tri-x 1600

nwilkins · Nov 11, 2013

hi everyone,

I posted about this in another thread but thought it would be cleaner to start a new thread. I have to process some Tri-X ASAP, which I had to shoot for the first time at 1600, and I don't have time to do my own tests. I only have HC 110 on hand.

What is the safest way to go? The massive dev chart says dilution B for 16mins but the Kodak data sheet says dilution B for 6 minutes. That is a very worrying discrepancy. I think the best bet would probably be to go with semi stand development as it was a pretty contrasty scene. If anyone has done semi stand development in HC 110 with Tri-X pushed to 1600 could you please let me know your development temp and time? Many many thanks in advance!

Bill Burk · Nov 12, 2013

Looks like you got great advice with examples from Adelorenzo in that other thread...

I'm sure you'll be fine. Good luck!

nwilkins · Nov 12, 2013

yeah I was hoping to find someone who had done semi stand developing for a bit longer perhaps - Lorenzo said he found his results a bit contrasty.

pstake · Nov 12, 2013

I regularly stand develope Tri-X at 1600, but in rodinal. Stand dev compensates and tames the highlights.

That said, I don't know what the equivelent dilution would be for HC-110.

In my experience, you can literally not agitate at all, and get close to normal contrast even though it's pushed two stops. And even without agitating, my negs have always been evenly developed.

So, I would recommend stand dev'ing if you can nail down a dilution suited for it.

summicron1 · Nov 12, 2013

good results by developing it for 12 minutes in 1;1 D-76, as per the kodak datasheet.

Tom1956 · Nov 12, 2013

My advice would be to hold your horses and get some Acufine-type of developer. I've read these threads repeatedly about somebody who has a paperclip and piece of chewing gum on hand, and is in a big hurry to build a battleship out of it. Put the film in a drawer and move on till you get some proper developer in your hands.
Edit: being that I don't recall if I ever saw the OP's handle on a post, I'll say once again for his benefit and to the consternation of others; that if you use Rodinal on that film, you'll end up with a disastrous grainy mess of the whole thing. I'll concede that Rodinal is an exceptional developer in it's purposes, but this is NOT one of them.
This is a job for the Acufine/Microphen class of formulas.

nwilkins · Nov 12, 2013

In an ideal world I would wait for Acufine or some other good stand developer, but I have to get the results to the client in the next day or two so unfortunately it is not an option.

mfohl · Nov 12, 2013

When you do process this, please share your experience.

pstake · Nov 12, 2013

Tom1956 said:
Edit: being that I don't recall if I ever saw the OP's handle on a post, I'll say once again for his benefit and to the consternation of others; that if you use Rodinal on that film, you'll end up with a disastrous grainy mess of the whole thing. I'll concede that Rodinal is an exceptional developer in it's purposes, but this is NOT one of them.
This is a job for the Acufine/Microphen class of formulas.

A "disastrous grainy mess" may be a little overstated.

I'm happy with the results I can get with Rodinal stand developing Tri-X at 1600.

But it's beside the point. The OP wants to use HC-110.

I was recommending full stand as a method.

Tri-X @ 1600, Rodinal 1:100, 1hr 30 min stand

brian steinberger · Nov 12, 2013

Get some Xtol

joh · Nov 12, 2013

Isn't there a error in the Kodak Tri X publication?
It list's for normal development in small tanks 3 3/4 minutes for dilution B
in publication (f4017.pdf)
If you look in the publication for HC110 (j24.pdf) the time is 7 1/2 minutes for dilution B
and 3 3/4 minutes for dilution A !!!

....maybe it should properly mean 6 minutes for TriX@1600 in dilution A ????

nwilkins · Nov 12, 2013

Hi Joh,

doing some more digging it looks like the 7.5 minutes is the time for the older Tri-X Pan emulsion, whereas 3.75 minutes is for the newer 400TX.

I guess the massive dev chart's time for pushing to 1600 in dilution B is for the older version.

ntenny · Nov 12, 2013

nwilkins said:
doing some more digging it looks like the 7.5 minutes is the time for the older Tri-X Pan emulsion, whereas 3.75 minutes is for the newer 400TX.

I guess the massive dev chart's time for pushing to 1600 in dilution B is for the older version.

Yeah, but a lot of people think there's some sort of mistake with Kodak's times for the newer emulsion, and that the values for the older version are close to accurate---at least a good starting point---for the newer one.

I tried to do semi-stand development for TX at 3200 in HC-110 once, and the results weren't very good; extremely grainy and extremely contrasty. I may have gone too long with it---I no longer remember the exact time, but it was a good chunk of an evening. Nevertheless my experience leaves me thinking that if you're going to do this with HC-110, you *really* should do a test roll first, before taking chances with a client deliverable. I know you said you didn't have time to do that, but do you have time to risk messing up the client's work if the experiment fails?

-NT

joh · Nov 12, 2013

yes, I think too, if you do a clip test before you deveop the real film, it would be the safest way

nwilkins · Nov 12, 2013

yeah I suppose I could just shoot a test roll at 1600 and do that one first. makes good sense. shame I don't live somewhere where I could just buy some microphen.

NB23 · Nov 12, 2013

Please forget the stand madness. Whats the point? Waiting a whole hour ruining the film with streaks? No thanks.
Go HC110 dilution A or B and be happy. D76 and HC110 are Kodak's own formulations and they have been extensively tested by master chemists who got paid good money to bring out the best possible products abd methods of development on the market.

If you really want streaks and horrid results, you are welcome to
Use stand, semi-stand for hours or go very undiluted such as 1:5 for a monute or two. At least you'll save precious time with the last option.

