Tri-X - which developer? HC-110?

S

spkennedy3000

www.simonkennedy.net
Local time
4:41 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
74
Hi,

I have shot 3 rolls of tri-x, up until now I have been using HC-110, but I am finding a lot of conflicting info around on the development times...

Can anyone share experience with HC-110 and tri-x or recommend a (simple, reliable) alternative?

Thanks a lot!!

Simon
 
I don't know, I liked D-76 1-1, but just did my first roll today, HC-110 dilution B at 20c for 6 minutes, agitated for 1st 30 seconds slow inversion, then inversion every 30 seconds: I like it, its ease of use and the results are good.

4108607463_fcec9b0ffb.jpg


If you want to see it larger go to my flickr.
 
Last edited:
You can use HC-110 in a variety of dilutions other than the ones Kodak suggests. It's a good all around developer and the syrup straight from the bottle keeps a long time. Whichever dilution you choose YOU have to work out a developing tiime that works for you. This is true with any developer. The time would depend on how contrasty you like your negatives, temperature, accuracy of your thermometer, the way you agitate in the developer, pre-soak or not, the ph (acidity) of your water supply. There is no shortcut! Do your own tests.
 
I use dil "B" and quite like the results. E.I. 400ISO, 6.5 minutes with 20 gentile inversions in the first minute and one inversion every minute after.
 
I've been very pleased w/ the results of Tri-X shot at 400 and developed in HC 110 dil. e for 8 mins. Nice balance of tones and contrast, and the negatives scanned well. Tri-X exposed at iso 250 and developed in Rodinal can also be nice; gentle agitation, though. Al is right, though, you need to experiment w/ dilutions and dev times to find a result YOU like.
 
I used HC110 for a bit, but switched to Rodinal not to long ago and am much happier--I'd recommend giving it a try......with HC110 I just didn't get as predictable results as I did with Rodinal and I had many more problems with blown highlights, which looked awful.
 
I like Tri-X in XTOL. The grain is fine and the shadow detail is very good. Tonality is very pleasing as well. The main drawback is that you have to mix it five liters at a time, because they don't package it in a smaller size any more. That makes it a chore to mix and store.

In my experience D-76 used 1:1 as a one-shot is better than HC-110. Grain and tonality look better to me. The convenience of HC-110 can't be denied, but I think we can do better in terms of results. HC-110 is an active and vigorous developer that can easily block highlights if care is not taken. I have found it best to keep the developing times a bit to the short side. You can always boost contrast later, when printing. But once the highlights are blocked, you are through.

Anchell and Troop show a development time, for Tri-X, at EI 400, of 7.5 minutes at 68 degrees. This time is based on the older Tri-X, not the current one. I feel that my negatives are a little dense at 7.5 minutes. I will suggest a starting time of 6.5 minutes. The picture will be all there, with a more moderate contrast. Again, you can adjust the contrast later by using a higher numbered filter; or with Photoshop, if you are scanning.
 
I do it two ways both at EI 250; one the Ansel Adams method, and then just straight HC-110h (US syrup). With Ansel's method (high contrast shots) I use 4 ml of HC-110 US syrup to make 500 ml solution: 68 degrees F, 30 second initial agitation, then agitate 3 inversions each five minutes, 30 minutes total.

With the dilution H: 68 degrees F, 30 seconds initial agitation, then agitate 3 inversions each five minutes, 11:30 minutes total. I recently have been adding 2.5 ml of Rodinal to the 500 ml of dilution H. It give me a little better highlights.

Here is Ansel's method:

3682142366_14775b9682.jpg


Here is Dilution H:

2559237728_b97e218bd2.jpg


And here is one with the Rodinal added to Dilution H:

4029872806_7c797d18de.jpg
 
Last edited:
For my purposes--printing on Ilford variable contrast FB paper--I follow Fred Picker's zone system approach: Find the appropriate film speed by determining the speed that gives you zone I (density of 0.1 above film base plus fog). Then, using that speed, find the development time that gives you (in your enlarger) a zone VIII that is just sort of pure white when printing to place zone I just lighter than pure black. The system gives me 5 minutes at 68F using HC-110 dilution B. Tri-x performs beautifully and gives a full tonal scale and very tight grain. I haven't done the variations described by charjohncarter because I'm not sure I'd see the differences, but the development time I use works well--for my equipment. Not sure how you establish a development time for printing by scanning negatives and digital printing, but it has to be similar to the regular method.
 
"Tri-X" has been through so many reincarnations of "New, Improved!" since it was introduced 55 years ago that saying "Older Tri-X"? Yeah, right! it just ain't the same film, beyond having a nominal speed of ASA/DIN 400/27, now called ISO 400.

Also take into consideration WHY Tri-X came along and WHY photo-chemical companies followed up with UFG, Acufine, and Diafine along with Kodak's own HC-110. They all were chasing the photojournalism market, the newspaper shooters and Life Magazine wanabees. "Available light" was the buzz word half a century ago, followed a decade later by "SLR".

