trying to get same results in hp5 or fp4 as I get out of tri-x in hc110??????

[Jordan.K]

Ok so I'd like to get similar results out of a ilford film that I get out of Tri-x in HC110. These results I speak of are the very smooth tonal seperation I get with tri-x sheet film and hc110. I have tried hp5 in hc110 and xtol and get a super flat negative. Any help with combinations is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

[jim appleyard]

Flat as in low contrast? If that is the case, increase your dev time, the number of times you agitate/minute or you dev temp. Development controls contrast.

 

[BradS]

To my eye, FP4+ looks a lot like 320TXP...but better.

In 4x5, with continuous rotational agitation (Jobo tank on motor base), I process both of these films in either D-76 (1+1) or D-23 straight.

If I'm doing one sheet at a time in a smaller tank, I'll consider HC-110 (1+39) but, have found HC-110 too difficult to control in with continuous rotation.

 

[Don Wallace]

Brad, I had a lot of trouble getting HC-110 to work in the Jobo. The solution is higher dilutions, but this limits the number of sheets you can put in the tank. The Kodak spec sheet says 1 litre of dilution F does 1 sheet of 8x10 which is 12.5 ml of concentrate per sheet. This means a little over 3 ml per sheet of 4x5. I use 4 ml per sheet just because I can't measure 3.125 ml but this means that dilution F requires 320ml of solution per sheet. I run out of room pretty quickly in the Jobo and larger volumes, in my opinion, really make that motor work too hard. I have read that I could get away with 2 ml per sheet, but I would have to experiment.

 

[Jordan.K]

I do use a Jobo for both my 4x5 and my 8x10. I dilute my HC110 to 1:90 straight from the syrup. I then use 700-800ml in the Jobo at least with the 8x10 in the 3005 drum that is. As I said I really like the way these negatives print, however I would like to get better at least similar results from an Ilford film. I realize that longer processing will yield a more contrasty negative, but regardless of this as I have tried that, I can't make a negative that even comes close to how my tri-x and hc110 negs look. So one of you said fp4 in d76? Keep'em coming. Thanks.

 

[Don Wallace]

Jordan, are you mixing from stock or concentrate? If you are mixing from concentrate, how much syrup do you use per sheet of 8x10?

I am not happy with HP5 but I develop FP4 in my Jobo (CPE-2) all the time, and the negatives are very contrasty and punchy, in my opinion. Have you done any controlled testing? Perhaps the problem is in exposure and not development.

 

[Jordan.K]

Don,
I was just thinking the same thing while speaking with a coworker.... perhaps the real issue is more that I am treating HP5 like tri-x where I rated the HP5 at 125 the same way I rate the Tri-X. I do use my HC110 straight from the syrup. I only process 3 sheets at a time so whatever a 1/3 of an oz. is is what each sheet of film gets.

 

[BradS]

.... perhaps the real issue is more that I am treating HP5 like tri-x where I rated the HP5 at 125 the same way I rate the Tri-X.

I'd say that you have found your problem. Try shooting HP5 a little closer to box speed. You've gone way off into the shoulder by rating it so slow.

 

[gainer]

The contrast variations with development time and/or concentration of HP5+ and TRI-X are very different. For example, AGFA claims it will not reach CI of .65 with Rodinal at 1+50. Phil Davis published a lot of such curves for a number of films some years ago in Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques. The films may have changed, but the fact that you could expect no two films to have the same response to development time in the same developer is as true now as it was then.

 

[gainer]

Incidentally, as Brad above stated, you only reduce contrast by decreasing HP5+ film speed by a factor of 3.2.

 

[mikebarger]

When I tested HP5 in 4x5 it came in at 200, while tri-x 400 (120mm) tested at box speed. I used Fred Pickers test.

You might need to do a little testing to find the EI for you and the correct development time for your process type.

Mike

 

[gainer]

Film speed is not the critical issue in general. It is in this case because the shape of the curve of its CI vs development time. HP5+, for most developers, is such that it will not achieve as high a maximum contrast as TRI-X. The more you overexpose it, the closer you get to the place where CI levels off, the shadow area begins to rise more with extended time than the highlight area, and you have a flat negative, probably with high fog level.

If you examine the D-LOG E and CI -LOG E curves of the two films, you will see what I mean.

 

[ChuckP]

Tri-x sheet film (320) does have a different curve shape. Sort of a long toe and upturned highlights. To me it looks contrasty and dramatic compared to the smooth look of the more general HP5 curve. Maybe that's your problem. If you like that Tri-x look you may have to stay with it.

 

[gainer]

There are actually two curve shapes we need to be aware of. One is the Density vs Time curve and the other is the CI versus time. It is possible for the Density vs time curves of two films to be quite similar at one CI and quite different at a higher one. I think I'm repeating myself, but I'm in my 82nd year, so who knows?

 

[Bruce Watson]

Ok so I'd like to get similar results out of a ilford film that I get out of Tri-x in HC110. These results I speak of are the very smooth tonal seperation I get with tri-x sheet film and hc110. I have tried hp5 in hc110 and xtol and get a super flat negative. Any help with combinations is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I doubt you can get an Ilford film to look like Tri-X. Tri-X is relatively unique with it's long toe and rising highlights, especially in HC-110.

You can develop HP5+ longer and increase the contrast, but it will shoulder off IIRC and highlights will be compressed compared to the same scene captured on Tri-X. I don't think there's any developer that will get around that for you.

If you are using roll film you might try Delta 400. It'll perhaps get you closer than HP5+ will. But in the end it's not likely going to look like Tri-X.

 

[gainer]

These 2 figures show that you should not have too much trouble in HC-110. I copied them from an article by Phil Davis in Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques, MAR-APR, 1993. Of course, the films may have changed in the meantime, but it will give you something to work from.

 

[Jordan.K]

Thanks Gainer.

 

[jgjbowen]

Jordke,

Pat Gainer has provided you with some very useful information but I can't help wondering....If Tri-X/HC-110 gives you the results you are looking for, why on earth would you want to swithch? Let me guess. Is it because the Ilford film is $.20 less per exposure? If so, do you really shoot THAT many exposures to make the difference meaningful? 25 years ago when I first started in LF, I adopted Tri-X/HC-110. Why? Because that's what Ansel used and if it was good enough for Ansel..... To this day, I still shoot 4x5 and 35mm in with Tri-X/HC-110. When I moved up to 8x10 (about 5 years ago), I started with Tri-X/HC-110. But after reading EVERY post on the Azo forum, decided to switch to TMY/Pyrocat HD for negatives to be contact printed on Azo.

It takes years to REALLY get to know a film/developer combination. I wouldn't dream of switching from my current film/developer combinations until the last sheet of Kodak film had been produced. Why go through all this aggrivation if Tri-X/HC-110 gives you the results you want. Just continue shooting Tri-X/HC-110....problem solved

 

[ChuckP]

Those film curves are for 35mm Tri-X. Not the same film as sheet film 320 Tri-x.

 

[gainer]

Last I heard, Tri-X was 400, TXP was 320, different curves as well as different speeds. Which are we looking for here? Both are (or were) available in sheet film.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Last I heard, Tri-X was 400, TXP was 320, different curves as well as different speeds. Which are we looking for here? Both are (or were) available in sheet film.

Only 320TXP is currently available in sheet sizes.

 

[ChuckP]

If 400 was available in sheet film it's been awhile. My 1973 Kodak Film book doesn't list it.

 

[gainer]

That kind of settles the issue at hand, then. TXP is a long-toe upsweeping curve which, IIRC, was designed especially for portraits. HP5+ is much like TX in some developers, but in Rodinal it will not go much above CI = 0.6