Tri-X / HC-110 1:100 Experiments

Agitation will increase grain. Greatly reduced (or no) agitation therefore helps tame the grain and enhance acutance/sharpness. Pushed development usually depends on longer times; the increased wet time swells the emulsion which degrades sharpness and can make for mushy grain. Standard agitation would only emphasize that. I'm not sure of the physics of this, I only have experienced the benefits of being gentle.
 
Decreased agitation with higher dilutions of developers yields compensation. This is when development continues in the shadow areas after it has been exhausted in the highlight regions. This gives you more effective speed, better shadow and mid-tone detail, and controlled highlights.

Compensation will occur with any developer at a higher dilution with less agitation.

allan
 
Bill: IMO, yes. My standard for TX is Rodinal 1:100, 30 sec. initial agitation, 4-5 inversions every 3 minutes. Nice grain and tonality.
 
OK here are two shots taken with my "new" Jupiter 3 on my Kiev 4a, developed per nightfly's post:
"Andrew, try pushing triX400 to 1600 with HC110. 1+100 29 Degress C for 14 mins with NO agitation to bring out the shadow details via compensating effect. Agitate only for the first 10 secs and that's all you do. "

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

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=54205&ppuser=4407

I was testing a new lens, so I wasn't doing much more than seeing if it worked. I used a Calcu-flash meter I recently bought, so it is also a test of that. I was expecting more contrast, but IDK if I can blame the lens given the number of variables (lens, meter, developing process) :) It was a bright overcast sky, if that might have an effect. (The only reason I shot it at 1600 was because I *thought* I had other evening shots on the roll at that speed. Turns out I didn't lol)

Overall, I am satisfied the method works. I think the shots were a bit under-exposed for 1600, especially after looking at some other shots from the same roll. There wasn't enough detail in the shadows on pretty much every shot, IMHO.

I like how simple and easy the stand process was. The grain is fine, but I can't help thinking I like D76 1:1 better. I can't believe I am saying I can tell the difference between developers even with the huge number of other variables, but I think I can, based on my last few rolls in HC110. I think it would be worth adjusting the stand time to see if my opinion changes.

Either way, I will keep HC110 around, and am sure to use it again. Thanks all for the info, I feel like I have another tool in my toolbox. :)
 
Last edited:
GeneW said:
That's 1:100, expressed this way, or 1+99 if you want to think of it in these terms. The scientific notation for ratios uses the colon. The dilution logic of one part developer + 99 parts water uses the plus symbol.

I'll be watching for your results. Hope it turns out well. This dilution with the somewhat odd partial-stand times works a treat for me with every film I've tried so far.

Gene
Click to expand...

Gotcha. That actually makes sense. But it seems Kodak doesn't follow that logic. Straight D-76 would technically be 1:1, right? Kodak differentiates between straight D76 and 1:1, which I took to mean 1 part D-76 solution and 1 part water, or technically 1+1. At least Kodak provides the actual volumes for concentrate and mix in the same chart where they describe the ratios for HC-110, clarifying their notation.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the same notation can mean different things in different contexts, however :) Ilford seems to use the 1+4 instead of 1:5
 
40oz said:
Gotcha. That actually makes sense. But it seems Kodak doesn't follow that logic. Straight D-76 would technically be 1:1, right? Kodak differentiates between straight D76 and 1:1, which I took to mean 1 part D-76 solution and 1 part water, or technically 1+1. At least Kodak provides the actual volumes for concentrate and mix in the same chart where they describe the ratios for HC-110, clarifying their notation.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the same notation can mean different things in different contexts, however :) Ilford seems to use the 1+4 instead of 1:5
Click to expand...

I may be totally off-track here (correct me if I'm wrong) but 1+1 and 1:1 are the same thing - 1 part developer and 1 part water, leaving a solution which is half of each.

Thus n:m and n+m are also the same. You end up with n+m of solution if you dilute that way, but the ratio of the two parts is n:m.

eg. 1+100 is for example 1ml dev plus 100ml water, making a total of 101ml, whereas 1+99 is 1ml dev plus 99ml water, ie. put the dev in and top up to 100 with water.
 
jmi said:
I may be totally off-track here (correct me if I'm wrong) but 1+1 and 1:1 are the same thing - 1 part developer and 1 part water, leaving a solution which is half of each.

Thus n:m and n+m are also the same. You end up with n+m of solution if you dilute that way, but the ratio of the two parts is n:m.

eg. 1+100 is for example 1ml dev plus 100ml water, making a total of 101ml, whereas 1+99 is 1ml dev plus 99ml water, ie. put the dev in and top up to 100 with water.
Click to expand...

I think we are talking about two ways to write a ratio. On the one hand, you have a ratio of concentrate to the end solution (HC-110 1:100). On the other, you have the ratio of concentrate to water (D-76 1:1). Kodak appears to be consistent in the use of ratios of concentrate to water, but some people tend to write ratios in terms of concentrate to solution when talking about Kodak products, which can get confusing if we don't clarify the recipe.
 
40oz said:
I think we are talking about two ways to write a ratio. On the one hand, you have a ratio of concentrate to the end solution (HC-110 1:100). On the other, you have the ratio of concentrate to water (D-76 1:1). Kodak appears to be consistent in the use of ratios of concentrate to water, but some people tend to write ratios in terms of concentrate to solution when talking about Kodak products, which can get confusing if we don't clarify the recipe.
Click to expand...

Ah, now I get it! I thought nearly everybody used concentrate to water for the ratios... ah well. Thanks for the clarification!
 
This was a huge bruhaha on PN a while ago. It's nice to see it get resolved so peacefully on RFF :)

I always use n+m for this reason. Always.

allan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom