Tri-X in HC-110. What is your workflow?

p.giannakis said:
  1. How do you expose Tri-X that you are planing to develop in HC-110 (what iso)
  2. What is the dilution/developing/agitation that you use
  3. Can you post a sample picture?
Click to expand...

Pan, I expose at box speed, unless I push, which I have tried up to 3200. I've tried several dilutions but tend to use H these days unless I'm pushing because the time becomes quite long; then I use B mostly. I do find the dilutions quite difficult to figure out, esp. given the various info online as to how much HC-110 at a minimum is required per roll.

I agitate quite non-aggressively during the first 30s and then 2-3 turns on on the minute. I find this gives the best results.

Not sure it helps to post examples since I virtually always add a curve etc to my scans, but here are a few of dilution B, dilution d, and dilution E. I don't have any dilution H photos on Flickr. I think most of the examples are Tri-X.

Pete B said:
Can I ask how long the stock solution and the concentrate (once opened) last?
Click to expand...

Pete, I've had my bottle for 3 years and it's by now half full and keeps working as intended. It's long-lasting. In fact, I believe one will sooner run out than experience it going bad.

leicapixie said:
My experiences with TRI-X were OK, but I hate the curl.
A major problem for my "found in the street" Canon scanner.
It cannot or won't scan curved negs.
So I use Ilford film HP+5 or mostly Kentmere 400.
Click to expand...

I agree re the curl issue - though my scanner (9000) does fairly well with its 135 film holder it annoys me on occasion. Kentmere is really nice, I find, and very good value too, including in bulk.

But the last year I've pretty much only shot 5222. Absolutely love that film and its grain. Pushes well too and dries very flat. If there is the slightest curl it can easily be removed by rolling the film emulsion side out in a film can or putting it under a few books. These tricks don't work at all as well for Tri-X.

Best
Philip
 
Ned Bojic said:
May I ask why gently?

Many people erroneously mix developing film and washing clothes. They think that if they agitate vigorously they might strip the image off the film as it would strip dirt off dirty clothes.
Or they think that the action of agitation will somehow "carve" the grain to a grossly sized Golf Ball.
They also think that a gentle agitation will gently stroke the film and minimize the grain.

All of the above is absolutely wrong.

I'm still curious: why gentle agitations? What would be the purpose of the gentleness?
Click to expand...

Be kind to your film, don't shake it like it owes you money 😉. Uneven development is a risk with (semi) stand development, not if you inverse the tank calmly.
 
Ned Bojic said:
Scientific proof, please.

What's semi? A turn at the 30th minute mark?
30 minutes of bromide dragging anihilated by a single (calm) agitation?
Have you printed a blank frame to make sure your negative is even?

Also, what's up with the 60 required minutes? What if I told you that The developer exhausts after 16 minutes? Why would you even bother to inverse the tank 14 minutes later and then wait for another 30 minutes?

Stand development is nothing more than a folkloric ritual meant to separate the ones who value Quality from the ones who think they value Quality.

All IMO (for political correctness)
Click to expand...

I agree with you on semi- stand or/and stand. Just gives what your last sentence stated. You won't get any scientific evidence from me, but I do or more correctly did get uneven development with stand or its neighbors. Mostly, it was with Rodinal, and really very little with HC-110. So after two trys (consistent quality wasn't there), I said, 'this isn't worth it.'
 
My workflow with Tri-X has been the same for at least 3 years. I expose at ei200 and develop in Dilution H for 12 mins at 20c. I agitate continuously for the first 15 seconds, then 2 invertions at 4 mins and 2 invertions at 8 mins then empty the tank at 12 minute mark. I use exactly the same routine with HP5+ and lately I like that even more than Tri-X. I have never ever had a problem with bromide drag, but I did have some surge marks once or twice from sprocket holes and I found that using only the top reel in a 2 reel tank cured that one !

Examples on my flickr and examples of HP5+ on tumblr. (Links below)
 
Ned Bojic said:
Dil B @ 6:30 is a good starting point.

But always, always inverse vigorously 5 times each 30 seconds. That is a must.
Click to expand...

So you've made you views on stand development clear and I have to say that I'm not a big fan of stand development myself. Tried it a few times, but the results weren't better than with my regular proces.
I'm interested to know what the benefit is of vigourous agitation. What's your opinion on the effects on the contrast of the negatives?
 
6:30 minutes isnt the recommended time by Kodak, but you came to that conclusion...
Just saying..
Maybe he likes bromide drag, or uneven development, let him come to that conclusion..
 
