How to Reduce Tri-X Contrast?

[Nihil Abstat]

ISO400.

Almost every serious B&W worker uses more exposure than indicated by ISO speed. It took me a while to learn this, but I did learn it.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the education on HC110 dilutions. I just didn't know enough about what is possible. I have learn't something.

pentaxuser

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Thanks for the education on HC110 dilutions. I just didn't know enough about what is possible. I have learn't something.

pentaxuser

It's a very versatile developer in that regard. My prefered dilution is "B" where is 1:31. I've used it 1:100 for stand development. The stuff keeps forever because it's in glycol.

 

[Luis-F-S]

From the responses above, I certainly hope you enjoyed the plethora of suggestions. To decrease contrast, you over expose by 2 zones and you under develop by 2 zones. Sounds simple, right? Remember the old mantra, expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. The first part is easy, now figuring out the second will take a little more effort!

 

[wiltw]

hi wiltw ..
sure, they say it is possible .. pretty much anything is possible .. but not optimal ...
were all these rolls of tri x you developed in dilution b done for 3.6 minutes, or did you use a longer time ?
my (uneducated) guess is they were developed for longer than 3.6 mins

I never had to develop for low contrast, so 5.3 min was standard for me!

For someone wanting 'low contrast' on Tri-X in HC-110 dil B, Kodak computer says 5.3 minutes at 60F degrees

 

[Doremus Scudder]

At the risk of sounding repetitive...

Unless one has a good reason to change agitation schemes (e.g., trying stand or semi-stand techniques or moving from Jobo to tanks, etc.), fiddling with an agitation scheme that already delivers good results is asking for trouble.

So is developing at 60°F; a temperature at which hydroquinone loses activity. I imagine the hydroquinone-like compounds in HC-110 will react the same.

Best is to try to standardize on agitation and temperature and change developing time. If this results in too-short times, then moving to a different dilution (and testing for a new time) is the answer. This works very well with HC-110

Keep in mind that HC-110 is a developer that does NOT deliver full film speed. Kodak indicates this in their recommendations for developing times. You will have to shoot slower than box speed by a little at least to get "normal" shadow detail with HC-110. That said, the results should be similar to D-76 in other respects; HC-110 was formulated to do just that.

HC-110 is a very versatile developer; if you're not getting the results you like, there is certainly a way to do so.

Specific advice on what to do in any given situation is highly individual, so things like "expose by 2 zones and you under develop by 2 zones" may or may not apply to your specific situation. Best is to find your own combination of exposure and development that works for the things you shoot. This means (gasp!) doing some testing yourself and working things out.

Best,

Doremus

 

[RattyMouse]

I never had to develop for low contrast, so 5.3 min was standard for me!

For someone wanting 'low contrast' on Tri-X in HC-110 dil B, Kodak computer says 5.3 minutes at 60F degrees

Kodak's published information only goes down to 65 F where the time for dilution B is 4.5 minutes. There's no way the time is 5.3 minutes at 60 F. You must have a typo.

 

[JBrunner]

There is plenty of room with this emulsion to overexpose. You can go a full stop easily. That would be the easiest way. By the look of that neg you might be trying to print some things that aren't quite there.. All the developing shenanigans in the world won't fix that. Make a BIG PHAT THICK neg first. The kind that prints like you are making toast. Then you'll know what you are dealing with as far as development. That's my best guess. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Not available in all markets. Side effects include ringing in the ears and profuse perspiration.
Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt. Your mileage may vary.
The use of the word "plethora" was noted in the thread.
I have a plethora of piñatas.

 

[removed account4]

I never had to develop for low contrast, so 5.3 min was standard for me!

For someone wanting 'low contrast' on Tri-X in HC-110 dil B, Kodak computer says 5.3 minutes at 60F degrees

hi wiltw
i had a feeling you were using times longer than 3.6mins, if you posted some work shot at box speed processed at 3.6 minutes
i was gonna ask if i could buy a bridge in brooklyn next
when i used deep tank processing dk50 i made a chart for my times. i stuck the heat wand in to get it to about 68-70º and it slowly creeped down
until i had to put wand in again. a few degrees equates to a bunch of time and if you aren't prepared for it, they could be thinner than hoped for negatives.

There is plenty of room with this emulsion to overexpose. That would be the easiest way. By the look of that neg you might be trying to print what isn't there.. All the developing shenanigans in the world won't fix that. Make a BIG PHAT THICK neg first. The kind that prints like you are making toast. Then you'll know what you are dealing with as far as development

yes bullet proof !!!

