Tri-X & HC-110

[Nomad Z]

I'm a first-time Tri-X user and I'd like to establish a processing method for it in HC-110. My wants/needs...

• Keep to a standard process (dilution, time, agitation).
• Good tonal range.
• Make good use of the film's latitude.
• Scans well without being too grainy (Epson V700 scanner).
• Mostly shooting at 1/250 or 1/500 in normal daylight (meter or sunny 16 for aperture).

So far, I've used HC-110 dil B, but I have been thinking of switching to 1+49. This is mainly for ease of doing the numbers when mixing (take 1% of the required quantity of working solution and double it), and to reduce the amount of syrup used while still keeping it about or above the minimum (300ml per 35mm roll gives 6ml of syrup).

I'd rather not get into stand development. I prefer to mix the chemicals, do the processing and hang the film up to dry.

I use a Paterson 2-reel tank with either one reel or two, 300ml per film. My normal method is inversion agitation for the first 30 seconds (about 9 inversions), and 10 seconds at the start of each minute after that (3 inversions, with a rap of the tank on the bench after).

I read somewhere that Tri-X's latitude is -1 +3 stops, rated at 400. Would it be better to try and get something more balanced, like -2 +2? I tend to guess exposures, so I'm looking for something forgiving - don't want to lose shadow detail beause I underexposed a bit too much.

Would 8 minutes at 1+49 be a reasonable starting point?

Should I agitate more or less?

What speed should I rate the film at?


Any other comments or suggestions?

 

[Bob Michaels]

I suggest your download Kodak's tech data publications for Tri-X and HC-110. They are available on the Kodak website. Read both and follow Kodak's instructions to start off with. Kodak has done a lot of research into developing this film and using this developer in normal situations. Later on, tweak the process as you need for your particular situation. Any response you read here that differs from Kodak's will have been tweaked by the poster for their particular situation, which may differ from yours.

 

[mfunnell]

Firstly, +1 on what Bob said. But also... try looking at this thread:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116211

(I know it wasn't in relation to Tri-X, but that's well referenced in the discussion including by me.)

Especially follow the links to the Covington Innovations page which has a lot of info on HC-110.

Me, personally, I use Tri-X and HC-110 as my standard film/developer combo. Like this (I have a roll of 24 drying right now):

I'll tell you what I do with this (which is my standard film/developer combination; for scanning rather than wet printing).

I take syrup (full US strength) straight from the bottle and put into three separate smaller jars, which I use in turn.

To actually develop I use the syrup straight from the most recent jar (in a measuring syringe) at dilution E (1:47) mixing:

Single 24-frame roll in SS tank: 5ml to 235 water
Two 24-frame rolls in SS tank: 10ml to 470 water

Two 36-frame rolls in plastic tank: 12.5-13ml to 587ish water. (Well, what I really do is put 13ml of syrup in just enough water to bring it to 600ml.)

The theory being that HC-110 exhausts at 6.25ml per 36-frame roll of 135 (or per roll of 120). Why waste it (though I do with 120, as I still use dilution E for a single roll to keep my times consistent).

I develop for 8 minutes at 20C, agitating for the first 30 secs (roll plus 2 inversions every 10 secs) then at each minute mark for 10 secs (same as above) 'till the 7th minute, stop at the 8th minute by water flushing, then fix with Ilford Rapid Fixer (1:9) for 6 minutes under the same regime as above (agitate for the 1st 30 secs then 10 secs every minute), maybe leaving it a minute or so beyond the 6th in fixer without agitation. I flush fixer with water, repeatedly, with the final rinse and 1 min stand in distilled water.

At 22C I do the same, except for 7 mins total, not 8. At 21C... well, you do the maths.

As Bob noted above, this may not work for you. For me, it works just fine.

...Mike

 

[Ronald_H]

The problem with looking for on-line advice on developing Tri-X in HC110 (or any other film/developer combo) is that you'll find tons of well-intended advice, but most of it is contradictory.

I have been developing Tri-X in HC110 for a number of years now and I arrived at 7.5min in solution 'B'. This is what Kodak recommended for their PREVIOUS iteration of Tri-X! For the current one they recommend 3.75min (which really does not work, trust me on this). The Covington site clearly states that Kodak made a mistake here.

Amsterdam, Nikon FM w. 50mm f1.4 AF-D


Occupy Amsterdam by Ronald_H, on Flickr

Good luck!

 

[yossarian123]

This is my standard combo as well. I use Dilution H though (Dil. B doubled, comes out to 1+63), since (as mfunnell stated) you need a minimum of 6ml per roll so it comes out to 6ml developer mixed with 378ml water. Getting 378 sounds hard but if you've got the right cylinders it becomes second nature. My standard temperature is 68 degrees, for 9 minutes with a typical inversion cycle (3 slow inversions every minute).

 

[crispy12]

I do mine at room temperature, usually 28 - 29 degs. 1:100 dilution of concentrate for 13mins. Agitate for initial 30s, and only one more at 6mins.

I like the tonal range, also very simple workflow and allows me to do some other stuff in between.

 

[mfunnell]

I have been developing Tri-X in HC110 for a number of years now and I arrived at 7.5min in solution 'B'.

Ronald: for my purposes that may seem overdeveloped. But your purposes may be different - you may be wet printing, whereas I'm scanning (with a Nikon 5000ED). You may be rating your film differently (I'm shooting at box speed). You don't say what temperatures you're developing at.

And so on. It all get's back to what Bob said earlier up there ^^^

We all have different circumstances and requirements. I should have said what speed I was rating the film at in my earlier post. And what scanner I was using. (And how I'm using it - except that gets way too long and complicated.)

But really, I'd like to know with sample you showed us: what speed did you rate the film at and where did the scan come from? I'd like to know, because it looks good . I know for a fact that there's plenty left for me to learn here and even if I can't or won't do what you did the result still looks great and I might learn something.

...Mike

 

[Ronald_H]

Ronald: for my purposes that may seem overdeveloped. But your purposes may be different - you may be wet printing, whereas I'm scanning (with a Nikon 5000ED). You may be rating your film differently (I'm shooting at box speed). You don't say what temperatures you're developing at.

Mea culpa... First I complain about all the conflicting info that confuses me, then I give confusing info myself.

Here goes:

I shoot Tri-X 400 at box speed, obviously ISO400. I do this in a broad range of 35mm and MF cameras (From an Olympus XA to a Hasselblad 500 C/M). I use a Gossen Digiflash when a camera does not have a meter.

I mix directly from syrup, I use solution 'B', according to Covington that's 9.4ml syrup per 300ml water.
I use Paterson system 4 tanks and plastic reels.
Default development tempature is 20 degrees Celsius, I use a simple analogue darkroom thermometer to check.
Standard WoW: Gentle inversions for the fist 30 seconds and for 10 seconds every minute thereafter.

I don't think 7.5min ups the contrast too much for scanning.

I use a Nikon Coolscan V with Vuescan and an Epson V500 with Epson software (for panoramas made with a Lomography Spinner 360).

In my experience (YMMV) a neg that scans well is one that (wet) prints well.

Regards,

Ronald

 

[Nomad Z]

Thanks all. Just did the test roll in 1+49, 20°, for 8 minutes, agitation as already described. Film is drying. Negs look decent at first glance. I did a series of shots yesterday to test latitude, covering 8 stops in half stop increments, and they look pretty convincing. I had to do sunny 16 for the nominal 'correct' exposure because my meter decided to throw a wobbly (now hopefully fixed - seemed to be a slightly loose screw inside), so I went with 1/250 at f11. Started from 1/1000 at f22 and worked my way down, so a range something like -3 +5 stops relative to my estimate. Will scan later and see how it goes.

 

[mfunnell]

In my experience (YMMV) a neg that scans well is one that (wet) prints well.

Thanks Ronald, that's given me things to think about and try. As to the "wet print" thing, you may have experience but I don't. Some say you should develop differently for one than the other. But given that I don't (and almost certainly won't) I guess I shouldn't worry about it too much.

...Mike

 

[mfunnell]

Thanks all. Just did the test roll in 1+49, 20°, for 8 minutes, agitation as already described. Film is drying. Negs look decent at first glance. I did a series of shots yesterday to test latitude, covering 8 stops in half stop increments, and they look pretty convincing. I had to do sunny 16 for the nominal 'correct' exposure because my meter decided to throw a wobbly (now hopefully fixed - seemed to be a slightly loose screw inside), so I went with 1/250 at f11. Started from 1/1000 at f22 and worked my way down, so a range something like -3 +5 stops relative to my estimate. Will scan later and see how it goes.

Well, I hope that we helped. But from what you say I think you have it well under control.

...Mike

 

[Ronald_H]

Thanks Ronald, that's given me things to think about and try. As to the "wet print" thing, you may have experience but I don't. Some say you should develop differently for one than the other. But given that I don't (and almost certainly won't) I guess I shouldn't worry about it too much.

...Mike

Even so, when either scanning or printing, Tri-X is very forgiving. Really weird things have to happen in either exposure or development to get a neg that is unusable.

In my experience a negative too low in contrast scans better than it prints and a negative too high in contrast prints better than it scans. Still, a well developed negative should give you a good tonal range when following either process.

Looking forward to see your results!

 

[Nomad Z]

Well, I hope that we helped. But from what you say I think you have it well under control.

I got impatient and started developing right after posting. 🙂 Started reading replies while it was rinsing, and it's good to see that my 8 minutes and general process wasn't too far off. Close enough for a starting point.

 

[nobbylon]

I use tri-x at box speed, dilution H 1:63 68 deg 6cc syrup 378cc water for a single film,
9cc/ 567cc mix for 2 films, Paterson system 4, 12mins. Agitation, gentle inversions for 1st min and then 1 inversion every minute thereafter. I scan with an Epson 4990.
Same mix etc for Neopan 400 but only 10 mins development.

 

[n5jrn]

The problem with looking for on-line advice on developing Tri-X in HC110 (or any other film/developer combo) is that you'll find tons of well-intended advice, but most of it is contradictory.

Even Kodak's own recommendations are contradictory! The time they currently recommend contradicts the warning that times less than 5 minutes may give unsatisfactory results.

I have been developing Tri-X in HC110 for a number of years now and I arrived at 7.5min in solution 'B'. This is what Kodak recommended for their PREVIOUS iteration of Tri-X! For the current one they recommend 3.75min (which really does not work, trust me on this). The Covington site clearly states that Kodak made a mistake here.

7.5 minutes at dilution B? According to the HC110 data sheet I have, that was their sheet film time for tray development (at 20°C). Their roll film time in a small tank was 5.5 minutes at that same temperature.

I'm just starting out with home developing, and after much hemming and hawing and being confused by all the contradictory recommendations, I tried dilution B at 5.5 minutes on their current version, and my negatives came out pretty darn good (quite a bit better, in fact, than my B/W negatives have ever come back from pro labs):

What convinced me to choose this time was a rumor I read on-line that Kodak botched the dilution when figuring the time for the new TriX, and that the new emulsion's times should only differ by a few percent at most from the old ones.

I'll second (or is it third or fourth by now) the recommendation of Covington's site for HC110 information.

 

[Borghesia]

Thanks Ronald, I am thinking to try HC110 for Tri-X instead of D76 I normally use.
Your example is exactly the result I am craving for.

 

[Nomad Z]

I need to make a small correction. Looking at my notes, it seems that I chose 1/500 at f11 as the nominally correct exposure, which is where I got my -3 +5 range for the latitude test. On thinking about it, my choice would have been 1/250 at f11 for the light on the day. If f11 was the right aperture, then I would lean towards over exposing slightly at box speed, hence 1/250 rather than 1/500.

Anyway, the negs have been scanned, and it all looks pretty good. Scanned at 1200dpi on an Epson V700. I did various scans, one with the scanner's auto exposure switched off, and one each with it at 'low', 'medium' and 'high' (whatever that means). Looking at the non-auto scans, I would say that the one that matches my revised sunny 16 exposure (1/250 at f11) is a little dark. Looking at the next two (a half and one stop over), I would say something between these seems to be a good representation of the light when I was there. Out of the auto scans, the 'high' auto exposure scan that's half a stop over looks like the best match. All on my screen, of course.

I had a quick go at post-processing selected images. The 1/250 at f11 one came up quite well, while the two at the extremes (-4 and +4 stops) were well into rescue territory. It was hard to bring up shadow detail on the -4, and very hard to tame the highlights on the +4. There was quite a lot of noise/grain in the shadows of the -4, and I felt the lighter parts of the +4 were a bit grainy as well. Aside from some in the mid tones in the sky, the middle exposure is surprisingly lacking in grain - far less than I expected.

My next step is to play around with the intermediate exposures - see what I can do to rescue shadows and highlights from a theoretical over or under exposure.

In the image below, the orange box is around the 1/250 f11 shot, and the green box around the one I feel best macthes the light on the day (half a stop more). This is the scan with the auto exposure setting at 'high'.

 

[braver]

My methods that work fine as long as I don't screw up exposure (and even then always something comes out with Tri-X). I use Jobo tanks, for one, two or four rolls. Below the numbers for two. I make wet prints and they're easy to print with a 2 or 2.5 contrast filter. They also tend to scan well. But I don't try to make a science out of it, exposure is my main challenge trying to work fast on the street.

ISO200 -> Dilution H (7.5ml syrup goes into 500ml water), 9 minutes with inversions every minute.
ISO400 -> Dilution H (7.5ml syrup goes into 500ml water), 12 minutes with inversions every minute.
ISO1600 -> Dilution B (15ml syrup goes into 500ml water), 18 minutes with inversions every 2 minutes.

 

[newtorf]

I usually use dilution D (12.5ml to 500ml) to develop two rolls since I am using a 480ml stainless tank (can hold 500ml actually). It takes 25% longer time than dilution B. It saves a little bit syrup than using 15ml syrup, meanwhile it has a small amount of extra syrup (.5ml) just in case there's measurement inaccuracy.

 

[Tom A]

Tri X @ 400 iso in HC 110 1:60 (from the raw syrup in the bottle). 12.5 minutes with agitation every 60 sec for 7-10 sec.
You can see the slightly "rougher" grain in the sky - but sharpness is nicely accentuated. If you are shooting something without large mid-tone areas it works very well. Sky and walls tend to get a bit "gritty".
Nikon SP and Zeiss Planar 35mm f3.5 (early 50's lens).
The beach close to us is heavily used in the summer by beach volley balls players and is a great "spectator" point for the more sedate among us.