Tom1956 · Nov 12, 2013

NB23 said:
Please forget the stand madness. Whats the point? Waiting a whole hour ruining the film with streaks? No thanks.
Go HC110 dilution A or B and be happy. D76 and HC110 are Kodak's own formulations and they have been extensively tested by master chemists who got paid good money to bring out the best possible products abd methods of development on the market.

If you really want streaks and horrid results, you are welcome to
Use stand, semi-stand for hours or go very undiluted such as 1:5 for a monute or two. At least you'll save precious time with the last option.

Agreed. These websites seem to be crowded with Rodinal stand fanboys. Then there's Eastman Kodak--a company second to none in exhaustive testing and research.

erikg · Nov 12, 2013

NB23 said:
Please forget the stand madness. Whats the point? Waiting a whole hour ruining the film with streaks? No thanks.
Go HC110 dilution A or B and be happy. D76 and HC110 are Kodak's own formulations and they have been extensively tested by master chemists who got paid good money to bring out the best possible products and methods of development on the market.

If you really want streaks and horrid results, you are welcome to
Use stand, semi-stand for hours or go very undiluted such as 1:5 for a minute or two. At least you'll save precious time with the last option.

Yes! A voice of reason. If this is paying work and it sounds like it is, don't risk it with something or a few somethings that you have never tried. Shoot a test roll and adjust accordingly. This is not the time to gamble with stand, especially when the gains are so small (or no gains at all).

Axle · Nov 12, 2013

brian steinberger said:
Get some Xtol

I was just about to say this. Xtol is my preferred developer for 2+ Stops push or pull developing.

I stick to HC-110 for 1 stop push/pull. Going with Dilution A for ASA-800, and Dilution E for ASA-200.

rco3 · Nov 12, 2013

I suggest that you consider two important facts about your client: 1) they paid you to deliver photos. This is a poor time and place to take chances with an unknown development process. 2) your clients haven't paid anyone in this forum anything. You're getting differing stories about what will and won't work, what can and can't be done. Remember that for many of the people in this forum, their compensation is knowing that you believed them, not that you were successful. You cannot take either assurances that you can use HC110 in stand, or that you can't possibly get useful results from stand with any chemicals, at face value and as applicable to your needs. What is acceptable to someone else may well be worthless garbage to you, and an image that someone else would never ever show to another human being might be exactly what you want. Some of the unquestionable and definitive statements that I've read in this thread directly contradict my experience, and I've no doubt that they were quite sincere.

My suggestion is that you take all of this as advice and anecdotal evidence, and try it yourself - but not with client work. You got HC-110 and a short schedule? Process another roll that way first. You may or may not find the results acceptable.

nwilkins · Nov 12, 2013

yes I suppose I was hoping that there would be some rough agreement in this case but looks like the best option is to pick a method and try a test roll. thanks everyone.

Tom1956 · Nov 12, 2013

The best method would be to send off for a can of Acufine, and some Tri-X to pin down your process on. (if they still make it). Anyway, that's what I would do.

pstake · Nov 12, 2013

Tom1956 said:
The best method would be to send off for a can of Acufine, and some Tri-X to pin down your process on. (if they still make it). Anyway, that's what I would do.

Agreed. Acufine boosts speed. If this is a pay job, it seems you have a responsibility to get the right developer and can't just improvise with HC-110.

If it was me, I would go with formulary TFX-2, which gives you a full-stop speed boost so you're only really pushing one stop. I would use TFX because I have more experience with it than with Acufine.

Sincerely,
Rodinal Stand Dev Fanboy

Tom1956 · Nov 12, 2013

pstake said:
Agreed. Acufine boosts speed. If this is a pay job, it seems you have a responsibility to get the right developer and can't just improvise with HC-110.

If it was me, I would go with formulary TFX-2, which gives you a full-stop speed boost so you're only really pushing one stop. I would use TFX because I have more experience with it than with Acufine.

Sincerely,
Rodinal Stand Dev Fanboy

nwilkins · Nov 13, 2013

okay well I developed the film using HC-110.

As a disclaimer, I wouldn't necessarily take my results as reproducible because of the unusual nature of what I had to shoot. It was a room with little lighting, painted black all over, with people in it who were not specifically illuminated. In other words, like a concert photo of a rock band if there was pretty much no stage lighting. I metered a portion of the room with my incident meter and the reading showed it would need 1/2 second at F8 if I rated the Tri-X at 1600. Even at F8 I wouldn't quite get the DoF I needed but since the people would be moving to various degrees I couldn't push it by going to a smaller aperture. And even though there was pretty much no light in the whole frame, both light sources (one a bare bulb and the other a lamp) were in the shot. So it was a very challenging and unusual situation.

Anyway I mixed HC-110 dilution B at 20 degrees. I prewashed for 1.5 mins, then poured in the developer. Agitated for the first 30 seconds, and then gave two inversions every 3 minutes, developing for 16.5 minutes total.

Film is hanging to dry now, but it looks like there will be some shadow detail where needed, though obviously due to the nature of the scene there will be some parts of the negs with no density. Also the highlights do not seem to have blocked, with the exception of the bare bulb, but that was always going to happen.

So in the end it looks like it worked out, but I would definitely test again rating Tri-X at 1600 with a more normal scene in order to know for sure how well this developing method works.

Normally I shoot Acros 100 but having done this now I am thinking I might put Tri-X in one of my film backs to have as a super fast option when needed in the future, rating it at 1000 or 1250 or even 1600. And I would definitely be interested in trying some developers which give a bit more of a speed increase than HC-110. As I mentioned I will try the HC-110 again, but I guess I should also try XTOL, Microphen, DD-X, Acufine/Diafine. Are there any others I am missing in the speed increase category? Diafine sounds amazing but also very expensive and very very hard to get where I live, so it might not be an option.

tri-x 1600

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency