Kodak Tri-X- D76 vs HC110 Dilution B (upswept curve look?)

GarageBoy · Mar 7, 2013

Is there any significant difference in the results (specifically, tonality) with 400TX in these two developers? I know that HC 110B gives contrastier highlights, but is that a big difference? Also, are shadows an issue with Tri X/HC110 Dilution B at EI400?

Gerald C Koch · Mar 7, 2013

Kodak designed HC-110 to produce results as close to those of D-76 as possible. Any differences between the two developers are described by Kodak as being slight. Read the following site under the section Developer Characteristics for more information. http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

Kevin Kehler · Mar 7, 2013

My personal experience is that Tri-X 320 (320TXP) does well in HC-110 and D-76. However, Tri-X 400 (400TX) does not do so well in HC-110 as I find it more contrasty and harder to control, so I use D-76 when developing this film. Most of the time when Ansel Adams is referring to Tri-X, it is actually a formulation of Tri-X which hasn't been made in decades (pre-320TXP, even though it was a 320 speed film as well); thus, people use the modern formulation with his times and get different results.

I would recommend the D-76 with 400TX, much more manageable and versatile.

Gerald C Koch · Mar 7, 2013

Kevin Kehler said:
My personal experience is that Tri-X 320 (320TXP) does well in HC-110 and D-76. However, Tri-X 400 (400TX) does not do so well in HC-110 as I find it more contrasty and harder to control

How does your processing method compare to what is given for the site listed above. If your negatives are more contrasty then perhaps you should reduce developer time a bit.

Kevin Kehler · Mar 7, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
How does your processing method compare to what is given for the site listed above. If your negatives are more contrasty then perhaps you should reduce developer time a bit.

I completely agree with the point I think you are trying to make, namely that if I were to do more testing, I could gain negatives more to my liking. However, I find D-76 produces better negatives for my particular workflow - this is not to say I think HC-110 is not a good developer, I just find for 400TX, that D-76 is a better developer. Now, maybe it is my water supply, maybe it is my agitation cycle or maybe it is my method of metering but it works for me.

Note this is even contained within the link:

Compared to D-76, this chart indicates that HC-110 (dilution B) produces:

Slightly less shadow detail or true film speed;
Slightly finer grain;
Slightly lower acutance.

Where HC-110 really shines is in scientific work or push-processing, where film is deliberately overdeveloped to increase contrast and speed.

For me, shadow detail and acutance are more important than grain, when I am shooting Tri-X. If I need finer grain, I switch to FP4+.

GarageBoy · Mar 13, 2013

Thanks
I'm a sucker for smooth midtones, so I was wondering if the difference was THAT great

DREW WILEY · Mar 13, 2013

Sounds like a myth to me. #76 produces more of a sag in the curve than HC-110, which is capable of a
perfectly straight line in films engineered with that characteristic.

John Bragg · Mar 13, 2013

I prefer HC-110 to D76 for the following reasons. Ease of mixing one shot developer, superior keeping properties, and economy. I use it 1:63 instead of dilution B and it is very forgiving and less contrasty at this strength especially when used gently with less agitation than the norm. Used in this fashion it is capable of some very smooth tones and controlled highlights.

Chuck_P · Mar 13, 2013

GarageBoy said:
Also, are shadows an issue with Tri X/HC110 Dilution B at EI400?

Shadows are an issue anytime you don't expose for them adequately, regardless of the film/dev combination. In the abscense of any established testing regime, if you are consistently getting unsatisfactory shadows at 400, then bump the EI down a bit, see what happens, you may have to reduce development some to keep highlights controlled.

With that said, a shadow value in the toe region of an upswept curve will have a lower density than at the same location with very straightline curve----the straightline curve even lower than a more concave curve as seen with TG7----compare the density values in the toe at Zone III, for example, and even on up the rest of the scale to the "normal" development calibration density at VIII to VIII 1/2. The curves show how different gray scales would be produced with each curve.

gordrob · Mar 13, 2013

DREW WILEY said:
Sounds like a myth to me. #76 produces more of a sag in the curve than HC-110, which is capable of a
perfectly straight line in films engineered with that characteristic.

Drew - I use HC110 Dil. B at 68F with Tmax100 and can't get away from a sag in the mid range of the curve. What do you have to do to get the curve to run straight?

Gord

GarageBoy · Mar 16, 2013

Thanks, will probably start off with HC110

Bill Burk · Mar 16, 2013

CPorter,

You've got HC-110 curves, as I recall... they DO have a bit of an up-sweep.

Chuck_P · Mar 16, 2013

Bill Burk said:
CPorter,

You've got HC-110 curves, as I recall... they DO have a bit of an up-sweep.

They do, both for TMX and TXP, as opposed to very straight-lined with XTOL and D-76 1:1.

Bill Burk · Mar 16, 2013

I believe this up-swept curve would be beneficial to portraiture, where the customer's facial tones need the best separation...

But it would drive Ansel Adams nuts trying to hold highlights in check - thus leading him to conclude the diffusion enlarger is the only way to go...

Rafal Lukawiecki · Mar 17, 2013

Bill Burk said:
I believe this up-swept curve would be beneficial to portraiture, where the customer's facial tones need the best separation...

Bill, out of interst, would this add a bit more "reality" to a portrait, making wrinkles etc stand out? Or would the upsweep affect eyes the most?

Bill Burk · Mar 17, 2013

Yes, I think it would give you more details and information in the area where the viewer is looking. My curves in D-76 tend to be relatively straight-line until above 1.2 density, so the effect is "above Zone VII" for me. In my case, I tend to have my high-density step wedge values towards the outside of the film, where agitation effects provide more development action. So I ignore it.

Quickly getting out of my league because I am a nature/landscape photographer - and the portraits I do are typically candid/available light.

In another thread, an upswept curve is viewed as a defect.

Rafal Lukawiecki · Mar 17, 2013

Thank you, Bill. It is very helpful for me to learn how different aspects of a curve's shape are used by photographers in their practice. As you know, I am a newcomer to graphing characteristic curves, and I am still surprised by the relative meaning of their nuances in the pictorial domain.

Bill Burk · Mar 17, 2013

Rafal Lukawiecki said:
Thank you, Bill. It is very helpful for me to learn how different aspects of a curve's shape are used by photographers in their practice. As you know, I am a newcomer to graphing characteristic curves, and I am still surprised by the relative meaning of their nuances in the pictorial domain.

And I think the people who really know this the best... know it by feel.

Kodak Tri-X- D76 vs HC110 Dilution B (upswept curve look?)

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency