Developing Tri-X 400 in HC-110: Confusion over dev times

[logan2z]

I know this has come up on forums in the past and I read a bunch of older threads on this, but I still didn't find a definitive answer:

According to the data sheet for Kodak's Tri-X 400 film, the developing time for HC-110 dilution B at 68 degrees Fahrenheit is 3 3/4 minutes. The data sheet goes on to note that:

"Tank-development times shorter than 5 minutes may produce unsatisfactory uniformity"

Unless I'm misinterpreting something, that sounds like a contradiction.

Further, the Massive Dev Chart contains this data for HC-110 dilution B and 400 ISO:

Kodak Tri-X 400 HC-110 B 400 7.5 7.5 68F [notes]
Kodak Tri-X 400 HC-110 B 400 4.5-6 4.5-6 68F [notes]

and it's not clear from the notes why there are two different dev times for ASA 400 dilution B, although they do mention that the 7.5 minute development time is

"taken from a previous version of this film, starting point time should be similar"

The notes for the 4.5-6 minute time say:

"Kodak time of 3.75 mins is considered to be short"

So I'm left a bit confused as to the recommended development time for HC-110, dilution B and Tri-X rated at box speed.

Has anyone ever clarified with Kodak as to why they recommend a dev time of 3 3/4 minutes when their own data sheet indicates that such a short time is not recommended?

 

[fiddle]

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

this is my source for all things HC110.

 

[Nitroplait]

Water quality (mineral content etc.) plays a significant part of the process, enough to render charts and guides useful only as a suggestion.
In my context I use HC-110 diluted 1+60 at 8 min @24C and it yields consistently satisfactory results.

 

[ic-racer]

Might try this chart from Kodak which indicates 7.5min:

 

[MattKing]

Ever since that 3.75 minute recommendation appeared it has been controversial. It came into being when Tri-X was re-formulated.
The caution relating to short development times doesn't relate to whether or not a short development time may be appropriate, it relates to how difficult it is to ensure even development when a short time is used. It certainly is possible to use a time like that if you are rigorously careful about technique - particularly with respect to initial immersion and agitation - but a time like that is probably more appropriate with a mechanized processor like a roller transport machine or dip and dunk line.
I would generally recommend using a more dilute version of HC-110 and a longer time. Either unofficial dilution H (1 + 63) or Jason Brunner's 1 + 49: https://www.photrio.com/forum/resources/hc110-made-simple.220/. If you use a more dilute version, you may need to use a larger tank, because to be safe from developer exhaustion concerns you need at least 6 ml of syrup per roll in the working solution
A lot of people on the internet don't like the results obtained with that short time. I expect many of them like contrasty, dense negatives - at least more contrasty and dense than I prefer. Kodak's recommendation leans toward negatives I tend to like.

 

[logan2z]

Might try this chart from Kodak which indicates 7.5min:

View attachment 283794

Thanks, that's what the Massive Dev Chart recommends but implies it's for an older formulation of Tri-X.

 

[MattKing]

Might try this chart from Kodak which indicates 7.5min:

View attachment 283794

That is from the HC-110 datasheet.

 

[logan2z]

Ever since that 3.75 minute recommendation appeared it has been controversial. It came into being when Tri-X was re-formulated.
The caution relating to short development times doesn't relate to whether or not a short development time may be appropriate, it relates to how difficult it is to ensure even development when a short time is used. It certainly is possible to use a time like that if you are rigorously careful about technique - particularly with respect to initial immersion and agitation - but a time like that is probably more appropriate with a mechanized processor like a roller transport machine or dip and dunk line.
I would generally recommend using a more dilute version of HC-110 and a longer time. Either unofficial dilution H (1 + 63) or Jason Brunner's 1 + 49: https://www.photrio.com/forum/resources/hc110-made-simple.220/. If you use a more dilute version, you may need to use a larger tank, because to be safe from developer exhaustion concerns you need at least 6 ml of syrup per roll in the working solution
A lot of people on the internet don't like the results obtained with that short time. I expect many of them like contrasty, dense negatives - at least more contrasty and dense than I prefer. Kodak's recommendation leans toward negatives I tend to like.

