Tri-x @1600 in HC-110

[Nickfred]

How do you do this?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I don't. Look at Kodak's instructions on page 6 concerning Push Processing. You will get good results at an EI = 800 but poorer results at 1600.

http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

 

[darkroommike]

I mostly don't anymore but when I did I extended my processing time 100%. In other words at EI 1600 I processed old school Tri-X 35mm for 16 minutes at 68 deg. F in HC-110 dil. B. Of course Tri-X has changed and HC-110 probably has changed, too. So I would consult the current Kodak brochure F-4017 or the Massive Dev. Chart for the current time and temp and then TEST1 before committing my new procedure to any important stuff.

1The times recommended in the 2007 version Kodak's F-4017 are so short I don't believe them.

 

[M Carter]

How do you do this?

I've never done it, but like anything else, I'd simply test it. Anything anyone tells you here will only be a starting point anyway. If you're dead-set on shooting it at 1600, expose a roll, but shoot the first couple frames with the lens cap on and shoot the rest of a scene or style you'll do with this push (* more below), fill the roll with one scene with the same light. Cut the roll into 4 or 5 pieces, check massive dev chart and filmdev.org (I prefer filmdev) and note the times. Your next step is to realize the times you've found cover an insanely wide range. Take your best guess and develop a chunk of the film. Dry it with a hair dryer and go straight to printing, even like a 5x7.

Take the first test strip and put a neg in the enlarger and set size and focus for test prints. Use a filter in the 2-3 range, whatever you generally use for printing (for pushing film this hard, I'd use a #2). Lock the enlarger, and stick one of the lens cap negative frames in. Do a test strip and find the time for maximum blacks. That's the time at that size and enlarger setting that will deliver the best blacks that film and dev combo can produce. Leave the enlarger the same and make a test print at the time you determined.

Dry the test print and check it out. The shadows will be plugged up and you're pretty much stuck with however your shadows render. So judge the highs - if they're blown out, try to suss out how many stops. If you need to hold back a stop, run another strip with 15% or so less time and dry it and go right to a test print, without changing anything in the enlarger setup or time. If the highs are dull, try adding 15-20% time. Label and save your test prints and keep them in a binder with notes. In an hour or two, you'll know exactly how to deal with this film at this ISO in this developer, and you'll get a solid feel for how time affects highs.

The business of "read a newspaper through the highlights" and other "negative examining" things are - to me - pretty much BS. What matters is how the negative renders with your chosen final output. Does a sky with bright clouds hold that highlight detail, or do you have to jump through hoops with dodging and burning? I believe you want a neg that prints at its optimal max-black time with good rendering of mids and highs (and good shadow detail for non-pushed hard film). Your enlarger and process and eye make all the difference (or if you scan your negs, do they scan easily without retouching and masking and messing with exposure)?

*Regarding your test roll - if you're into more of a zone-based approach, set up a still life or find a scene where the light will remain constant, and meter the scene - make sure it's within the zone range (shadow detail, high detail in their proper zones, high and low texture in their places - use reflectors or modify the scene and make a sketch or digital shot and note what all those values are, particularly try to get zones V through IX represented in a way you'll know what those zones are on the test print.) This is really the optimal way to dial in a film.

 

[TheToadMen]

Maybe these examples help:
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/11327
and
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/10714
and
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/10710
and
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/10227
and
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/10061
and
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/9208 (= 14 minutes)

Average 16 to 17 minutes for Kodak Tri-X 400 at 1600 in Kodak HC-110 1+31

http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/9681
and
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/9156
17 to 24 minutes for Kodak Tri-X 400 at 1600 in Kodak HC-110 1:63

 

[Craig75]

I don't. Look at Kodak's instructions on page 6 concerning Push Processing. You will get good results at an EI = 800 but poorer results at 1600.

http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

But "better" results 1/30th @1600 than 1/15th @800.....

 

[adelorenzo]

I've had decent results with 400TX pushed to ISO 1600. I dilute the HC-110 1:49 and develop for 16 minutes. (8 minutes is my normal development time.) I agitate every minute for the first 8 mins and then every two minutes for the second 8 mins.

 

[Petraio Prime]

How do you do this?

Film cannot be 'pushed' at all. It's a myth. You gain no shadow detail.

 

[M Carter]

Film cannot be 'pushed' at all. It's a myth. You gain no shadow detail.

