Tri-x in HC110, dilution H

[John Bragg]

Well done Janet. This combination of film and developer were literally made for each other. Enjoy

 

[jgcull]

This raises new questions for me. Does this slower, more dilute developer, method apply to other film/developer combinations?

And when I look at my negatives & prints how do I know if I need to adjust my iso? Just experiment? or is there something I'm looking for?

I'm telling you, this makes me want to reshoot so much! And I'm tired of laboring through so many 35mm negatives. I've got ideas I want to put on my 120. I'm rearranging my thoughts and ideas - my mind has been running. I needed this creative boost. So many times I've thought, "this is it! too many duds and I'm done with it".

I'm ready to play!

 

[jim appleyard]

This raises new questions for me. Does this slower, more dilute developer, method apply to other film/developer combinations?

And when I look at my negatives & prints how do I know if I need to adjust my iso? Just experiment? or is there something I'm looking for?

I'm telling you, this makes me want to reshoot so much! And I'm tired of laboring through so many 35mm negatives. I've got ideas I want to put on my 120. I'm rearranging my thoughts and ideas - my mind has been running. I needed this creative boost. So many times I've thought, "this is it! too many duds and I'm done with it".

I'm ready to play!

Other dilute devs with other films *CAN* apply. It depends on the film and dev you're using. For example, I wouldn't normally shoot Efke 25 at an EI of 100 and soup it in Acufine. I would use Efke 25 for my tripod work; use it because it's slow. That's just how I am.

Newspapers, on the other hand, would shoot Tri-X and soup it in HC-110 for 3-5 min. just to get the photo. The quality of the final neg/print (dilute devs with compensating effects) was often less important than just getting the shot. Press time was often a factor. This is where the art-part of photography comes in. You can do want you want.

Adjust your ISO/EI only if needed. Your prints/negs should have detail in the shadows and highlights. In other words, you should be able to see into the shadows, they should not be just black holes and your highlights should be light, but not burned out.

Hope this helps.

 

[noseoil]

Hi Janet, I've been lurking on this thread and thought I'd jump in now. I haven't used this developer, but can answer a more general question about dilute developers. Another very good combination is Tri-x and pyrocat-hd. I use 1:1:150 with reduced agitation, which is very dilute, but works very well. In general, a very dilute solution (within reason) will have a compensating effect on film, which allows detail to build in the shadows, while highlights are held in check by "starvation" and reduced agitation. This is true for many combinations (pyrocat, rodinal, hc 110, etc.) but remember, the reduced agitation is part of this process.

About ISO and your taste, just give it a try on your next roll. Try bracketing the shots to see what you think. Start at box speed, then cut it down by about 1/2 and then a full stop (three shots per scene should get you there). Do this with each shot, in several situations, and write down what you did for each frame (or just do the same for each shot sequence and write it down once). Process the film and then print your results. If you do this in several light scenarios, it should give you the feedback you need. I shoot Tri-x 400 at 250 or 400, but it depends on the "look" I want. There are times (portraits for example) when shadows can be pushed down a bit to add a bit of mystery and contrast to the print. So nice to hear real enthusism in a post! Best, tim

P.S. Please scan a print or two and post them into the thread (use the post reply, not quick reply feature to upload into the thread) so we can see how things are working.

 

[jgcull]

Thanks for such quick replies, Jim and noseoil (?).

I think I'll restrain myself, in my excitement, to sticking with this film/dev. combination for now. Gosh, hope I can find more HC110. I got 2 bottles on sale a while back and I was actually trying to rush through it and get back to my old d76. I've hated the hc110. Till now!

I'll scan and post something when I get a nice, dry print.

 

[jim appleyard]

HC-110 is available from any Kodak dealer, or mail-order thru B&H, Adorama, Freestyle, etc.

Those two bottles should last awhile, however, with your excitement...

 

[Jim Chinn]

Hi Janet.

If you are just starting out doing your own developing of film I highly reccomend buying "The Film Developing Cookbook" by Steve Anchell and Bill Troop.

It goes into pretty good depth (but not to technical) about what a film developer is, what it does, the difference between solvent (fine grain) non-solvent (high definition) tanning (catechol, pyrogallol) and more exotic types. You learn what constitues almost all commerical developers, as well as how to mix your own including formulae. And it covers in depth procedures for film processing. It provides a great foundation of knowledge. You can probably find it easily on used book sites such as Alibris for a few dollars.

 

[Jim Chinn]

"You can probably find it easily on used book sites such as Alibris for a few dollars."

Ha, ha, the jokes on me. After checking Alibris the cheapest used copy was $28!!!!. IIRC I bought mine new for $19 several years ago. Does anyone know if The Film Developing Cookbook is out of print? Seems I remember seeing it on the shelf at Borders Books last Christmas.

Still a valuable resouce, even at $28.

 

[jim appleyard]

"You can probably find it easily on used book sites such as Alibris for a few dollars."

Ha, ha, the jokes on me. After checking Alibris the cheapest used copy was $28!!!!. IIRC I bought mine new for $19 several years ago. Does anyone know if The Film Developing Cookbook is out of print? Seems I remember seeing it on the shelf at Borders Books last Christmas.

Still a valuable resouce, even at $28.

I seem to remember word of a new edition coming out, but I have not heard anything on this recently.

 

[jgcull]

Jim A, I'm down to about my last ounce of stock, of the last bottle. And I know your name, but I can't remember why. Maybe from photo.net?

Jim C., I just looked for it and found it, but not for a few dollars. I think I'll check the library for it and see if it's something I'd dig into. Thank you for the recommendation!

Janet

p.s. I just finished 3 more rolls - looking forward to dry negs.

 

[jim appleyard]

Janet, yes, photo.net. If you like HC-110 (it works on many films) then grab another bottle or two. Your local camera store may have some, or should be able to order it.

As an alternative, you can mail-order more HC-110 along with other things you'll need and that will help make the shipping worthwhile.

 

[frugal]

Glad you're getting a look you're happy with. I'm going to try this combo myself soon so it's encouraging to hear some successful results.

 

[jgcull]

a few examples

Now that I'm showing examples, I'm backing up. I was really excited to see the transition from light to shadow on my grandson's face. It appears to me that the slow development with less agitation might fix a problem I've recently had (that I didn't ask about). There's not much on these rolls anybody has gotten excited about, but I see potential for some ideas I've got.

Anyway, I promised to show something from the effort and here they are.

They're 2 of my grandbabies.

Not perfect prints or scans, but they are what they are. They raise more questions, but I'll just work a while before I ask more.

Again, thanks so much for helping me get started with dilution H.

Janet

p.s. The one of Molly with a bottle is printed on old paper I bought as a bargain (haha!). It had been frozen for years and I think I left it at room temp too long. Some of the paper has been much worse. This one is only mildly funky, but it did mess with her beautifully fair and creamy skin. Now I'll see if I can add attachments successfully. I'm not all that "technologized", according to my kids.

And another disclaimer - Zachary doesn't have scars on his chin, but for some reason it looks like in on my scan.

 

[SuzanneR]

Congrats Janet... sweet images.

I think these look a tad underexposed though there is some shadow detail, so perhaps the prints are a bit dark. You might try to bracket the film next time you try this. Change your exposures up or down in 1/3 to 1/2 stop increments, and see how they look.

Oh... and fresh paper... Printing is challenging enough... don't make it harder on yourself than you have to!!

 

[jgcull]

>>>I think these look a tad underexposed <<<

The one of baby and mom is a bit underexposed, but the others aren't. That one printed very quickly, but it's not overly gray. Mom (who didn't want to show at all) is in the shadow.

>>>Oh... and fresh paper... Printing is challenging enough<<<

Yes, right you are! I can't tell you how much paper I've had to toss, and I hate that. Much of it is much worse than this one. I think it looks good with certain images, but with a baby??? I did one of Molly in the flowers in the "worse" paper. I thought it looked sort of cool... my daughter thought it looked like she had a skin disease.

I just hate throwing all that paper away! I can tell you, I won't buy old frozen paper any more.

Thanks for helping and commenting.

Janet