It's only in the past few years that we're coming to terms with the reality that you can't have ISO 1200 speed, fantastic shadow detail, smooth mid-tones, and good seperation in the highlights ~ not with the Tri-X/HC-110 combo that was first marketed to the newspaper photogs because it was pushable a stop or two, the grain was OK if not great, it didn't require long times in the developer, and rapid fix was taking over the fixer market, another five minutes saved!

None of this was designed to give Panatomic-X fine grain or Microdol-X smooth grain from your Rolleiflex negatives.

And once more: Developer DOES NOT AFFECT SHADOW DETAIL. Only exposure does that. What the developer can do is give good mid-tones and keep some seperation in the highlights when you develop for too long. You can end up with a printable negative, perhaps, but empty clear negative areas in the shadows won't gain any detail.
 
Tri-X in D76 is the classic film/developer combo, bar none. There's an issue about whether you should use your D76 straight or diluted 1:1 -- some prefer one and some the other. In any event, if you can't get decent results from these two something is seriously wrong!

Recently I've developed Tri-X in Xtol (stock and 1:1) and found that the results are also good, although grain is finer and mushier. For some reason Kodak claims that Xtol is sharper than D76 but personally I can't see it, however in general the results are pretty amazing for a 400 ISO film.

I'm not so crazy about developers like HC110 and Rodinal because they tend to depress the mid-tones, which effectively results in a speed loss. That's why a lot of photographers rate their film at lower speeds, claiming for example that "Tri-X is not really ISO 400". Maybe in those developers it is but I have rated it at 400 in Xtol/D76 and not found shadow detail to be lacking.

I do have one suggestion, which is to sacrifice a few rolls of film to find out the correct developing time for you. Lots of things can make a difference, such as water hardness, the accuracy of your thermometer and so on. Don't go and shoot that once-in-a-lifetime picture and then take pot luck with the development -- you will regret it!
 
Al Kaplan said:
...
And once more: Developer DOES NOT AFFECT SHADOW DETAIL. Only exposure does that. What the developer can do is give good mid-tones and keep some seperation in the highlights when you develop for too long. You can end up with a printable negative, perhaps, but empty clear negative areas in the shadows won't gain any detail.
Click to expand...

This last paragraph is ambiguous.

Do you mean development time?
or Devloper type?
or something else?

I will say that different developes give quite different film speeds and thus shadow detail. I therefore assume you mean development time? If so, it is also incorrect, because although increased development time (i.e. pushing) has most of its affect on the upper zones it does havce some small affect on the shadows. I do mean small of course. Pushed development times in addition to reduced agitation can make a difference to your shadows in fact, but I would always recomment using a faster film as I think you are suggesting also.
 
Sorry about any ambiguity. REGARDLESS of developer, less than a critical minimum exposure has little effect on making a developable image. This brings us to the conundrum of exactly what are film speeds? DIN measured a point on the "characteristc curve", or H&D curve, where base exposure starts to affected density. ASA measured a point on the straight line portion of the curve above the toe and below the shoulder. When the International Standards Organization came on scene it sort of combined the two, making ASA 400 and DIN 27 into ISO 400/27 for several years, then the 27 part was quietly dropped.

One problem is that not all ASA 400 films would rate at 27 on the DIN scale. Some might be higher while others were lower. Which was the correct speed? Factor in development. DIN 400 in D-76 or ID-11? DIN 26 in Microdol-X? DIN 30 or 31 in Acufine? Was HP4 faster or slower than Tri-X? In which developer? What dilution?

Now you're half way there!

There's still that pesky problem that not all grade two (or any other grade) papers have the same curve! Are the shoulder and toe at the same place? Did they rate contrast on the straight line portion or the overall average? Does it have a long toe or a short toe? Have fun.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
Quite! Hence the wisom of determing what works based on what you like the end look of.

In response to your below, person A goes out and shoots a film (pushed) in very flat conditions and then conclude it pushed well without realising that they still dropped the lower values say from Z4 to Z3 and stretched the uppers soemwhat. The result was a loss of shadow detail, but a loss that resulted in better low values and a more juicy looking print. Person B then shoots the film at box speed in contrasty light and concludes it does not even make box speed!

Its tough and years on I am stil trying to get completely happy with how I handle the extremes of light I encounter, often on the same roll of film. Compromise is the nature of the best if shooting rolls rather than sheets.

Al Kaplan said:
Sorry about any ambiguity. REGARDLESS of developer, less than a critical minimum exposure has little effect on making a developable image. This brings us to the conundrum of exactly what are film speeds? DIN measured a point on the "characteristc curve", or H&D curve, where base exposure starts to affected density. ASA measured a point on the straight line portion of the curve above the toe and below the shoulder. When the International Standards Organization came on scene it sort of combined the two, making ASA 400 and DIN 27 into ISO 400/27 for several years, then the 27 part was quietly dropped.

One problem is that not all ASA 400 films would rate at 27 on the DIN scale. Some might be higher while others were lower. Which was the correct speed? Factor in development. DIN 400 in D-76 or ID-11? DIN 26 in Microdol-X? DIN 30 or 31 in Acufine? Was HP4 faster or slower than Tri-X? In which developer? What dilution?

Now you're half way there!

There's still that pesky problem that not all grade two (or any other grade) papers have the same curve! Are the shoulder and toe at the same place? Did they rate contrast on the straight line portion or the overall average? Does it have a long toe or a short toe? Have fun.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
 
Al Kaplan said:
"Tri-X" has been through so many reincarnations of "New, Improved!" since it was introduced 55 years ago that saying "Older Tri-X"? Yeah, right! it just ain't the same film, beyond having a nominal speed of ASA/DIN 400/27, now called ISO 400.

Also take into consideration WHY Tri-X came along and WHY photo-chemical companies followed up with UFG, Acufine, and Diafine along with Kodak's own HC-110. They all were chasing the photojournalism market, the newspaper shooters and Life Magazine wanabees. "Available light" was the buzz word half a century ago, followed a decade later by "SLR".

It's only in the past few years that we're coming to terms with the reality that you can't have ISO 1200 speed, fantastic shadow detail, smooth mid-tones, and good seperation in the highlights ~ not with the Tri-X/HC-110 combo that was first marketed to the newspaper photogs because it was pushable a stop or two, the grain was OK if not great, it didn't require long times in the developer, and rapid fix was taking over the fixer market, another five minutes saved!

None of this was designed to give Panatomic-X fine grain or Microdol-X smooth grain from your Rolleiflex negatives.

And once more: Developer DOES NOT AFFECT SHADOW DETAIL. Only exposure does that. What the developer can do is give good mid-tones and keep some seperation in the highlights when you develop for too long. You can end up with a printable negative, perhaps, but empty clear negative areas in the shadows won't gain any detail.
Click to expand...


Dear Al,

This is flatly untrue. Speed increasing developers such as DD-X or Microphen give a true ISO of 650+ (and correspondingly coarser grain) with Kodak Tri-X and Ilford HP5 Plus. Fine grain developers such as Perceptol give a true ISO of 250 or less (and correspondingly finer grain).

Proving this via development to ISO standard contrast, and plotting D/log E curves may be tedious, but it making the effort will clearly demonstrate the truth of my assertion.

You are perhaps talking about so-called 'compensating' developers, which can give good shadow detail and fair highlight detail while compressing mid-tone detail, but developers can and do most assuredly make a difference to shadow detail at a given contrast.

Sorry to disagree so flatly, but both theory and (controlled) experiment are against you.

EDIT: These is no conundrum on film speeds. The Kodak standard was based on a fractional gradient, DIN on fixed density. The apparently very short distance between the lower and higher speed points in the ISO standard reconciles the two extraordinarily well.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Dear all,

Thanks a lot for the info and theory discussion.
So far I have been successful developing film, something I have only been doing for a couple of years. But the reason I have been successful (I think)is that I measure times and temperatures accurately, and vary one thing at a time to look for improvements. This is all shooting neopan.

I decided to try Tri-X on a recent trip to Barcelona, so although I recognise the need to experiment what I really want are confirmations (based on experience) of dilutions and development times with HC-110, as there seems no reason not to use it except for lack of clarity on timings.

I need a confirmed recipe to start with so I can vary from there, I have film shot in a foreign country so I really need something I can be reasonably confident in, I cannot replicate the shots.

While the theory on developers uses and effects is interesting it is not really helping me.

Thanks,

Simon
 
spkennedy3000 said:
Dear all,

Thanks a lot for the info and theory discussion.
So far I have been successful developing film, something I have only been doing for a couple of years. But the reason I have been successful (I think)is that I measure times and temperatures accurately, and vary one thing at a time to look for improvements. This is all shooting neopan.

I decided to try Tri-X on a recent trip to Barcelona, so although I recognise the need to experiment what I really want are confirmations (based on experience) of dilutions and development times with HC-110, as there seems no reason not to use it except for lack of clarity on timings.

I need a confirmed recipe to start with so I can vary from there, I have film shot in a foreign country so I really need something I can be reasonably confident in, I cannot replicate the shots.

While the theory on developers uses and effects is interesting it is not really helping me.
Thanks,

Simon
Click to expand...

Dear Simon,

Sorry. You asked for a 'simple, reliable alternative' so some of us tried to suggest just that.

The truth is that if you've been developing films successfully for a while, you can probably develop this lot OK. My own advice would be not to under-develop, because it's easier to reduce contrast than to gain it. In other words, go for the more aggressive recommendations (longer times or higher temperatures or higher concentrations or more agitation) rather than the less aggressive ones.

Cheers,

R.
 
Hi Roger,

No need to apologise, I have certainly learned something from the theory discussion, and yes you are right I did say that. From the earlier part of the thread it seems that HC-110 is a perfectly appropriate choice (I was not sure before).

So I think therefore that because I cannot replicate the photos I just want to feel a little more confident in the "recipe" for Tri-x and HC-110, I just want some confirmed times and temperatures and solutions....

Thanks very much,

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