Developing my first negs...need some guidance

[Nancy Giroux]

Hi All,
I wonder if you can give me a little guidance. I have a roll of triX 400 that I pushed to 1250 (don't ask me why I chose 1250 instead of 1600).
I have never developed my own negs, but am very excited to try. The most important images on the film are the last 12 negs. They were shot in a nightclub under contrasty light. I ordered HC-110 (before shooting this roll)
I'm not sure if this is a good choice as a developer, but it's all I've got right now. I've been reading up a storm and hope to become more knowledgable. I ordered several books that I found in a recent thread here at APUG, so thanks for that!
So here's my question. When develping this roll of film, should I base the develping time on 1600? I can't find any guides for 1250.
I love this forum..it's very inspirational!
Thanks so much!
Nancy

 

[htmlguru4242]

HC-110 is a good developer, and Tri-X is a good film, though 1250 is a bit of an odd EI to choose, oh well.

The 1600 time would probably work acceptably, but I'd go a bit under that. Tri-X does have good exposure latitude, and 1600 and 1250 are not that far apart in the relative scheme of things, so ... At 1600, the massive dev chart reccomendation for HC-110 (Dil. B) is 6 minutes. I'd say that about 4 1/2 - 5 mins. would be a good bet. Keep in mind that the regular time is 3 3/4 minutes, and that Tri-X has enough latitude to be exposed 1 stop pushed (or pulled) with normal development.

The contrast might be an issue, but somebody else ehre is probably [definetely] much better at reccomendations as to controlling that ...

 

[Nancy Giroux]

Don't ask me why I chose 1250??!! LOL, I won't do that again.
I'm hoping to try to do this tonight. Wish me luck. I truly appreciate your help!
Nancy
PS..after shooting some nightclub stull with my Nikon D2x, I knew I had to start using film.

 

[df cardwell]

EI 1250 is a pretty astute choice for pushing Tri-X in HC-110.

A good way to manage the increased highlight density is to use a dilution of twice that of dilution B ( 1+ 31 ). Try 1+63, and develop for twice the time for B. It is to my taste to develop for once per minute,, rather than every 30 seconds. The suggested tome for 'large tank development ( once per minute agitation ) is 6 3/4 ' for dilution B. So, a great place to begin is twice that: 13 1/2 ', 68 degrees, agition once per minute, EI 1250, dilution 1+63.

The Kodak page for Tri X is FULL of reliable data:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...f4017/f4017.jhtml?id=0.1.22.14.23.16.14&lc=en

Probably Xtol would be a more common choice today, but the HC110 will do a fine job. Slow down the development time for better control.

d

 

[Nancy Giroux]

Me...Astute, Who knew??!! LOL
Thanks so much for all of the technical info. I will check out the kodak link. I really want to start shooting more film and that means I have to get good at developing it.
Thanks guys!
Nancy

 

[sunnyroller]

Nancy--
Not to muddy the water, but you will find threads here on APUG that mention the supposed typo in Kodak's data for HC 110 Dilution B and Tri X 400. I know that I have found the recommended time for Tri - X 400 in HC 110 B to be too short. For an EI of 400 I usually do 7 1/2 minutes at 68 degrees. In fact I just ran some through at that and have in the fix as I write this. When I push Tri X to 800 or 1600 I use the recommended time which I think is something like 8 or 8 1/2 minutes. I don't have my sheet in front of me so I could be mis remembering. Good luck.

Sunny

 

[j-fr]

Hi All,

I'm not sure if this is a good choice as a developer, but it's all I've got right now. Nancy

No, HC-110 is not a good choice for Tri-X. The T-MAX one-shot developer would be a much better choice. For EI 1200 try dilution 1+7 for 15 min at 20 C, agitation 5 seconds every half a minute.

If you ever again need a speed of 1600, you should try the T-MAX 3.200. Set the meter for 1.600 and develop in Tetenal Ultrafin 1 + 14, 10 minutes at 20 C. Then you'll get you pritable negatives.

 

[Marc Leest]

I fear the results will be mediocre at best: severe underexposure on a contrasty scene
will have very little detail in the shadows. I would recommend to develop Tri-X as EI800
in Microphen.

regards,

 

[srs5694]

I don't have experience with push processing Tri-X or even with normal processing of this film in HC-110; however, you could try finding the times for EI800 and EI1600 and pick a time between those two.

That said, processing times aren't so precise that a minor deviation will produce unusable negatives. If a processing chart says 6:00 and you develop for 6:30, your negatives will probably be fine. They might be a bit dense, but you'll be able to compensate in printing by using a lower-grade paper. People here will debate the finer points of various development times, and I don't mean to say you should just develop for random times; my point is that film development is more robust against small deviations than many beginners seem to think. Once you move out of the "beginner" category, you'll be better able to appreciate the effects of such small changes, the costs and benefits of push and pull processing, etc. For now, take some of the advice from those who've already posted, pick a time from a chart, or whatever, and go for it. Your first roll may not be perfect, but you'll learn quickly, particularly if you stick to one or two types of film and one developer.

