Tri-X & HC-110

[timor]

I do mine at room temperature, usually 28 - 29 degs.

Is not higher temperature causing larger grain ?

Another website about HC110:
http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html

 

[braver]

Now that we're on the topic, I was wondering how serious one should take the minimum amounts per roll aso stated in numerous manuals? I believe my methods are somewhat below the recommended numbers, but never saw any negative effects. Anyone have any actual experience about this?

 

[newtorf]

Very interesting. I just realize that you used 7.5ml syrup to develop two rolls instead of (recommended) one roll. If that truly works, I will definitely give it a try next time with dilution H. I do not use jobo, though.

Now that we're on the topic, I was wondering how serious one should take the minimum amounts per roll aso stated in numerous manuals? I believe my methods are somewhat below the recommended numbers, but never saw any negative effects. Anyone have any actual experience about this?

 

[timor]

Very interesting. I just realize that you used 7.5ml syrup to develop two rolls instead of (recommended) one roll. If that truly works, I will definitely give it a try next time with dilution H. I do not use jobo, though.

I think the minimal amount may be more important for water buffering than in relation to minimum amount of the reducer. HC110 was made to be truly universal, so could be used anywhere with any type of potable water. In US I believe tap water is of good quality (for photography) anywhere, but in the middle of Africa one may really need this 6 ml per roll.

 

[Timmyjoe]

My 2¢ from personal experience of some 36 years is that my processing times and dilutions are depended on lens used, ISO used, and type of film scanner.

What is currently working for me right now, used with an older Leica screw mount collapsible 5cm Summicron lens, shot at ISO 320, and scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 9000, is dilution H (63:1) with 6ml of HC110 (from syrup) to 378ml of water, @ 68ºF, constant gentle swirl for the first minute, then ten gentle swirls every three minutes, for a total of 16 minutes.

With the low contrast of the old Leica lens, and the extra exposure by setting ISO to 320, and the particular idiosyncrasies of the Nikon scanner, this produces negatives that I can work with nicely. My personal experience seems to indicate the gentle swirl technique, as opposed to the inversion technique, produces smaller grain and lower contrast.

As previously stated, you'll need to find out what works best for your particular shooting situation, and the best way to find that out is by trial and error. I've probably shot a few truckloads of "test rolls" over the last 36 years.

Best of luck and enjoy.

-Tim

 

[newtorf]

One question, when you said 2 rolls, did you mean 2 rolls of 36 exposures? Thanks!

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.

 

[timor]

My 2¢ from personal experience of some 36 years is that my processing times and dilutions are depended on lens used, ISO used, and type of film scanner.
With the low contrast of the old Leica lens, and the extra exposure by setting ISO to 320, and the particular idiosyncrasies of the Nikon scanner, this produces negatives that I can work with nicely.

I've probably shot a few truckloads of "test rolls" over the last 36 years.

-Tim

Tim, in your opinion development for scanning and development for actual printing under an enlarger is that much different ? (Not to say what type of enlarger ?).

And I agree with the amount of tests .

 

[braver]

One question, when you said 2 rolls, did you mean 2 rolls of 36 exposures? Thanks!

Yes, 36 (38 mostly).

We do have good water here in the Netherlands, perhaps that helps. Perhaps I never had negatives so dense that it would exhaust the developer. But I am wondering if I shouldn't be a bit more careful and use a stronger dilution.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Tim, in your opinion development for scanning and development for actual printing under an enlarger is that much different ? (Not to say what type of enlarger ?).

And I agree with the amount of tests .

Yes and no. I did a long transition from wet darkroom to computer darkroom and there were many changes over that fifteen year span. I used to shoot miles of AgfaPan 100 with the occasional roll of Tri-X. Spent time with the Zone system to develop my technique for shooting, processing and enlarging (with condenser enlarger that I would slightly diffuse), testing the AgfaPan and my preferred developer of that time Rodinal. Tried a bit of enlarging with a borrowed diffusion enlarger and really liked the results.

The first film scanner I had, a Coolscan III I think it was, was super high contrast, like a condenser enlarger on steroids, so I had to change my whole process. Still with AgfaPan and Rodinal mostly. Then I got a newer Nikon Coolscan which wasn't as high contrast, so I altered my process once more. Then Agfa went belly up, but I was still able to get a version of Rodinal. So I developed a process for Tri-X and Rodinal. Wasn't very satisfied with that so I started experimenting with HC-110.

Then I was lucky enough to snag a Coolscan 9000 before they stopped production, and found it scanned very much like a diffusion enlarger. So I went back and developed a new process with Tri-X, HC-110 and the Nikon Coolscan 9000. And I'm very happy with the results.

That's making a short story long. I find it's really about doing the Zone system, but with a film scanner instead of an enlarger. And I'm a huge fan on low contrast scans. They seem to give me the most latitude for Post Processing.

Best,
-Tim

 

[timor]

Tim, thank you. So basically you are saying, that charachteristic of our "negative reading device" has to be taken in account. Be it enlarger or scanner. Well, I do not scan, my hobby goes only as far as wet darkroom, but I also prefer low contrast negs for basically same reasons.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Tim, thank you. So basically you are saying, that charachteristic of our "negative reading device" has to be taken in account. Be it enlarger or scanner.

Yes.

Best,
-Tim

 

[newtorf]

Thanks for the info!

I just tried dilution E (10ml syrup to 480ml) with 150% development time over dilution B for two 36exp 35mm rolls. The result looks pretty good. I did not try the 7.5ml syrup though since it looks a bit extreme. 🙂

Yes, 36 (38 mostly).

We do have good water here in the Netherlands, perhaps that helps. Perhaps I never had negatives so dense that it would exhaust the developer. But I am wondering if I shouldn't be a bit more careful and use a stronger dilution.

 

[maddoc]

Tri-X (rated at about 400ISO) / HC-110 "dilB" is also my "standard" BW combination. I make a "stock-solution" from the syrup (100ml syrup + 300ml water) and dilute this with water ( 1+ 7) to get "dil B". At 20 C I develop for 4.5 minutes with inversions for the first 40 seconds and then 3 inversions at the start of every next minute.

Scanned with V700:

 

[Rogier]

HC-110 Dil G 1:119 @ 22C 40 Min
Stand dev. (60 sec slow + 1 X at 20 min.)
5 Min pre-soak


2012-02-25-04 by Rogier Diver, on Flickr


2012-02-25-06 by Rogier Diver, on Flickr