YMMDFWIPOTBOTW

 

[removed account4]

This entire thread should really be renamed so that people stop talking about how to reduce contrast. RattyMouse's negatives appear (if the scans are accurate) to have been underexposed.

not so sure about that michael, if he adds some bromine and table salt, and benzo and a balsamic vinegar reduction to a 1:3.241516 of a 100 year old bottle of HC110 with
2oz of STOCK RO9 and the 1oz of the rodinal from october 1952,
THEN heated it to 100ºF and add 2 oz of formic acid ( you need to pre boil at least an army of ants )
and then when it came back down to 68ºF processed his film with it
but shaking his film can like a can of paint ... his under exposure and contrast issues would go away.

 

[pentaxuser]

RattyMouse's negatives appear (if the scans are accurate) to have been underexposed. I suspect the exposure meter was fooled by the overall brightness of the scene which led to underexposure.

This is risking a diversion of the thread perhaps but i have just had another look at Rattymouse's picture and my impression remains as it was at the start which is that it looks as if it is the highlights that are slightly blown out. Given the kind of scene that it is, the shadows don't appear to be other than I'd expect them to be, given the nature of the light.

So if the highlights are blown out, at least to a degree, what is the right correction for this? More exposure blows them out more doesn't it. Do we square the circle by an increase in exposure which clearly opens up the shadows but then we need to reduce development to prevent, presumably to an even greater extent, additional lack of detail in the highlights?

On the other hand if he is satisfied with the shadows then is it simply a case of reducing development time, as has been suggested?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[gorbas]

OP used Xpan panoramic camera with out centre filter as it was mention earlier, most likely wide open. IIRC with 45mm lens, only after f8 you can be using it with out filter. It is one of the causes of underexposure

 

[peter k.]

Make a BIG PHAT THICK neg first. The kind that prints like you are making toast. Then you'll know what you are dealing with as far as development.

Oh boy another diversion... but lost in space..
My interpretation, is overexpose a negative, so that it will be very dense, ...when developed.
Is this a correct correct understanding?
If so,.. how would this help with knowing what your dealing with in development?

Or... is this just some sort of, .. ah .. . joke?

 

[Saganich]

Yea, even with more dilution HC110 is contrasty with TriX. IMHO HC110 is perfect for low speed films, so for example APX 25 dilution 1:41, 10 min, 20C gives me perfect results. I could never tame TriX with Hc110. I moved to D23. If HC110 is a must do the following: Increase dilution (1:41 was my standard), 20C temp, shorten development time. I know this sounds crazy but decreasing agitation tended to increase contrast in my measurements with this combo.

 

[Nihil Abstat]

Yea, even with more dilution HC110 is contrasty with TriX. IMHO HC110 is perfect for low speed films, so for example APX 25 dilution 1:41, 10 min, 20C gives me perfect results. I could never tame TriX with Hc110. I moved to D23. If HC110 is a must do the following: Increase dilution (1:41 was my standard), 20C temp, shorten development time. I know this sounds crazy but decreasing agitation tended to increase contrast in my measurements with this combo.

I never have used HC110, it seems rather too active for my needs. I like to keep development times up around 8–10 minutes.

 

[JBrunner]

Oh boy another diversion... but lost in space..
My interpretation, is overexpose a negative, so that it will be very dense, ...when developed.
Is this a correct correct understanding?
If so,.. how would this help with knowing what your dealing with in development?

Or... is this just some sort of, .. ah .. . joke?

No joke, and yes a thick neg. We used to call them 'bullet proof". The highlights are there, he just can't print them because of the holes. Plenty of room for those highlights. With that big obvious toe, there's tons of room left. You could go two stops and still be fine. You can always print down. Up? Not so much. Top and bottom in the same exposure, thats the ticket. I don't think that's happened here. Of course IDK for sure.But thats my hunch. He needs to find the speed. I think there is so much white floor that was exposed for that the dark parts are holes. The white floor could be thicker and it wouldn't hurt. Then the blacks wouldn't be be holes. IF thats whats going on. I'd need to grock the neg first hand to actually know what I'm yammering about.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would rather work with a thick negative than a thin one. I can wait for a long print exposure, but very thin negatives can be very frustrating.

 

[wiltw]

Kodak's published information only goes down to 65 F where the time for dilution B is 4.5 minutes. There's no way the time is 5.3 minutes at 60 F. You must have a typo.