Thanks Matt, I'll probably give dilution H a try and see how it goes.

This is the first time I'm developing at home so I wanted to follow Kodak's guidelines before going off script, but it sounds like a bit of improvisation may be necessary.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Yep, Kodak got the development time(s) wrong on the tech sheets for the updated Tri-X films years ago and have never corrected it (their recommendations are no longer trustworthy AFAIC). Use a different source. The older recommendations ic-racer posted above are likely a good starting time. Then adjust as needed.

Doremus

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Tri-X & HC110 being such a common combination I would have though Kodak would have swiftly corrected any error.

For short times I drop the reel into the tank of developer, put the lid on, give it a slam dunk into the darkroom bench and give it a good cocktail shake for 10 seconds. Then do the usual 5 inversions in five seconds every 30 seconds. Never had any problems. I start the timer when I drop the reel in and stop it when I pour the developer out. This is all for a stainless tank & reel with no dead space or empty reels.

The development time for color negative film is 3:15, and there are no, to the best of my knowledge, complaints about uneven results.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks Matt, I'll probably give dilution H a try and see how it goes.

This is the first time I'm developing at home so I wanted to follow Kodak's guidelines before going off script, but it sounds like a bit of improvisation may be necessary.

Try the recommendation on the HC110 sheet instead. You can always decrease the time for subsequent rolls if your preferences tend toward mine.

 

[logan2z]

Try the recommendation on the HC110 sheet instead. You can always decrease the time for subsequent rolls if your preferences tend toward mine.

You mean the 7.5 minute dev time for dilution B?

BTW, I've been shooting Tri-X at 200 but having the lab develop normally as if I was shooting at 400 i.e. not pulling. I'm planning on doing the same to start and maybe adjusting/pulling once I see how the negatives are turning out.

 

[MattKing]

You mean the 7.5 minute dev time for dilution B?

Yes - but I wouldn't recommend metering at 200 if you do that.

 

[logan2z]

Yes - but I wouldn't recommend metering at 200 if you do that.

That's why I mentioned it I didn't think that would be a good idea.

So, dilution H at twice the dilution B time, or try and go with the published 3 3/4 minute dilution B time?

 

[jvo]

given that in any development process there is science and art - i always used hc-110 as one shot developer a la' j brunner's methodology - perfect!

 

[logan2z]

given that in any development process there is science and art - i always used hc-110 as one shot developer a la' j brunner's methodology - perfect!

So that's essentially dilution E (or pretty close). Dilution E is 1:47 for a development time of 6.5-8 minutes (according to the Massive Dev Chart), and J Brunner's is 1:49 for 8 minutes. The only real difference seems to be the number of inversions every 30 seconds - Kodak recommends 5-7, J Brunner's method only says to perform 2 inversions. I wonder why there is such a discrepancy.

 

[MattKing]

So that's essentially dilution E (or pretty close). Dilution E is 1:47 for a development time of 6.5-8 minutes (according to the Massive Dev Chart), and J Brunner's is 1:49 for 8 minutes. The only real difference seems to be the number of inversions every 30 seconds - Kodak recommends 5-7, J Brunner's method only says to perform 2 inversions. I wonder why there is such a discrepancy.

Probably because Jason is, well he is Jason.
It may very well be that Jason's inversions are much more aggressive, or it may be that Jason aims at a slightly lower Contrast Index.
As long as your agitation regime ensures even, randomized regular movement of chemical, the frequency and level of energy you employ is something fairly personal to you. Choose something that you find easy to be consistent with.
And as long as you are comparing examples which provide sufficient and sufficiently randomized agitation, you will find that the differences between the results will be fairly subtle.
Temperature and time differences make for more radicle changes.

