D76 VS HC110 VS Rodinal

As the title suggests, can anyone give a general description of the differences these developers will have on the final product when used with Tri X 400? If at all possible, please try to use lay terms, as some of the jargon doesn't help me understand what things might look like. FWIW, I currently use Tri-X (at 400) in D76 stock for the recommended 6:45 at 20C, agitating 10 seconds each minute. I'm new to this, so I have not begun experimenting yet. My results are pretty good, but I always seems to want punchier blacks, if that makes any sense. My prints seem a little greyer than I like, but if I underexpose on the enlarger I lose the highlights and contrast. Perhaps I need to look at something other than developers. My negetives actually look good to my untrained eye, as well as my instructors experienced eye. Well, as I said, I'm fairly new to all this, so I am still trying to figure out which part of the process to adjust in order to achieve the desired results. Thanks.

Jmal

If you wish to use Tri-X then Rodinal is a poor choice. You will get rather pronounced grain. Some people like the combination but most people do not. Xtol diluted 1:1 would be a better choice for Tri-X than D-76 as it produces somewhat more speed and finer grain. Once again, the choice of film/developer takes on somewhat religious overtones. Both Xtol and D-76 are better diluted than used full strength. D-76 used FS produces rather mushy grain and loss of sharpness.

One often hears the comment "the negatives look very good". However, negatives are not what are hung on walls, it is the print that matters. I have some very nice looking negatives that are just about impossible to print.

I don't think changing to either of those developers is going to help you get "punchier blacks". My finding with Tri-X in smaller formats (and most 400 iso film in smaller formats) is that it tends to produce a grayer image. For this I usually taylor my negatives for a grade 3 paper instead of the usual grade 2. I have used HC110 with a good deal of success in the past but currently I use Rodinal as I can make it when I need it. Then the temperature is easily obtained and it's generally just easier for me. In my opinion it's not your film developer but more of your paper, paper developer or paper grade.

Agree with the comment that Rodinol is not a good choice with Tri-X, especially in small negative formats.

I used to use a lot of Tri-X, rated at 200, processed in D-76 1:1, 20C, 8 mins, which was amazingly forgiving.

HC-110 gives pretty similar results to D-76. I personally prefer HC-110 since I prefer not having to mix the powder, and I like the ease at which you can use it at different dilutions.

If you like more contrast, develop a bit longer, or if using HC-110, a bit more concentration.

It's a matter of taste.
I find Tri-X in Rodinal beautiful, making stunning exhibition prints. I'm in Paris to do square meter prints. Today I met an old friend at the lab and we were watching his prints hanging still humid on the wall. 40 inches by something from a 35 on rodinal... Yes there is grain, but let me tell you, that was blowing away everybody passing by.
Grain is part of photography.

I think the key words in your post are, "I'm new to this." In your post, there are actually several issues raised. Here is my 2 cents worth:

1. Keep it simple (KISS). Choose one film (tri-x) and one developer and really learn how the combination works before experimenting with a lot of different films and developer combinations. Once you have one combination wired, it is much easier to try different pairs. But, you need to establish a base line for comparison first.

2. The differences between d-76 and hc110 are pretty minor, compared to their similarities. If you are just starting out, you probably can't tell the real differences yet anyway. So, pick one based on which is easier for you to use, powder or liquid, which can you get more easily, etc. Then start using that one. Personally, I use d-76. But hc110 is a very good developer. If you go the d-76 route, I recommend using it 1:1.

3. I would not start with Rodinal, but I would certainly try it later on. I think of it as a more specialized developer, not a general developer on which to learn.

4. For punchier blacks, print your existing negatives on a higher grade of paper. Set the exposure for the print based on the highlights (whites), then adjust the contrast (move to a higher grade) to get darker blacks. If there is not enough shadow detail in the negative, rate the film at 200. Personally, I shoot all my tri-x at 200 for silver printing.

Hope that helps.

One uses a certain developer on a certain film because it works for them. D-76 and HC-110, in my opinion, are in the same family--semi-fined grain, all purpose devs. Rodinal is different. It is an accutance developer, it shows the grain that is inherent in the film. If you were to show someone an 8x10 made from a D-76 neg and one from an HC-110 neg, they probably couldn't tell which was which.

Yes, Rodinal is grainy, but it gives a full-bodied neg. Think of Rodinal as Black Shiraz and D-76 as White Zinfendel. Both are wines, both will get you drunk, but they are different.

Try your TX with D-76 and then with Rodinal. See what YOU like.

As for your gray prints, are you printing on variable contrast paper and using filters to control the contrast? Is you print dev fresh and at 68F or higher? Are you leaving it the dev long enough? Lots of questions for you, I know, but stay with it, no one ever learned this overnight!

I personally use xtol for tri-x at 400, and rodinal, mimial agitation for it at 1600

jmal said:

... can anyone give a general description of the differences these developers will have on the final product when used with Tri X 400?

Click to expand...

Probably not. (Now, that comment will draw the ire of someone who can. )

Someone would have to have made a comparison of the 3 combinations with all other factors being equal, in order to answer your question. And this is exactly what you need to do. Invest the time and three rolls of film and take the same pictures on all and develop in all three and see what you think. I recently did this (with two developers) and the results were surprising. However, my results differ from some others, so my telling you my results may not reflect what you will achieve.

jmal said:

My prints seem a little greyer than I like, ... Perhaps I need to look at something other than developers.

Jmal

Click to expand...

Maybe.

Okay. I'll try to address some of the questions and comments. I certainly understand the value of sticking with one setup long enough to master it. That's what I'm doing with Tri X and D76. Also, when I say that my prints are greyer than I like, I may be exagerating the greys. If I saw them in a book, they wouldn't look bad at all. I just have something a little different in mind. As for development times and temps, everything is pretty much by the book: 68f/20c and Kodak's time in the developer, both prints and negatives. I certainly think the prints have been left in the developer long enough and I have experimented a bit with leaving the paper in the tray for a range of times. The one thing that I don't know is the exact kind of paper used. It's an Ilford RC paper, but which one I don't know. So far, all my prints have been done without the use of contrast filters or other "manipulation." I'm pretty happy with the work I've done so far, but I'm on a quest to get those absolutely stunning shots and prints that the big guys get. I think I'll try to get some prints scanned at Kinko's or something just to post when I have questions. That way there will be some sort of reference point. Thanks for the replies.

Jmal

jmal said:

My prints seem a little greyer than I like, but if I underexpose on the enlarger I lose the highlights and contrast.

Click to expand...

Two things can possibly lead to muddy prints. Are you developing your film to the proper contrast? When printing, people who are new to photographic processing tend to pull their prints before they are completely developed. This is called developing to completion. Search for the APUG thread on this. If you are not getting the contrast that you want then it isn't a matter of the film/developer combination but rather your processing.

Dear Jmal,

I think you should play with the contrast filters before changing developers. A fun (I think it is anyway.) exercise is to print at the 5 major "grades" and put them out in front of you for comparison. Expose them so that the highlights are about the same in each print (the exposure will vary as you change contrast filter).

Neal Wydra

jmal said:

Also, when I say that my prints are greyer than I like, I may be exagerating the greys.... So far, all my prints have been done without the use of contrast filters or other "manipulation."

Click to expand...

Of course, it's hard to judge without seeing the actual prints, but if you're not happy with the depth of your blacks, you might just need to print at a higher grade. With modern VC papers, that means using a filter at print time.

Try this: expose a piece of paper (a scrap piece will do) to lots of light (say, room light for several seconds), so that it's fully exposed. Process this piece of paper as per normal, and process another piece that's not been exposed at all. Together, these will give you an idea of the minimum and maximum black levels the paper can produce. If your prints aren't achieving the maximum black levels and you're not seeing more of the minimum than you want, then you need to increase your printing contrast. There's no shame in this; just do it. If you're seeing too much white and too little black or vice-versa, you need to adjust your exposure. If you find that you regularly need to increase your contrast beyond a level you find acceptable, then chances are you're underdeveloping your negatives.

Note that the optimum printing grade is a somewhat subjective matter. Most people prefer to print at somewhere in the grade 2 to grade 3 range. Note also that, particularly when using 35mm, MF, or other roll films, you'll almost certainly need to fine-tune your contrast settings from one frame to another on the same roll, simply because different scenes vary in contrast, so even if frame #1 (or whatever) is properly exposed and developed to print on your desired grade of paper, frame #2 might not be.

Another sugestion (s): Buy or get books from your library on photography. These can often show you how to do things in your darkroom. In addition, try to take a b/w course at your community college. Sometimes local arts centers will offer courses in photography. There's nothing quite like having an instructor SHOW you how do do something.

I've used all three, although maybe not enough recently. I prefer D-76 (1+1), but all give good, but somewhat different, results. Rodinal is most different. The grain is big and dagger-like, but the gradation is excellent. You can get excellent prints from Tri-X in Rodinal, but you will definitely notice the grain. D-76 and HC-110 are more similar. D-76 seems a bit softer to me, and I find it easier to control. Used as directed, both give very similar, fine grained images. Used undiluted, D-76 gives finer, somewhat mushier grain and slightly increased contrast. You still get an excellent, sharp image, but it may not give quite the same print people now expect from 35mm. The differences are not as noticeable in larger formats. It's worth trying both. I think the images of Tri-X in HC-110(B) are somewhat harsher that those from D-76 (1+1). That may be just technique, because quantitatively these developers give very similar results.

The idea of diluting the developer (e.g. D-76) came about in the late 1950s with the introduction of thin emulsion films. The grain of the new films was fine enough that it did not need the help of the developer to mask it. The fine-grain effect of developers was also reduced (but not eliminated) by the new emulsions. But the new, thin emulsion films also tended to be contrastier than the old films, they were often subject to dichroic fog, and they were fussier about development time and temperature. Diluting the developer was a solution to all these problems. It works quite well, and in addition it produces higher acutance than undiluted developers. Tri-X was always less susceptable to the problems than the other new films. It still works well with a variety of older formulations as well as the new ones.

I like Tri-X in Rodinol. For some subjects the harsh grain gives the feel I want.

raucousimages said:

I like Tri-X in Rodinol. For some subjects the harsh grain gives the feel I want.

Click to expand...

I like pushing films in it. Tri-x + rodinal at 400 never gives me enough grain.

Thanks for all the responses. I had the final class in an intro course tonight. According to my instructor, my prints look pretty good. He seemed to think there was a very good range of tones and that there was not much to be done other than fine tuning with filters. For instance, using a 2 1/2 as opposed to the 2 that the paper starts at. I had a couple that I printed roughly a stop apart and he thought that contrast filters would enable me to make the blacks pop as they do in my darker prints while maintaining the highlights as in my lighter prints. I also noticed that looking at the prints in the light of the classroom, they look much better than in the muted lights at my house. Another interesting note: he demonstrated a number of alternative processes tonight and in the process went from a normal print on RC MC paper to a print on high contrast FB paper. I actually like the look of the high contrast print more than the regular print. So, perhaps I just like very contrasty prints. He also did contact prints on sheet film, solarizations, Sabbatier effects (spelling?), and a number of other things I lost track of. Pretty cool stuff. There is so much to learn, but I'm having a blast and feel quite proud that in a couple of months I've gone from knowing nothing about photography to shooting, developing, and printing my own stuff.

Jmal

Sounds like you're well on your way!

Haven't taken into consideraton the format used by Jmal and the various effects upon the negative as the format size increases. In 6x7 with enlargements up to 11x14, and I being a sharpness junkie, I like Rodinal. As I make my way down the format ladder to 35mm, I give my nod to D-76 or X-tol.

Gerald Koch said:

If you wish to use Tri-X then Rodinal is a poor choice.

<snip>

One often hears the comment "the negatives look very good". However, negatives are not what are hung on walls, it is the print that matters. I have some very nice looking negatives that are just about impossible to print.

Click to expand...

Balderdash. You are making an absolute statement about a film/developer combination that I really doubt you have ever used. And if you have, then I doubt you did structured, empirical tests to "dial in" the combination. As others have noted, a good Tri-X/Rodinal protocol can produce stunning results.

D-76, XTOL, HC-110, FG-7, etc., etc., etc. can ALSO produce stunning results. It is the work, knowledge and skill of the photographer/darkroom worker that makes the difference. I don't like Diafine much at all. But you know what? In the hands of some photographers I've seen VERY good results, and I've complimented them on their work.

So please don't prejudice someone who is just starting out in the analog processing world by making pronouncements.

rtuttle said:

I don't think changing to either of those developers is going to help you get "punchier blacks". My finding with Tri-X in smaller formats (and most 400 iso film in smaller formats) is that it tends to produce a grayer image. For this I usually taylor my negatives for a grade 3 paper instead of the usual grade 2. I have used HC110 with a good deal of success in the past but currently I use Rodinal as I can make it when I need it. Then the temperature is easily obtained and it's generally just easier for me. In my opinion it's not your film developer but more of your paper, paper developer or paper grade.

Click to expand...

No, probably not. The lack of strong blacks is most likely underexposure. In all my 30+ years of working with Tri-X, I have never found it to be a true 400 speed film, through out its changes in formulation. Every photographer needs to do methodical film speed tests with b&w film. Meters and techniques vary, but nearly all photographers I know who have great results with Tri-X rate it at 200 to 320; most are at 200 or 250.

