Tri-x in HC110, dilution H

[jgcull]

I have some HC110 stock I need to use up before the bottle will be free again to mix my usual D76 in. I've several rolls of Tri-X to be developed. Inside the box is no recommended time for dilution B, but I've seen times from 3 3/4 to 5 & 6 minutes.

I understand dilution H is double the dilution and time of dil. B, but I need a start time to work from. Do I call Tri-X in dilution B - 3 3/4, 5, or 6 minutes?

It seems strange to me. There's a big difference between 3 3/4 min. and 5 min. I'd appreciate any experienced info you can offer.

Janet

 

[ann]

several years kodak annouced a change in trix and at around the same time, the times you mentioned showed up for sol.b

As one would expect the internet world users of tri x went off the bend , and the results seemed to be they ended up using their old times. It was rumored that it was just a mistake but kodak never made an annoucement to that fact. I can tell you that i had a student who used that suggested time and the negatives where a awful. She wasn't paying attention in class and looked up the times and went ahead with what she found.


the old time for tri x was 7 or 7.5 minutes, i really don't remember because in our lab we used 6 to 6.5 minutes with great success.

It is also current wisdom that one does not use less than 5 minutes , as it is an opportunity for uneven development.

I have not tested sol. H for a specific time, so i can't commet, but my specific time for tri in sol. b is 6 minutes , if that is any help.

 

[DWThomas]

Shooting 400TX at an ISO of 250, I've been reasonably happy with HC-110 Dilution H around 9 minutes @ 68 F.

That's with a single roll of 120, 30 secs agitation at start, then 3 inversions in about 5 seconds per minute thereafter.

(Your mileage may vary, usual disclaimers, etc.)

DaveT

 

[jim appleyard]

Hi Janet,

Welcome to APUG!

 

[jgcull]

Thank you, all, for replying.

How might I calculate the time difference for iso changes? I'm not sure how to word this correctly. If Dave is shooting Tri-x at 250 and I am at 400, how would the developing difference be calculated?

I'm wondering if Dave's 9 min. (dil. H, which is double time for B) is the same as Ann's dil. B, 6 min. if shot at 400?

I thought Tri-X's dev. time less than TMax. I give Tmax 6 min. in dilution B, so might that mean 6 min. for Tri-X would be a bit much for me?

Surely the true answer must be, "test". I know I've read directions for that, but it seems I'm always at the place of "but I need this film done now". One of these days I'm going to have to figure it out and do a true film test, aren't I?

Thanks for your time and answers here.

Janet

 

[George Collier]

Since development time mostly affects contrast (more or less developement will make highlights denser or weaker, but shadows are pretty much locked in by exposure - the basis for the Zone System), I wouldn't adjust dev time for exposure, especially not for 250 to 400. I would process (Ann's time is good) and evaluate the shadow detail, which might be a little weak. If so you would lower your ISO setting next time.

Another option for dilution, the one I use, is 1:45, 72F, 45 sec agitition to start, 3 twisty inversions every 40 sec, for 9 minutes. I use it because I live in the South (barely) and find 72 degrees more convenient, prefering at least 7-8 minutes.

It's not that critical to start, just keep refining as you go.

 

[jgcull]

Thank you, George. When you say 1:45, do you mean 1 part *stock* to 45 water?

I haven't used Tri-x much. You said, "it's not that critical to start". Is there more room for grace with Tri-x than, say, with TMax? I hope so, since I don't seem to know what I'm doing here! )

 

[John Bragg]

Hi, Janet.

My time for Tri-X rated at EI200 in dilution H is 9 mins @ 20c. I give an initial 30 secs agitation, then 2 gentle inversions at the start of each subsequent minute.

Regards, John.

Example shot.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=63551&ppuser=3754

 

[jgcull]

John, wow! That's a beautiful shot!!! Ok... so if you rated it at 200, how would I compensate in time for 400?

I'm surprised at your little agitation. I invert 4 times every 30 seconds, though I must say it's now using Tri-x. Your image looks beautiful. I should follow your advice. Could you comment on the agitation?

Thanks.

Janet

 

[John Bragg]

I used to use dilution B for 6 mins, and the more usual 5 inversions each minute, however I found it hard to achieve the results I wanted when Kodak reformulated Tri-X. I started to re-work my times using dilution H, after researching times for the new emulsion on the internet. My first attempt proved a little on the thin side, developed for 5 mins and exposed at box speed. The shadows lacked detail too, and I moved to 7 mins and Ei 200. This improved the neg quality but it was hard to hold highlights in check. It was at this point that I decided to use the compensating effect of dilute development to my advantage and hold back a little on the agitation, thus allowing the shadow regions more time to develop fully whilst the dilute solution exhausted in the highlight regions of the negative due to less movement. I finally settled on a time of 9 mins, and this seems the optimum for me.
In answer to your question about starting point at box speed, maybe 11 or 12 minutes. This supports the theory that Kodak times for the "new" Tri-X were woefully too short. I would also say that I get better results at Ei200 than I ever did at 400. Better shadow details, and much finer grain.
Sorry for the long winded reply, but I hope it helps...

Regards, John.

 

[jgcull]

>>>In answer to your question about starting point at box speed, maybe 11 or 12 minutes.<<<

That's at dilution H, right?

Thanks again!

 

[John Bragg]

>>>In answer to your question about starting point at box speed, maybe 11 or 12 minutes.<<<

That's at dilution H, right?

Thanks again!

Correct. Also HC-110 is a very active developer, and over agitation blows the highlights... (I wish I knew that a long time ago) Good luck.

Regards, John.

