TXP in HC-110 Semi Stand

[jd callow]

My first effort was dilution 'D' for 30mins 10sec of aggitation every 5 mins and the negs look great. The fim was rated at 320. I'll post scans tomorrow when the film is dry.

 

[df cardwell]

What beer were you drinking ? THAT is the important thing !

 

[Lee L]

What beer were you drinking ? THAT is the important thing !

In some people beer decreases agitation, but in others it appears to increase agitation. Any experience with the effects differing by brand or quantity?

John, were you going after reduced gamma, or trying for the other effects of semi-stand? You prompted me look up AA's TXP in dilute HC-110 trials in The Negative to see how your test differed. His was 1:120 from syrup for 18-20 minutes, agitation of 15 seconds every 3 or 4 minutes. Yours is 1:39 from syrup. Look forward to your results.

Lee

 

[jd callow]

Don, I wasn't drinking any beer.



Lee, I'm after box speed or better and a normal contrast neg. This roll was the old txp and has some base fog. I'm souping another roll this time the newish txp @ dilution F, agitated for 10 seconds every 5 mins for 35 mins.

I'm still experimenting and was very happy with my initial results.

 

[Lee L]

Lee, I'm after box speed or better and a normal contrast neg. This roll was the old txp and has some base fog. I'm souping another roll this time the newish txp @ dilution F, agitated for 10 seconds every 5 mins for 35 mins.

I'm still experimenting and was very happy with my initial results.

Thanks. Looking forward to the results myself. I don't use HC-110 a lot since VP went away, but I always have some on hand. Started testing it at higher dilution with very early TMX, but moved and didn't follow through.

Lee

 

[jd callow]

It may be the the fudge facter for stand dev is really wide and that I simply am looking for a neg that I like and am easy to please, but dilution F @ 35min w/ agitation 10sec every 5mins look excellent.

I'm doing one more at the same to see what it looks like -- and it looks great! The first couple frames are of a beach and look kind of Schwabesq.

 

[Lee L]

I'm doing one more at the same to see what it looks like -- and it looks great! The first couple frames are of a beach and look kind of Schwabesq.

Ahhh! In that case, I'd suggest a nice Schwäbische Weizen, undiluted.

Lee

 

[jd callow]

Okay, I did a final batch of 4 120 rolls at 35min/agitation every 5 min for 10 seconds using dilution F. The negs look really good. I'm very pleased that my first two attempts at these times and dilutions were a success. I'll scan a couple frames later and post here.

 

[df cardwell]

The only truth in photography is that we have to make the right negative for our needs.

Looking forward to the pictures.

d

 

[Thanasis]

I am looking forward to using HC-110 with TXP for the first time so I am pretty eager to see the results too.

 

[jd callow]

I'm wrestling with my POS scanner as I type this...

 

[jd callow]

here are two. I'll have more later...

Father Daughter thing...

Cute little girl thing...

 

[Rolleiflexible]

JD, do you also use HC-110 at more conventional
dilutions and processing methods? If so, what
differences do you see between these negatives
and the ones processed conventionally with this
developer? I process all my 400TX roll film with
HC-110 (5/8 oz syrup into 900 ml water @68F,
for six minutes, agitating every 30 seconds,
for 400TX exposed at EI 200) and am curious
how your new approach might affect the
negatives.

Sanders

 

[Lee L]

Sanders,

Not to be glib, but since you have experience and certain expectations with your combo, why not take the hour or two to test a roll of 400TX with John's methods and let us know what differences you see? I'd be interested in your observations as well, and 400TX and TXP are different films anyway, so the additional info would be nice to have. (Now I gotta go figure out the dilution ratio of 5/8 oz in 900 ml.) ... about 1:50 for US fluid ounces, so close to dilution E.

Lee

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Not to be glib, but ...

Lee, yeah, I had the same thought
after posting the comment.

I'm about to go away on holidays
for a couple of weeks so I won't
have an opportunity to process
film again for awhile.

Sanders

 

[Lee L]

I'm about to go away on holidays
for a couple of weeks so I won't
have an opportunity to process
film again for awhile.

Sanders

Same here. I haven't done much HC-110 in years, so I wouldn't be much help on the comparison bit anyway unless I ran both the A and B versions of the tests. I also have more faith in judging results when there's long experience involved with at least one set of conditions.

Nice to see you back and posting occasionally.

Lee

 

[jd callow]

D76 1:3 has always been my dev for txp. I'm one of those folks who tended to learn just enough about film/dev combo's to get printable negs. I also never could get box film speed from my b/w film. D F Cardwell explained the differences of D76, xtol and HC-110 and that I should be able to get box speed via semi-stand. So my first of a couple experiments are finding these things out for myself.

 

[df cardwell]

My ears were buzzing.

HC-110 is a perfect developer to show the effects of minimal agitation,
and to me, the greatest value of it is NOT acutance FX (HC110 is pretty immune from FX)
but to change the shape of the tone curve.

You can make these assumptions about the process:

1. Dilution has no effect on the curve shape OR the contrast.
If you increase the dilution, and increase the development time,
and use the same proportion of the time agitating the film,
you'll get the same CI at any dilution.

2. To increase the relative shadow density,
maintain the same midtone density, and reduce the highlight density,
increase the development time BUT reduce the agitation.

3. The practical limit for 120 film is a 5 minute rest cycle (this varies with developers,
but HC110, Rodinal, and most other common developers, seem to be good for this.
This assumes steel reels. My tests long ago showed that 10 to 20 minute cycles produced
graduated densities WITH 120 but never at 5 minutes. Sandy King uses 3 minute cycles, which is safer still.
There doesn't seem to be much difference with 5 or 10 seconds of agitation, just be consistent.

4. There is little difference between a negative made with 5 minute cycles and 10 minute cycles.
The difference between 5 minutes and 1 minute is great.

Here, then, are your constants:
-ISO speed for your EI (determined at mid tone densities)
-5 minute rest cycles, with 10 seconds of agitation to begin, and at each cycle.
Assume either the dilution or the time you want, and testing will quickly determine the final value.

If you have a syringe and plug, you can easily measure out 10ml of HC-110. 1+50 measures up easily.
If I remember, Adams used 1+63. Dilution F shouldn't make much difference, just take longer.

Using minimal agitation with TXP, with its 'portrait curve', that ski jump curve that compresses the shadows and expands the highlights, softens the abrupt and sometimes harsh effect TXP has. It will never drop to a straight line, but it gives another tool to get the most from a remarkable film.

This is fun, John

d

 

[Lee L]

And for further info along the same lines Don mentions here see:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Arnold Gassan worked out a way of controlling contrast with HC-110 by dilution, with processing times held constant.

I had heard that HC-110 didn't give the acutance effects of other developers, but haven't tested it for myself with semi-stand.

One other thing that I've meant to test, but never have taken the time for, is agitation differences with a full or partially full roll film tank. It seems logical to me that inverting a full tank is significantly less agitation than inverting a 1/2 or 2/3 full tank.

Lee

 

[df cardwell]

I think Gassan's method works because the relationship of agitation to time diminishes as the dilution increases, at least that's how Rodinal does. Gassan was a wizard.