the water used. I go 1 min. more with my Brita filtered water.
You know you have good negative if the celluloid is clear and the letters on it are nice black.

Thanks Lazar. Yeah, have yet picked photo flo (Agepon) solution to get rid of water residue, it will be brought to me by the friend of mine, probably towards this weekend, then hopefully water stains will be history...🙂
What do you mean horizontal fleeps ? Didn't get the point...

Yes, Euro H is 1:19, sure. In fact, for dilluting I just use a regular tab water, the brita filtered one I noly use for the final rinse batch after fixing. But right now I see 13 minutes are really fine for me and probably as good as I can achieve for H.
In any case, I intend to do a rinf-around test for both, H and B dillutions, will post the results soon afterwards...

 

[John Bragg]

Hi, Alexz.

Glad you are getting good results with the HC-110 testing. It has been my developer of choice for a long time now and it is very versatile. I am sure that your scanner calibration and development refinements will lead to some excellent images and I look foreward to seeing more of them.
The ring around is a good practical comparison and will be very useful as a reference for future use.

Regards, John.

 

[lZr]

Alex,
I mean horizontal flip (sorry fro the fleep). The images are mirror flipped.