Tri-X in HC-110h (semi stand)

[John Bragg]

Here is a shot from my recent re-visit to HC-110. A developer that I have long used as a favorite for developing Tri-X. Technical details; rated at ei200 and developed at 20c for 12 minutes in HC-110 dilution H (1:63) with agitation for first ten seconds and then two gentle inversions at 4 and 8 minute mark only. I am very pleased with the way it has handled the contrasty scene and even more so because it was taken with a humble Mju-I point and shoot.

 

[John Bragg]

And another shot.

 

[jalLee2001]

Any thought on the difference between HC 110 and D 76?

 

[John Bragg]

And another..

 

[John Bragg]

Any thought on the difference between HC 110 and D 76?

I love D76 too but shelf life is most definitely longer with HC-110. Results can be remarkably similar with these two but I chose the long life option since I have long breaks between activity. I always used D76 1:1 one shot. I am a consistency freak. I now have two options in my developing. Rodinal for grain and HC-110 for smooth tones.

 

[John Bragg]

One more..

 

[charjohncarter]

Nice John, I do something similar but very diluted (1:120 approx.). I got the method out of one of Ansel Adams' books.

 

[Bingley]

Very nice results, John. I've also used HC110h with Tri-X rated at iso 250, and develop for 11:30 mins. with good results.

 

[John Bragg]

Thanks John and Steve. I think this technique has a lot of potential for me. They are the easiest negatives I have ever worked with.

 

[paulfish4570]

i much prefer hc-110 dilution H for tri-x/arista premium 400 over d-76 and tmax. for hp5, i prefer tmax ...

 

[John Bragg]

Nice John, I do something similar but very diluted (1:120 approx.). I got the method out of one of Ansel Adams' books.

I take it that is development to exhaustion with just enough dev to do the job ? I must read The Negative again.

 

[newtorf]

So it is equivalent Dil B at 20C for 6 min. Since you rate Tri-X at EI200, I think you are actually a bit over-developing. For contrast scene, I prefer under-developing a little.

Here is a shot from my recent re-visit to HC-110. A developer that I have long used as a favorite for developing Tri-X. Technical details; rated at ei200 and developed at 20c for 12 minutes in HC-110 dilution H (1:63) with agitation for first ten seconds and then two gentle inversions at 4 and 8 minute mark only. I am very pleased with the way it has handled the contrasty scene and even more so because it was taken with a humble Mju-I point and shoot.

 

[John Bragg]

Hi Newtorf. The method here is to allow the shadows more time to develop whilst holding back the highlights by minimal agitation since the dilute developer is used up more quickly in areas that have had more exposure. I havent used Dilution B for years. I always found it a bit firey.

 

[charjohncarter]

I take it that is development to exhaustion with just enough dev to do the job ? I must read The Negative again.

I'm not sure about that, but it must be very close to that. Because I use only 4 ml of stock HC-110 (American) per 500ml of water. Most sources say 6 ml for 120 and 36 exposure 35mm. But some say 3 ml and my 24 exposure mixture fits. I do agitate 30 seconds initially then 3 inversions every 4-5 minutes. It still takes 28 minutes with TriX at 68 degrees (20 degrees in the rest of the world). Tmax 100 with this method is over 40 minutes.

John Sexton has a good article on this (which I've posted before) and it is a good read. Everybody uses stand or semi-stand as a general development scheme but it is really for high contrast scenes:

http://johnsexton.com/images/Compensating_Development.pdf

 

[John Bragg]

I'm not sure about that, but it must be very close to that. Because I use only 4 ml of stock HC-110 (American) per 500ml of water. Most sources say 6 ml for 120 and 36 exposure 35mm. But some say 3 ml and my 24 exposure mixture fits. I do agitate 30 seconds initially then 3 inversions every 4-5 minutes. It still takes 28 minutes with TriX at 68 degrees (20 degrees in the rest of the world). Tmax 100 with this method is over 40 minutes.

John Sexton has a good article on this (which I've posted before) and it is a good read. Everybody uses stand or semi-stand as a general development scheme but it is really for high contrast scenes:

http://johnsexton.com/images/Compensating_Development.pdf

That is a useful link thanks John. I guess I like compensating development as a norm because it is a whole lot easier to itroduce contrast to a flatter negative than reduce contrast in a negative that has too much contrast.

 

[john_s]

I take it that is development to exhaustion with just enough dev to do the job ? I must read The Negative again.

I've often wondered about development to exhaustion.

1: I understand the action of very dilute developer combined with minimal agitation: relatively diminished development in the highlights compared to the shadows.

2: I can imagine exhausting developer leading to somewhat similar effect: development continuing in shadow areas because it's less used up, but in this case at a certain stage no area of the negative is getting fresh developer because it's used up. My guess is that this would produce a diminished effect compared to 1 above because even the shadows are not getting some fresh developer when there is a bit of agitation.

The difference might be subtle, though. When I have time, I might give it a try: 1 film in 250mL of very dilute dev, and another identical film in 1Litre of dilute dev, both with minimal agitation.

 

[John Bragg]

I've often wondered about development to exhaustion.

1: I understand the action of very dilute developer combined with minimal agitation: relatively diminished development in the highlights compared to the shadows.

2: I can imagine exhausting developer leading to somewhat similar effect: development continuing in shadow areas because it's less used up, but in this case at a certain stage no area of the negative is getting fresh developer because it's used up. My guess is that this would produce a diminished effect compared to 1 above because even the shadows are not getting some fresh developer when there is a bit of agitation.

The difference might be subtle, though. When I have time, I might give it a try: 1 film in 250mL of very dilute dev, and another identical film in 1Litre of dilute dev, both with minimal agitation.

That will be an interesting experiment. I look forward to seeing some results.

 

[charjohncarter]

That is a useful link thanks John. I guess I like compensating development as a norm because it is a whole lot easier to itroduce contrast to a flatter negative than reduce contrast in a negative that has too much contrast.

Ah, but it does not increase contrast to a low contrast scene (in fact, it further reduces it, that is the reason you ONLY use it with high contrast scenes). In fact, it reduces contrast, but with PS/PSE you can increase contrast with curves.

 

[charjohncarter]

I've often wondered about development to exhaustion.

1: I understand the action of very dilute developer combined with minimal agitation: relatively diminished development in the highlights compared to the shadows.

2: I can imagine exhausting developer leading to somewhat similar effect: development continuing in shadow areas because it's less used up, but in this case at a certain stage no area of the negative is getting fresh developer because it's used up. My guess is that this would produce a diminished effect compared to 1 above because even the shadows are not getting some fresh developer when there is a bit of agitation.

The difference might be subtle, though. When I have time, I might give it a try: 1 film in 250mL of very dilute dev, and another identical film in 1Litre of dilute dev, both with minimal agitation.

I agree. It is for high contrast development in the old world, but now you can still get a lousy image with levels or curves. But the shadow areas develop completely first and rapidly, as do the mid-tones develop quickly, but the highlights are held back. This is the definition of Compensating Development: popularly described with the connotation of Stand Development. And Stand Development to me is really a misnomer.

 

[znapper]

Looks like a good technique, I often use dilution H instead of dilution B when the contrast is high. Agitating less, but developing for twice the time, this seems to flatten the tones a little more than straight B.

However, you don't _always_ need to have detail in both shadows and highlights you know. The first shot, looks kind of washed out and overly bright to me, but off course, you now have a broader choice in the darkroom.....

I must stress that I am no follower of Ansel Adams puristic approach to photography, but I do like to have enough control, so I know how to block the shadows or blow out the highlights when I want to.