 

[Alexz]

Being a quite newbie into manual N&W processing, I made my own "research" (not without the help of RFF B&W fellows) and finally came up with the following recipes for Tri-X in HC-110:
For Tri-X shot at ISO 400: dill. H at 20 deg. C: 13 minutes. 30 sec. continuous agitation at the beginning, then 3 gentle inversions every subsequent minute.
If using dill. B (rarely): 6.5 minutes, same agitation.

When shot at ISO 200-250: dill H would be for 10-10.5 minutes, same agitation regime.

These times apparently deliver the optimum Tri-X performance for me.

 

[jgcull]

Hi Alexz, and thanks for posting.

I don't mean to nag with too many questions, but if one could go 13 min. w/dilution H - is half that just fine with dilution B? I guess what I mean is, is there a reason one dilution is better than another, other than if the time for B is too short? 6.5 min. seems plenty long enough to get even development. I was going for H because the 3.75 I'd read somewhere with dilution B was just too short. Is there something better about H for longer development?

I'll get this down and try not to ask so many questions for a bit.

Janet

 

[Alexz]

Janet, no problem at all. We all were beginners once (and I am one still...) asking questions is totally OK - this is smart approach to avoid the most common and annoying mistakes.
In fact, I must to pay a credit to RFF B&W fellows whose advises saved me lots of beginner's frustrations with B&W manual development. I just followed the recommendations of several fellows there for a starting point to beging with in Tri-X/HC-110 processing. Then I "grew up" to run my own ring-around test on this combinaiton which proved the common wisdom in Tri-X/HC-110 processing - dillution H (twice as weak as B) at 20 deg. C for 13 minutes with moderate agitation when exposed at nominal (400), or, as many prefer, when exposed at 200-250 (persumably to save on shadows in high-contrast situations) - less 20% which bring the time down to 10-10.5 minutes.

HC-110 appears to respond more or less linearily, so that chosing dillution H to be twice as weaker then B leads to twice as longer development time (probably with moderate tweaking for personal taste).
At first I indeed tried B (6.5 minutes) which produced quite good results by itself, but figured that is quite a pressure for me to prepare the next processing steps (brining mid-wash water and the fixer to the necessary temps) while trying to remember to agitate on time, so longer times were more appealing to me. Besides, mistakes are apparently less harmful with weaker dillution and longer times...
Other then that, to my very limited exprience, dillution B (6.5 minutes) is just fine either...

 

[jgcull]

Thank you.

Now I'm going on to study what "compensating effect" is. So much to learn. So much to do - and I like that part!

Janet

 

[frugal]

My understanding is that using dillution H with little agitation produces more of a compensating effect where the shadows continue to develop but the highlights don't blow out. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't using dilution B and more "normal" agitation negate that effect?

 

[jgcull]

Hi frugal,

I'm going into the darkroom tonight to develop some, using dilution H for that reason. From what I'm reading, dilution H will (hopefully) give me what I'm looking for.

I'll let you all know how it goes. Thanks, all of you, for your comments!

Janet

 

[Alexz]

Good luck Janet, let us know your proceedings.
Frugal, sounds fair what you said, however my experience is too thin yet to be confirm that confidently. In fact, B also produced good results with Tri-X at 400 (in my case), I did not notice the results from B to be noticeably inferior in any regard to what I obtained in H. I just feel more relaxed having more time in H to fiddle around, and also, the mistates are leee pronounced (if any...)..

 

[frugal]

Good luck Janet, let us know your proceedings.
Frugal, sounds fair what you said, however my experience is too thin yet to be confirm that confidently. In fact, B also produced good results with Tri-X at 400 (in my case), I did not notice the results from B to be noticeably inferior in any regard to what I obtained in H. I just feel more relaxed having more time in H to fiddle around, and also, the mistates are leee pronounced (if any...)..

I don't have enough experience either, was just going by what I'd heard. My understanding is that you do have to be careful to not over-develop when using HC110 so I could see some advantages there with dilution H and the longer times as it will give you more of a margin for error in the development time, as you mention.

 

[eddie gunks]

i use hc110 at 1:63 and 1:119 (all mixed from syrup) at 20C. i get really nice negs. my best results are 1:119 18 min for foma100. i also use these dilutions for tmax, hp5, fp4 and whatever else i am shooting.

eddie

 

[frugal]

I thought someone had already posted the HC-110 unofficial resource page but I just quickly skimmed through the thread and didn't see it. If it was posted already, doesn't hurt to post it again.

One thing to note is that when you're using the more dilute options you need to make sure that you're using enough quantity of developer to ensure complete development (The table on that site indicates when this is a concern).

 

[jgcull]

Alright... I've got negatives! When they're dry enough to print a few, I'll let you know how they perform. The water temp was a hair under 70 degrees and I processed at dilution H, 11min. 50 sec.

It's hard to analyze them by the negatives alone. Some of the frames were shot outside in full sun, some inside with window light. The ones inside were with a 50mm 1.2 lens, so the shaded part wouldn't show great detail anyway. My eyes aren't great, looking at those negs - even through a lens. I'll let you know what I observe after I print.

I had to take a leap of faith to agitate so little. I usually do, every 30 sec., so only every minute was a huge change for me.

I like contrasty, but I'd rather have everything right on the negative and adjust the contrast in the printing, if I want.

Thanks for all your help.

Janet

 

[jgcull]

Oh my gosh, they're good. They're good! I don't have to add contrast and they've got that quality (that I don't know how to describe) that I love! I'm back off into the darkroom now.

Thanks so much! I see why Tri-x and HC110 is a good combination. Dilution H is the bomb!

 

[SuzanneR]

Kewl, Janet... I hope you'll post something in the gallery!!