 

[John Bragg]

3 3/4 mins is a Kodak SNAFU that they never owned up to. I found 6 mins in Dilution B to be ideal for me. 12 mins is a good starting point for Dilution H.

 

[jvo]

Probably because Jason is, well he is Jason.
It may very well be that Jason's inversions are much more aggressive, or it may be that Jason aims at a slightly lower Contrast Index.
...

i would concur... i find i agitate a bit more aggressively with hc-110 to achieve the result i want with it.

 

[logan2z]

Well, I finally developed a roll of film at home today - a test roll of 35mm Tri-X. And lo and behold, I have images! I used HC-110 and went with dilution E and a 6.5 minute development time. The film is still drying so I haven't taken a close look yet but it appears pretty good to the naked eye.

I did realize that I screwed one thing up, though - I misread the data sheet for Ilford's Rapid Fixer and I used the same 1:9 dilution I've always used for fixing paper, instead of 1:4. Dumb mistake. I'm assuming I can just wait for the film to dry, load it back on the reel and refix/rewash and things should be good. But it was a test roll with nothing important on it so it's not the end of the world.

I've avoided doing this for years, but it's actually a lot of fun and satisfying. I have two other 35mm test rolls in the queue waiting to be developed. Hopefully I'll feel confident enough to develop some more important rolls soon. I'm going to shoot a couple of test rolls of 120 and give that a shot soon too.

Thanks to everyone who chimed in with advice.

 

[jvo]

E...
or Jason Brunner's 1 + 49: https://www.photrio.com/forum/resources/hc110-made-simple.220/. If you use a more dilute version, you may need to use a larger tank, because to be safe from developer exhaustion concerns you need at least 6 ml of syrup per roll in the working solution
A lot of people on the internet don't like the results obtained with that short time. I expect many of them like contrasty, dense negatives - at least more contrasty and dense than I prefer...

what matt said+++++++

love hc 110!

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

six minutes on modern TX works perfectly fine for me, though I don't think the old 7.5 minute recommendation would do any real damage.
I tried 4.75 minutes on a washi s (which is the same times as TX), and my results came out a bit dark.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I did realize that I screwed one thing up, though - I misread the data sheet for Ilford's Rapid Fixer and I used the same 1:9 dilution I've always used for fixing paper, instead of 1:4. Dumb mistake. I'm assuming I can just wait for the film to dry, load it back on the reel and refix/rewash and things should be good. But it was a test roll with nothing important on it so it's not the end of the world...

Film will fix fine in fresh Rapid Fixer 1+9, it just takes a bit longer. Do a clearing test with your 1+9 fix to find clearing time and see if your fixing time was 2x of that or more. If so, you're fine. If not, and you want to keep the negatives for a longer time, refix, rewash, re-PhotoFlo and dry.

Doremus

 

[logan2z]

Film will fix fine in fresh Rapid Fixer 1+9, it just takes a bit longer. Do a clearing test with your 1+9 fix to find clearing time and see if your fixing time was 2x of that or more. If so, you're fine. If not, and you want to keep the negatives for a longer time, refix, rewash, re-PhotoFlo and dry.

Doremus

Thanks, I did end up re-fixing/rewashing (with photoflo and distilled water in the final rinse) using a 1:4 dilution and the negatives look better.

But there are some odd unclear (but not fully opaque) lines/streaks that run vertically through several parts of the rebate and I'm not quite sure what might have caused them. They are on both sides of the film strip. Otherwise, the rebate is clear and the imprinted 'Kodak Tri-X' is fully visible. I will post pics shortly and maybe someone can explain the cause.

 

[cb1]

3 3/4 mins is a Kodak SNAFU that they never owned up to. I found 6 mins in Dilution B to be ideal for me. 12 mins is a good starting point for Dilution H.

this is exactly what I do. 6 min works great.