 

[Gay Larson]

I agree, just do it, you probably will wind up with a usable negative and learn a lot to boot. I was anxious about developing my film in the beginning but now i enjoy it a lot. I would use what you have on hand right now, take some of the advise about the time and go for it. Later on you can try another developer and compare. Just have fun.

 

[gnashings]

Best of luck with your negatives, I think you will have useful results - this film is truly magical - it will do just about anything. I commonly shoot it at 1000ASA and just dump it in Acufine, always blows me away. As has already been said, the difference between 1600 and 1250 is pretty close to insignificant with negative film, especially magical stuff like TriX - so don't fret too much.
Now, by the way of advice from a relative beginner: don't do what I did! I tried this film at that speed with this developer and then that one, and then other films... Ihad fun - but I would have learned a lot more with a more structured approach: pick a film, pick a developer. Learn the combo, its strong suites, its shortcomings - get a consitency out of it, learn how different changes affect what you get. Then you will be able to make better choices, with less of a crap-shoot, when choosing the next film, and next developer to add to your arsenal, since you will be doing so to solve specific problems or fill specific requirements.
I just wish I did it that way, I would have learned so much more, so much more quickly - even now, I know I am too easily drawn into trying this or that for no other reason than because I am curious - not a bad thing, except you sort of never know what you get when you do that...
Above all, enjoy - and remember, its just one roll of film: keep shooting, as there is no substitute for that!

Peter.

 

[Nancy Giroux]

What an amazing group of supportive photographers you all are! I have read all of your advice and respect all of your opinions. I even got a pm from someone giving me additional advice. I practiced several times rolling an unprocessed roll on the reel. I think I'm good to go in the dark now. I shot a roll around the house on the advice of the person who PM'd me to test out the development time before processing the more important roll. I'm looking forwad to tonight (when I will set up shop to develop). I hope I have some decent results to share with you.
Thanks so much!
Nancy

 

[SuzanneR]

Good luck, Nancy!

And enjoy your slide into the darkside!!

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Out of curiosity, Nancy, are you from Québec? Your name sounds like a local Montrealer to me...

 

[Nancy Giroux]

Thanks Suzanne! I hope it's a long long slide into it.
mhv..I'm from Massachusetts.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Massachusetts, hmm... I know that around the late 19th and the early 20th century there has been a massive exodus of Quebecers in Eastern US towns because of lack of jobs. Lowell, Mass is one famous one (Jack Kerouac was born there, and he's from a Quebec family); Woonsocket RI is another one as it employed a lot of these people in textile industry. Anyway, have a good developing and learning!

 

[Nancy Giroux]

The results!

Ok..here's the results and they're not so good. LOL.
My husband wound the film on the arista metal reel after reading and practicing with a roll of unexposed film.
We mixed up the chemicals and followed all of the directions. I shot a roll of film of just stuff around the house and then we developed those negs.
The resulting negs look really good, except it's obvious that the film was not loaded on the reel the right way. It must have been overlapping. There are several "whitish looking areas on the negs that were in the middle of the roll.
Is there a trick to know if the film is loaded correctly on the reel? I'm hoping to get this right before I attempt to develop a more important roll of film.
Thanks again for your help. I may attempt to scan a couple of the good negs tomorrow to share.
Nancy

 

[Canuck]

Ok..here's the results and they're not so good. LOL.
My husband wound the film on the arista metal reel after reading and practicing with a roll of unexposed film.
We mixed up the chemicals and followed all of the directions. I shot a roll of film of just stuff around the house and then we developed those negs.
The resulting negs look really good, except it's obvious that the film was not loaded on the reel the right way. It must have been overlapping. There are several "whitish looking areas on the negs that were in the middle of the roll.
Is there a trick to know if the film is loaded correctly on the reel? I'm hoping to get this right before I attempt to develop a more important roll of film.
Thanks again for your help. I may attempt to scan a couple of the good negs tomorrow to share.
Nancy

I don't know if its a trick but when I load onto steel reels I like the counter top. I was taught to do it in mid air the loading, but the countertop helps me out. I try to get it as parallel to the reel each as possible initially and then placing it on the countertop, I start turning the reel to draw in the film, giving a slight squeeze on the edges of the film to help it get onto the reel. For me, the reel on the countertop stops me from twisting it and buckling the film. If buckling occurs for me, it usually happens at the beginning due to the reel being slightly crooked (you can feel it getting hard to feed it straight) to the film. If it buckles, I unload and start again.

Most of the time, when I just process just a roll, the old Patterson reel and tank works well for me. No buckling unless I miss the feed gate . Have fun!

 

[srs5694]

I know that around the late 19th and the early 20th century there has been a massive exodus of Quebecers in Eastern US towns because of lack of jobs. Lowell, Mass is one famous one (Jack Kerouac was born there, and he's from a Quebec family); Woonsocket RI is another one as it employed a lot of these people in textile industry.

Interesting you should mention that, as I currently reside in Woonsocket. I'm not part of that particular migration, though; I'm a recent transplant. There are lots of old mills here that are good for moody abandoned-building photos. Some of them are getting turned into condos. But enough of the digression....

I shot a roll of film of just stuff around the house and then we developed those negs.
The resulting negs look really good, except it's obvious that the film was not loaded on the reel the right way. It must have been overlapping. There are several "whitish looking areas on the negs that were in the middle of the roll.
Is there a trick to know if the film is loaded correctly on the reel?

Many people find stainless-steel (SS) reels hard to load at first. You might want to consider getting a plastic tank and reel (Paterson, say). If you prefer not to waste the time and money, though, I'd say to practice some more. Pay careful attention to the feel of the film going onto the reel. If it feels in any way "wrong," it is. The film should slip onto the reel smoothly, without jerking one way or the other and without nudging out of the grooves (you can feel for this as you rotate the reel). One trick is to try, every turn or two, to push the film in slightly and then back out. It should move smoothly in both directions for a short distance. Also, when you start loading a roll, be sure it's properly centered. If possible, start the process in the light. You can do this by leaving the leader protruding when you rewind the film in the camera (or by retrieving the leader with a leader retriever) and then unloading the cartridge without breaking open the cartridge. You should be able to pull out enough film to attach the film to the spool without risking your photos. This approach has the disadvantage of an extra trip through the felt light trap, which increases the risk of scratches if there's dust in the light trap.

If your SS reels are used, or if you've dropped them, it's possible they're not properly aligned. This makes loading them very difficult, and your best bet is to replace them.

If you want to stick with SS reels but continue having problems, and if you've got the sort of reels with clips in the center, you might want to buy a Hewes reel or two. This brand is more sturdily built than most SS reels, and rather than having clips in the center, Hewes reels have two sprockets that engage the sprocket holes on the film. This makes for easier alignment of the film in the center of the reel. My Hewes reels load very easily, and in fact I prefer them to the plastic AP and Paterson reels I've got. Oddly, Hewes reels are sold under two or three names (B&H has them under "King Concept," for instance), but they're all stamped "Hewes." They're more expensive than most SS reels, but IMHO they're worth it.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I know of only *one* way to get the film on the reel with any sort of certainty, whether stainless steel or plastic: PRACTICE!!

I would sit in my living room, with my wife ... cranking that sacrificed roll of film onto the reel, again and again ... After three or four days, my wife was starting to scream in frustration - a good indicator that you are ready to load film in the darkroom, in absolute blackness.

One thing I would suggest: occasionally take the reel apart and scrub it well with a scouring powder, "comet" or the like, and a toothbrush. It helps to have a *clean* reel.

 

[Nancy Giroux]

Here are some samples of the negs. Not very good! I tried to shoot in contrasty light to get an idea about development time. Not much detail in the shadow area. I'm thinking I should decrease development to get more detail? or do I increase. The development time was 7 minutes. Thanks again for all of your guidance.
Nancy

 

[srs5694]

Be sure to check the negatives before drawing any conclusions. If you've scanned the negatives and if your scanner software works the way mine does (I use VueScan), the scan should extract detail from both the shadow and the highlight areas pretty well. You might be able to get more detail out of the shadows by increased processing, but that runs the risk of blowing highlight detail. You'll really need to look at the negatives, and ideally compare them to properly developed ones, to know if additional processing is in order.

Some of the lack of shadow detail in your photos might be due to the fact that you pushed by a fair amount. Push processing doesn't turn your ISO 400 film into an ISO 1250 film; it just makes it easier to print the underexposed film. For your next roll, I recommend shooting at box speed, or possibly even a bit under that. (Many people find that many films work better when exposed at 1/3 to 1 stop under the rated speed, or sometimes even less than that.)

Lack of shadow detail can also be caused by excessive contrast in the original scene. Film doesn't have an infinite dynamic range, after all. Some of those sample shots do look like they're pushing matters on this score.

One unrelated comment: I noticed a few flaws related to handling. In the first photo, there's a light curly thing that looks like it's sprouting from the boy's head. This can be caused by film buckling as it's loaded. I'm not sure of specific film-loading techniques to avoid this, but I know that I had a few such marks in some of my early rolls but none after the first few. The second photo has what looks like fingerprints. Be careful not to touch the negatives, especially on the emulsion side. Lint-free cotton gloves can help prevent such marks.

 

[Marc Leest]

The trick in contrasty situations is to overexpose and to underdevelop. Try EI200 and 20% reduction in development as a starter.

 

[Nancy Giroux]

Thanks a million! I am going to do some more shooting and testing keeping all of your helpful suggestions in mind.
Nancy

 

[fschifano]

Nancy,

First attempt? What you've shown is not that bad. I've seen a lot worse. Heck, I've done a lot worse. The contrast might be a bit too hard, but it is hard to tell from little jpeg files on a computer screen.

First using an EI or 1250 with Tri-X is not as unusual as you might expect. Exposing for 1250 and devloping for 1600 is not the end of world. You get some useable negatives from that. If you can find some Diafine developer, you might like to try that. It gives you an honest speed boost with Tri-X, which means better shadow detail. The makers of Diafine claim that you get 1600; in practice 1250 gets you better results most of the time.