I agree, though you can get lower mids and mids to come up depending on your process and lighting - but if you're lighting the shot, this really is more for visualizing a shot with a heavy falloff at the low end - which can be more controlled in printing. "Pushing" B&W to me, really comes down to using the right developer to maximize the lows - "pushing", say, HP5+ a couple stops, DD-X should deliver a little more shadow detail than Rodinal.

 

[TheToadMen]

I agree, though you can get lower mids and mids to come up depending on your process and lighting - but if you're lighting the shot, this really is more for visualizing a shot with a heavy falloff at the low end - which can be more controlled in printing. "Pushing" B&W to me, really comes down to using the right developer to maximize the lows - "pushing", say, HP5+ a couple stops, DD-X should deliver a little more shadow detail than Rodinal.

That might be true in general, if that is what you're after. But not so (or less), for instance, with lith printing, are-bure-boke-style (Japan, 70's), making specific negatives for several alt-photo processes, ...

So film can be pushed but only for valid reasons - I hope ...
(but please correct me if I'm wrong)

 

[Petraio Prime]

Maybe these examples help:
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/11327
and
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/10714
and
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/10710
and
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/10227
and
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/10061
and
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/9208 (= 14 minutes)

Average 16 to 17 minutes for Kodak Tri-X 400 at 1600 in Kodak HC-110 1+31

http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/9681
and
http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/9156
17 to 24 minutes for Kodak Tri-X 400 at 1600 in Kodak HC-110 1:63

Yeah, and they look awful.

 

[markbarendt]

That might be true in general, if that is what you're after. But not so (or less), for instance, with lith printing, are-bure-boke-style (Japan, 70's), making specific negatives for several alt-photo processes, ...

So film can be pushed but only for valid reasons - I hope ...
(but please correct me if I'm wrong)

So pushing has come to have a very fuzzy definition.

Most typical is a camera underexposure combined with a film overdevelopment. The 'mythical hope' is typically that a push will make a film more sensitive, it doesn't, at least not significantly. That's what M Carter is saying.

The push you are talking about seems to be purely a development push or as Ansel would put it, plus development. Plus (or minus) development is used to control print contrast on a fixed grade of paper or for a specific process, like lith or whatever process you choose.

 

[M Carter]

That might be true in general, if that is what you're after. But not so (or less), for instance, with lith printing, are-bure-boke-style (Japan, 70's), making specific negatives for several alt-photo processes, ...

So film can be pushed but only for valid reasons - I hope ...
(but please correct me if I'm wrong)

I'd say 90% of my printing the last 2 years has been lith, and some of my lith techniques really jack up a print as far as what people might consider a "proper" range of tones or amount of grain. I'm more interested in taking a scene and trying to get the image to "say" something, at least to me, and I also love how lith seems to "bond" with pinhole and flipped-lens types of images.

But I still strive to get an optimal neg, fully aware I'll never do a "straight" print. Lith is hard to control and doing test after test is painful when I'm down to my last boxes of Ektalure and PWT and Brovira - I want a neg that has all the information I might need, even if I end up crushing a lot of that out.

I can't speak for other processes, as I'm primarily interested in lith and bromoil - but as far as I know, pushing B&W as a means to gain more exposure isn't really feasible. I was waaaay into pushing tungsten E6 in the 90's (320T - EPJ - one of my top three all time films - lordy, that film was a thing of wonder) and pushing it hard, 2 to 3 stops - and I found E6 to be more useful as far as retaining shadow detail than B&W. But pushing E6 did some things I found simply glorious with color and grain, where pushing B&W doesn't offer much to my eye.

But the joy of shooting analog: my eye is different than yours and everyone else's, but work and testing will find the path to what your or my eye is seeking. And there will likely be some pleasant surprises along the way.

 

[Nickfred]

I've never done it, but like anything else, I'd simply test it. Anything anyone tells you here will only be a starting point anyway. If you're dead-set on shooting it at 1600, expose a roll, but shoot the first couple frames with the lens cap on and shoot the rest of a scene or style you'll do with this push (* more below), fill the roll with one scene with the same light. Cut the roll into 4 or 5 pieces, check massive dev chart and filmdev.org (I prefer filmdev) and note the times. Your next step is to realize the times you've found cover an insanely wide range. Take your best guess and develop a chunk of the film. Dry it with a hair dryer and go straight to printing, even like a 5x7.

Take the first test strip and put a neg in the enlarger and set size and focus for test prints. Use a filter in the 2-3 range, whatever you generally use for printing (for pushing film this hard, I'd use a #2). Lock the enlarger, and stick one of the lens cap negative frames in. Do a test strip and find the time for maximum blacks. That's the time at that size and enlarger setting that will deliver the best blacks that film and dev combo can produce. Leave the enlarger the same and make a test print at the time you determined.

Dry the test print and check it out. The shadows will be plugged up and you're pretty much stuck with however your shadows render. So judge the highs - if they're blown out, try to suss out how many stops. If you need to hold back a stop, run another strip with 15% or so less time and dry it and go right to a test print, without changing anything in the enlarger setup or time. If the highs are dull, try adding 15-20% time. Label and save your test prints and keep them in a binder with notes. In an hour or two, you'll know exactly how to deal with this film at this ISO in this developer, and you'll get a solid feel for how time affects highs.

The business of "read a newspaper through the highlights" and other "negative examining" things are - to me - pretty much BS. What matters is how the negative renders with your chosen final output. Does a sky with bright clouds hold that highlight detail, or do you have to jump through hoops with dodging and burning? I believe you want a neg that prints at its optimal max-black time with good rendering of mids and highs (and good shadow detail for non-pushed hard film). Your enlarger and process and eye make all the difference (or if you scan your negs, do they scan easily without retouching and masking and messing with exposure)?

*Regarding your test roll - if you're into more of a zone-based approach, set up a still life or find a scene where the light will remain constant, and meter the scene - make sure it's within the zone range (shadow detail, high detail in their proper zones, high and low texture in their places - use reflectors or modify the scene and make a sketch or digital shot and note what all those values are, particularly try to get zones V through IX represented in a way you'll know what those zones are on the test print.) This is really the optimal way to dial in a film.

Thanks. I will give that a try!

 

[Nickfred]

Thanks for all the replies. Gave me some ideas...

 

[TheToadMen]

Thanks for all the replies. Gave me some ideas...

Then please show us the results (in due time)!

 

[Nickfred]

Then please show us the results (in due time)!

Will do!

 

[Bob Carnie]

This was if I am not mistaken Anton Corjbins (Mike Spry) combination. they seemed to do alright with it.

When my clients want to go the Lith route I suggest this combination.

Look at the book Startrax by AC to see the wonderful results.

Pretty sure paper was Oriental G4 in Nova Lith A B with lots of secondary flash for highlights.

 

[Bob Carnie]

For this particular LITH look you want to drop the blacks to dead black , also it gives the photographer lots of speed when working.

 

[markbarendt]

For this particular LITH look you want to drop the blacks to dead black , also it gives the photographer lots of speed when working.

Yes, this is what most people miss.

This is the 'magic' that makes reducing exposure at the camera workable.

If you don't care about shadow detail in the print you can use considerably less camera exposure.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Yes, this is what most people miss.

This is the 'magic' that makes reducing exposure at the camera workable.

If you don't care about shadow detail in the print you can use considerably less camera exposure.

The whole concept of lith printing is to pull the print when the black is where you like it so having this somewhat strange combination work really well.

I also see the push exposure then develop in Microphen as a very old but solid way of producing stage images in black and white.
I was lucky to work with Catherine Ashmore from the UK and my small shop not only processed all the film for Live Entertainment(Garths company) but we also housed
all the film for every show she was commisioned to do in North America... Every major production Garth was involved with was printed by us. Thousands upon thousands
of 8 x10 still photos for media marketing purposes. Well before digital and the internet, damm I miss those days.

HP5 rated 800 developed in Microphen, and all the production stills were hand printed with double expose type headers.

She was an absolute magician.. Funny enough her printer in UK was Mike Spry who also printed all of Anton Corjbins work.

 

[Craig75]

You can underexpose one stop and develop normaly and get a very nice print. So 800 iso is no problem. Underexposing another stop and increasing development, you are moving the speed point too by maybe 1/3rd of a stop (or more i guess depending on developer) so its hardly amargeddon

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Yeah, and they look awful.

+1

http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/11327

I'm afraid I have to agree. They look even worse than Kodak would lead us to believe.

BTW it's perfectly possible to get sharp pictures at 1/15 or even slower if you know what you are doing. It's the same technique that sharpshooters use.

 

[Petraio Prime]

+1

http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/11327

I'm afraid I have to agree. They look even worse than Kodak would lead us to believe.

BTW it's perfectly possible to get sharp pictures at 1/15 or even slower if you know what you are doing. It's the same technique that sharpshooters use.

Uh...yep. I think part of the problem is that many have never seen a properly exposed and developed negative and high-quality print.

 

[Craig75]

Weirdly with handheld nightshooting your negatives wont look like those shot at box speed or under during that day..... and your printing techniques will be very different too. Who'd have guessed...