Mushy grays and lowered high values are normally a function of development time that is not optimal, plus underexposure. While some correction can be made by changing paper grades, that's not the optimal method, and is not, in my experience, always completely successful. Also, a condensor enlarger can give "chalk and soot" results as opposed to a cold light/diffusion enlarger. Again, there are great prints made with condensor enlargers. But you can bet those photographers have worked out their film exposure and development down to a tee to fit the needs of a condensor enlarging system.

As jmal noted, evaluating prints under different lighting can lead to far different judgments. Again, EVERYTHING in the chain need to be optimized. This seems daunting, especially to someone new to the craft. But with work and time, it can be worked out.

Now, why did I use terms like "Balderdash" and "No probably not"; i.e., why so adamant? I'm not trying to bash people or come off as the ultimate authority. But I spent a lot of time, effort and money fine-tuning my b&w work. If I had taken every gospel-like statement at face value, I never would have gotten were I got. I hate to see someone who is open to improving have a potential "solution" ruled out a priori.

I haven't done the entire b&w workflow (no darkroom right now) for quite some time, so I know that I would have to re-test, recalibrate, etc., for new materials, conditions, etc.

FWIW, while I mostly use Rodinal now, most of my quality work was done with HC-110. Mostly that was because it was far easier to obtain locally, but also because I had been duped by the "Rodinal is too grainy" RULE nonsense. Once I started really working with it, trying different dilutions, agitation regimens, etc., I saw that "rule" as the silliness it was. FOR ME. If someone gets the exact same results as me with Rodinal (or HC-110, or DD-X, or FG7... whatever) and doesn't like it, then that's a different story.

Earl,

It's interesting that you mention that changing paper grades is not necessarily the best way to get results. The approach that my instructor takes emphasizes proper exposure first. He claims that if the exposure, development, etc. are correct, filters are not needed--usually. He also looked at my prints and thought the range of tones, including the blacks that I felt were a little weaker than I like, were very good. He suggested increasing development time on my negatives when shooting on grey days so the photos don't look flat, though he wasn't necessarily saying that mine looked flat. Another consideration is the actual subject matter. If there are not many truly black tones in the subject, then the prints are going to be greyer. You mention that a lack of strong blacks is often due to underexposure. Are you referring to the print or the negative? I can see how a longer exposure on the print would make it darker, but in the negative a longer exposure would lead to a loss of blacks. Correct? Thanks for all the help.

Jmal

Earl Dunbar said:

Balderdash. You are making an absolute statement about a film/developer combination that I really doubt you have ever used.

Click to expand...

Before you start criticizing someone's statement you need to read it carefully. What I said was that this combination produces rather pronounced grain not that there was anything wrong with anything else. Many people do not like grain and that was the purpose of my comment. I have tried this combination over the years and have never really liked it for routine use. I stand by my comment.

jmal said:

As for development times and temps, everything is pretty much by the book: 68f/20c and Kodak's time in the developer, both prints and negatives.

Click to expand...

I'm probably repeating what others have said in a different way, but there is no such thing as "basic, by the book" development. It's always a personal quest, if you will.

Getting proper exposure and proper development involves making something that gives the results you want. Getting there is another pair of sleeves.

The standard normal-development test, Zone System-like, is an averaging of purposes. It ensures that for any scene that has about seven stops of useable light, you will have proper tonal separation on the paper you print with. In photoshop terms, it would mean more or less adjusting your white point and your black point where they should be.

The reason why this technique is useful is not that it's the intrinsically correct one, but that it's the one that gives the most useful results for the statistical majority of picture-taking situations. If you're out of the ordinary, well, you have to work more! So when you say

jmal said:

I'm on a quest to get those absolutely stunning shots and prints that the big guys get.

Click to expand...

I have to say that they get stunning shots probably because they have found all the toolchain that they can bend to their artistic will. Ralph Gibson develops tri-x in Rodinal, and makes his negs very thick. It's the antithesis of basic Zone System normal dev, but his point is not to be "normal," it's to be stunning.

For my part, I'm nearing normality, and hope to reach abnormality in a reasonable time...

MHV,

I understand that there is no normal or correct method. When I said "by the book," I meant literally using Kodak's recommended start times. Having said that, I have not yet done any film speed tests as the method seemed a little too involved from what I had read. Now that I have a little more experience, I think I will try to test my film speed. I understand that there is a way of doing this that is considerably easier than some of the involved methods I've read about.

Jmal