Not looking at a datasheet, using the Kodak computing dial that is in the Kodak Darkroom Dataguide. No typo.

 

[peter k.]

No joke, and yes a thick neg. We used to call them 'bullet proof".

Ah .. got it. Thank you!
We seem to have the tendency to always unexposed, and like Hc110, but when we first started shooting Arista 400 could not get the contrast down, and finally gave up and went to D-76 with that film, shot at 200.
But loved the tone better in Hc110!
So gonna go back and give it another try, with the thoughts given here in this thread, and see if we can do the do.
thanks all, especially the op who started it. .

 

[JBrunner]

Ah .. got it. Thank you!
We seem to have the tendency to always unexposed, and like Hc110, but when we first started shooting Arista 400 could not get the contrast down, and finally gave up and went to D-76 with that film, shot at 200.
But loved the tone better in Hc110!
So gonna go back and give it another try, with the thoughts given here in this thread, and see if we can do the do.
thanks all, especially the op who started it. .

Oh, and some idiot wrote this article a long time ago. Might be helpful. Not sure though, the author is barely smarter than a monkey.

 

[peter k.]

Yes... been there done that several times.. used it for Efke 100..back when it was still available. Tell that monkey when you see em... thanks.

 

[Vaughn]

...Make a BIG PHAT THICK neg first..

That's a negative I can get behind! A DR of 3 or so and start 'em with lots of shadow detail. It takes up to an two hour exposure under a 750W merc vapor lamp, but it gets it done!

Can't see thru the highlights? Get ya a brighter light! Here is a 4x10 carbon print from a nice beefy negative (and developed in a pyro developer, too)...the kind of negative that silver gelatin paper wimpers and runs away from!

 

[Anon Ymous]

Not looking at a datasheet, using the Kodak computing dial that is in the Kodak Darkroom Dataguide. No typo.

This development time is likely for a previous version of Tri-X, the dataguide is quite old, isn't it?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

This development time is likely for a previous version of Tri-X, the dataguide is quite old, isn't it?

When Kodak updated Tri-X and TMax films, the published new and totally erroneous development times for HC-110. These new published times are unreliable and, frankly, unusable. Kodak is likely aware of this and simply refuses to do anything. This has been an issue for years and, I thought, common knowledge. The times from the older Darkroom Dataguides are likely closer to correct. In any case, personal testing is going to be needed.

However, Ratty has a development time that can serve just fine as a starting point. If he's not happy with the shadow detail of his film, he should add 2/3-stop exposure (about right for HC-110 compared with other developers in my experience; Kodak says 1/3 stop). Then he should reduce developing time (or find a new combination of dilution and developing time) to bring the highlights into printable range. By this latter I mean somewhere that consistently ends up around the middle of the available printing contrast controls (e.g., grade 2-2.5 contrast setting with VC paper).

A problem with using roll film is that you cannot tailor each and every negative to the luminance range in the scene, you have to find a "normal" that is a good compromise between the extremes normally encountered. And, things that are more contrasty need printing controls, i.e., lower contrast at the printing stage with whatever tools are available. Relying solely on development to get the right contrast with roll film is an exercise in futility.

BTW, HC-110 is a fine general-purpose developer and really works just like most common HQ-type developers (just tweaked so it can be delivered in long-lasting syrup form). People who say it is "too contrasty for Tri-X" or "too active" simply don't know what they are talking about. Any developer is "too active" if you develop too long with it or use it at too strong a dilution for the time you are developing. At fault for some of the confusion are Kodak's recommendations for developing times. Once these are discounted and you find your own times, HC-110 ends up being pretty tame. HC-110 is able to be used in many dilutions and at many times. Simply find one that works and quit whining. Although I don't use HC-110 much anymore, I once had calibrated it for a number of films and development schemes from N-2 or N-3 to N+2 for all of them. This needed several different dilutions. I never had a problem with "over-activity..."

Best,

Doremus

 

[nimajneb]

Just out of curiosity, if Rattymouse continues to use HC110 is there any way he can achieve what he needs to and still keep development time to say 7+ mins. I'd be a bit nervous going as low as 5 mins and yet with HC110 this seems to be the only solution. Maybe 5 mins is OK but I must admit to being used to a more relaxed time period. Things do happen very fast at 5 mins and any leeway is very short, I'd have thought

pentaxuser

If I remember correctly, Kentmere 400 box speed development is 5.5 minutes, I never had a problem developing for this time with Kentmere 400.