This is my workflow for any NEW to me B&W film
  1. Load camera and take photos at -2x box speed to +2 Box speed, leave a blank frame between different ISO's
  2. (ISO 200, 400, 800)
  3. Develop the film at Manufactures suggestions, (or use the Master Developer Chart App)
  4. Stop, fix, wash, PhotoFlo as normal
  5. Hang Dry
  6. Pick the best negative, and use that ISO.
I personally agitate 1/2m at start and 5s every 2 or 3 minutes with a spinner tank.

I shoot Tmax 400 at 400, and 10.5m in HC110 (H, 1:60) at 20c. (for one roll in a 2 real tank, 10ml syrup + 590ml filtered water... that is USA HC110 syrup)
I increased the time from 7.5m to 10.5m to add contrast to my liking. (I use 1:60 instead of 1:63 because it easier to measure for whole numbers)

HC110 needs a minimum amount depending on the dilution you pick.
 
I always bought the 16 oz bottle of HC-110 and then poured it into 4 oz brown bottles from the drug store. It lasts forever that way. Since you can only buy it by the quart now, I guess I have to sweet talk the nice women at Walgreens out of some more bottles.
 
not at all, Ned. i assume you mean well, but you are so, so ... adamant ... :)

and the op DID ask for RFF members' recommendations.

i use the swirly development kit (peterson's?); different agitation regimen; cannot tell you if it is equal to kodak's inversion regimen; basics from which i started were recommended by a long-time newspaper photographer with decades of hc-110 experience; he noted that water quality variances can require different temperatures, and that the proper combination for a photographer's development goal can take a while to determine, assuming the same agitation regimen for each combo.

i get really nice, clean negatives with excellent tonal range with the water available at my house. your mileage - and negatives - may vary ... :)
 
Watching the documentary on Vivian Maier, I was shocked at the agitation!
Thought it was because film old and exposed long ago..
I have become more and more gentle and had to increase development times..
Maybe more VIGOROUS agitation..
 
I was taught to gently agitate back in the early 1980s when I was the intel photographer on my ship in the US Navy. Why? Who knows, but it must have been an internet legend....years before there was an internet, and decades before this forum!

I seem to remember it was something about not generating bubbles, but could be wrong. But from my wetplate and large format experience, I see no reason to vigorously shake my chemistry. You are trying to get fresh chemicals next to the emulsion. A simple amount of movement and convection will do. Shaking would do what? Get, um, more....different....parts of the chemistry...uh...there....faster? It sounds like as much voodoo as the "gentle" advocates. Of which there was probably a vast majority in the past 90 years of film development. But I'd have to research that....and don't care.
 
Ned Bojic said:
As I asked you first: why and what's the purpose of a gentle inversion, and why are you recomending it to other people on the internet?
Click to expand...

The old story of expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, in my opinion, isn't completely correct. It should be expose for the shadows, develop for the mid-tones, and agitate for the highlights. So you have a choice (by agitation schedule) of the type of highlights you want, and the manufacturer doesn't dictate (along with shadows and mid-tones) your highlight personal choice.

But you may be right, each person has to develop, expose and agitate to their own likes. And rather than recommending we should be encouraging experimentation.
 
charjohncarter said:
The old story of expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, in my opinion, isn't completely correct. It should be expose for the shadows, develop for the mid-tones, and agitate for the highlights. So you have a choice (by agitation schedule) of the type of highlights you want, and the manufacturer doesn't dictate (along with shadows and mid-tones) your highlight personal choice.

But you may be right, each person has to develop, expose and agitate to their own likes. And rather than recommending we should be encouraging experimentation.
Click to expand...

+1 to that John. The heavy shakers of this world might like that way of developing, but it does nothing to keep highlights in check. It is not about more contrast, or less contrast, but all about the right contrast to make an image work with minimal dodging and burning or post processing.
 
Ned Bojic said:
I'm still curious: why gentle agitations? What would be the purpose of the gentleness?
Click to expand...

Years ago I had a talk with a Kodak Tech who told me the primary reason for gentle agitation is to prevent excessive air bubbles from forming on the film surface. Tapping the tank on the flat surface may not dislodge all of the bubbles since there will be more than normal the amount of these bubbles.. Gentleness prevents the excessive build up..

As you state agitation has nothing to do with grain..
 
All this talk of gentle agitation had me a bit concerned about agitating too much. Then I watched Chris Crawford's video of film developing, and I relaxed. He states he experimented a lot before settling on his method. That and Kodak's recommendations mean I'm not afraid to really ensure new chemical is swirled over the film. I wouldn't shake enough to make a milkshake though.
Pete
 
Excessive agitating a la Tom Cruise shakes drink can lead to dropped tank...don't go extreme either way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom