TriX and HC110

rmolson · Mar 17, 2010

Fred Pickers

Doing a little spring cleaning and came across an old 1974 copy of ,Fred Pickers Zone VI Work Shop. While leafing through it came across the article on Ansel Adams using 35mmTri X in HC110 and getting really great results. I remember switching to that combination and getting equally good results. But over the years Tri X changed and HC110 changed to the point I no longer was happy with it .Seemed flatter and grainier. I wonder if any else remembers the old Tri X and HC110 combination that produced very good 35mm negatives?

ann · Mar 17, 2010

have used HC110 for at least 30 years, with the older tri x but mainly with hp5 in the later years,

a few years ago i switched to doing all my personal work with pryocat hd regardless of format. We still use HC110 for our classes.

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 17, 2010

Something doesn't add up.

Tri-X has gotten finer grained as a film over the years. HC-110 should be the same.

If your negs are flat, have you increased agitation / development time to get the amount of contrast you need?

I am not someone who have used HC-110 a lot, but your question got me interested.

- Thomas

zenrhino · Mar 17, 2010

Tri-X 35mm with HC110 dilB at 7:15 in a Jobo works perfect for me. Absolutely love it. 7:30 in a smalltank for me, also.

mikebarger · Mar 17, 2010

In one of Fred's newsletters it talks about this very issue, Kodak had changed the mix (Fred claimed) on HC110 and Fred had to retest Tri-x. "Seems like" he indeed did end up with longer times.

Hope my memory isn't to far off base.

Mike

Ektagraphic · Mar 17, 2010

I have just got my hands on HC-110 and my primary film is Tri-X so I'll let you know what I get from it....I think I will be using dilution B

ann · Mar 17, 2010

in the "old days", the times for trix with solution b per Kodak was 7.5 min. We found that too long and after testing dropped it to 6 to 6.5 minutes depending on which camera was in use. When Kodak changed trix a few years ago the times changed (or, at least on the label) which created a lot of teeth gashing but most folks just continued to use their previous times as 4.5 did not make sense.

Louis Nargi · Mar 17, 2010

I also use this combo interesting to see what others say.

Jedidiah Smith · Mar 17, 2010

For those of you who have been following my HC-110 teething issues, I developed 3 rolls of Tri-X in HC-110 last week at dilutions A and B. Nice tones and actually pretty fine grain, for what I remember Tri-X looking like.
How I knew something was wrong with the first 2 rolls of Plus-X that I developed in HC-110, was that the TRI-X was FINER grained than the Plus-X I had done!

So...changed my ways on the next roll of Plus-X and had better results by far. But the gist of it for this thread is that I found Tri-X in HC-110 is pretty good - if you like the look of Tri-X, of course. It usually isn't my thing (I like finer grained films for 35mm), but I had some and thought I'd try it.

Jed

Kevin Kehler · Mar 17, 2010

Mike Johnson (in an issue of Black and White Photography magazine) that you needed to be sure of the Tri-X you were using: TXP (the recently discontinued 320 stuff) was ideal in HC-110 and had few drawbacks if processed properly. Tri-X 400 (the more common of the 2 and the only one in 35mm film) was not suited for HC-110 and was much better in D-76. He said the grain and contrast of Tri-X was much harder to control and much less forgiving than TXP when developed in HC-110, due to one being a more energetic developer. Thus, he recommended using D-76 for Tri-X and HC-110 for TXP.

Rolleiflexible · Mar 18, 2010

Kevin Kehler said:
Mike Johnson (in an issue of Black and White Photography magazine) that you needed to be sure of the Tri-X you were using: TXP (the recently discontinued 320 stuff) was ideal in HC-110 and had few drawbacks if processed properly. Tri-X 400 (the more common of the 2 and the only one in 35mm film) was not suited for HC-110 and was much better in D-76. He said the grain and contrast of Tri-X was much harder to control and much less forgiving than TXP when developed in HC-110, due to one being a more energetic developer. Thus, he recommended using D-76 for Tri-X and HC-110 for TXP.

Well, to each his own. I've processed thousands of
120 rolls of 400TX in HC-110 and have not shared your
concerns with the combination. I shoot at EI 200 and
process in Dilution E for 6 minutes at 20C, agitating
a few inversions every 30 seconds. The results for
me using this recipe have been perfect -- shadows
full of detail, highlights under control -- works every
time without fail.

hspluta · Mar 18, 2010

Recently I purchased some old 120 Tri-X with an expiration of 1997. I just developed my first roll in HC-110 at dilution H for 15 minutes, I use a 1 minute pre-rinse, then do two inversions a minute for the first three minutes only, then I let it sit as a stand developer.

Acuteness is very good, grain is nice ( I like the old Tri-X grain ), very good tone range.

I have been using the same routine with slightly different times for Neopan 400 and am really pleased with the results there as well.

SilverGlow · Mar 18, 2010

Kevin Kehler said:
Mike Johnson (in an issue of Black and White Photography magazine) that you needed to be sure of the Tri-X you were using: TXP (the recently discontinued 320 stuff) was ideal in HC-110 and had few drawbacks if processed properly. Tri-X 400 (the more common of the 2 and the only one in 35mm film) was not suited for HC-110 and was much better in D-76. He said the grain and contrast of Tri-X was much harder to control and much less forgiving than TXP when developed in HC-110, due to one being a more energetic developer. Thus, he recommended using D-76 for Tri-X and HC-110 for TXP.

I have to agree with you. I much prefer Tri-X developed with D76 then HC-110 because the former provides a finer grain.

TriX and HC110

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency