TMAX 400 @800 in hc110

[AnselAdamsX]

I exposed some TMAX 400 @ 800 and the massive development chart has the same development time in hc110 as @400. Is this correct?

Thanks
Chris

 

[MattKing]

Kodak recommends the same time for that combination and those EIs - 6 minutes at 20C

 

[NB23]

Obviously this can't be right: While all other developers demand more time, HC110 can't over develop magically. I've ruined countless Tri-X and Plus-X films in HC110, thanks to Kodak's bad litterature.

Add 2 minutes, start from there.

 

[MattKing]

Obviously this can't be right: While all other developers demand more time, HC110 can't over develop magically. I've ruined countless Tri-X and Plus-X films in HC110, thanks to Kodak's bad litterature.

Add 2 minutes, start from there.

Actually, it can be right.

Increasing the development time isn't going to give you more shadow detail, so if you are shooting at 800 to deal with limited light, those shadows are going to be just as empty whether you lengthen the developing time or not. - - the push will just increase the contrast for the mid-tones and highlights.

For films like Tri-X, there is a distinct "toe" and it is useful to move the lower mid-tones and highlights up from it - so increasing the developing time helps. As T-Max 400 has such a short toe and such a long straight-line response, those lower mid-tones and highlights will already be on an appropriate straight-line part of the curve - the small amount of extended development normally used for something like a one-stop push for something like Tri-X will only serve to make the negative slightly harder to print.

The question would be different if your purpose was instead to increase the overall contrast of a negative that received full exposure in a flat lighting situation. In that case, an increase in developing time is warranted.

Kodak does reasonably recommend an increase in development time when the negatives are two stops under-exposed, because then even the small toe of T-Max will most likely include mid-tone details that need extra contrast.

 

[NB23]

Well, It is common knowledge that Kodak gave erroneous numbers for Tri-X in HC110.

If I want thin negs at 400? I follow their instructions. If I want Hopelessly thin negs, I underexpose by one stop and I don't change the development times.

Actually, it can be right.

Increasing the development time isn't going to give you more shadow detail, so if you are shooting at 800 to deal with limited light, those shadows are going to be just as empty whether you lengthen the developing time or not. - - the push will just increase the contrast for the mid-tones and highlights.

For films like Tri-X, there is a distinct "toe" and it is useful to move the lower mid-tones and highlights up from it - so increasing the developing time helps. As T-Max 400 has such a short toe and such a long straight-line response, those lower mid-tones and highlights will already be on an appropriate straight-line part of the curve - the small amount of extended development normally used for something like a one-stop push for something like Tri-X will only serve to make the negative slightly harder to print.

The question would be different if your purpose was instead to increase the overall contrast of a negative that received full exposure in a flat lighting situation. In that case, an increase in developing time is warranted.

Kodak does reasonably recommend an increase in development time when the negatives are two stops under-exposed, because then even the small toe of T-Max will most likely include mid-tone details that need extra contrast.

 

[DREW WILEY]

As already mentioned, you aren't really pushing the film at all, but are simply chopping a full zone off the bottom end. The result can sometimes be interesting, if blacked-out shadows and expanded midtones is what you want.