Fun with semi-stand: Tri-X@3200 in HC-110

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by ntenny, Mar 2, 2009.

  1. ntenny

    ntenny Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,304
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, C
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I don't like flash very much, so I've been experimenting with different ways of getting enough speed to photograph the kid in indoor lighting. The other night, inspired by people getting good results pushing Tri-X with Rodinal (of all things!) in a semi-stand protocol, I tried something similar with HC-110. Hey, one acutance developer is as good as another, right? :smile:

    Protocol: Dilution B, 1 hour 45 minutes (I planned two hours, but my wife got sick of waiting around), agitation for the first 30 seconds, then 5 inversions per 5 minutes. Temperature was reasonably close to the standard 68 F/20 C, and I exposed at something reasonably close to 3200.

    The results (samples attached) are interesting. There was, I think, way too much grain to be acceptable in 35mm except as a special effect, but at 6x6 it ranged from "extreme but interesting" to "really not too bad considering the speed". I haven't done any careful measurements, but the compensation seems quite dramatic to my eye---some of the images capture a stupidly wide range with better shadow detail than I would have expected.

    I've got a roll pushed with PC-TEA (using the Anchell & Troop times for Xtol 1+2) waiting to be scanned; next up is Donald Qualls's "Super Soup". If I get interesting results I'll post them as well.

    Comments/thoughts/insults welcome.

    -NT
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 2, 2009
  2. Carter john

    Carter john Member

    Messages:
    47
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I don't see a dilution ratio.
     
  3. OP
    OP
    ntenny

    ntenny Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,304
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, C
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Oops, thanks. Dilution B (I'll edit it into the original post as well).

    -NT
     
  4. drazak

    drazak Member

    Messages:
    67
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Shooter:
    35mm
    They look kind of oversouped, if you wanted to get the compensating effect needed not to oversoup your negatives and still get a noticeable speed increase, you'll have to reduce your agitation. By agitating as much as you did, you moved the developer from the places where it's unused in the shadows into the hilights and increased their density too much. Do you have any sensiometric data? it looks like you didn't up the speed of the film as much as you thought it would, as you still lost your shadows.

    Ben
     
  5. OP
    OP
    ntenny

    ntenny Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,304
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, C
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yeah, this is clearly a push, not a "true" 3-stop speed increase!

    I'm just guessing here, but with that much time in a developer that active, doesn't it seem likely that the shadows would have developed to completion?---in which case less agitation would pull the highlights further down, but wouldn't do anything to bring the shadows up. Maybe it's exhausting in the highlights before the shadows are finished, but there's quite a lot of spare capacity in a tank of HC-110 B...

    Too late to do anything about it, I find that the MDC has some relevant entries: Tri-X@1600 with Dil B, 17 minutes, normal agitation; and Tri-X@1600 diluted 1+100, with the same agitation I used, but with a time of only 50 minutes. Both, I think, agree with your "over-souped" assessment---I suspect the shadows finished up early and I left the highlights to cook and the grains to grow for way too long.

    However, my wife, who of course has authority to decide what's a good picture of the kid and what isn't, really likes the second one I posted---the extremely grainy, over-contrasty one where he's standing against the cupboard. I'll always take a technical failure and aesthetic success over the opposite. :smile:

    -NT
     
  6. clayne

    clayne Member

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Honestly? You'd really have much better luck with Neopan 1600@3200 and developed as normal (no stand funkiness).
     
  7. OP
    OP
    ntenny

    ntenny Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,304
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, C
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Not in medium format, I wouldn't! I think Delta 3200 is my only option for a "naturally" high-speed film in 120, and what little I've shot of it hasn't especially thrilled me. Hence the experiments.

    -NT