Extreme Pushing of Tri-X and HP5+ in HC110

Hi Folks,

 

I've searched through the archives, but couldn't find anything that

answered this exactly. Hopefully I didn't miss anything.

 

Last night I ended up in a very dark club with a 50mm f/2 and a pocket

full of HP5 and TriX. So, I took a couple rolls, and would like to try

and push the TriX to 12000 or so, and the HP5 to 3200 or more.

 

The only developers I have access to are HC110, D76, and Diafine.

Obviously, the Diafine isn't gonna cut it for this. The HC110 is more

convenient (I have that at home, where I do most of my developing, the

D76 is in the darkroom at school).

 

Have any of you done this sort of push with these films and these

developers? I know I'll get no shadows and blown highlights (I usually

push Tri-X a couple of stops), but wanna see if I can't make something

printable.

 

Can any of you suggest times/temps/procedures for HC110 and D76 with

these films?

 

Thanks,

 

Ben

I hope that was a typo on the tri-x. 12000 would not make me happy in any developer. It would not be what I would clasify as "printable"

 

In a pinch I've used tri-x in x-tol or acufine up to 3200 and even that is marginal. With tri-x in HC110 I've gone to 800 and 1200 but I'm much happier with acufine (just my preference). I have no experience with microphen but that is another developer you might try.

 

in 35mm I like TMZ (in x-tol), in 120 I like Delta 3200. I've seen some shots with Neopan 1600 that look great, but I've not had a chance to try neopan...YET.

 

Check adorama or B&H for acufine, or microphen.

 

Lex might be able to give you some better advise, he probably has more experience with push processing.

The speed of Tri-X is ISO 400. You have underexposed it severely. There is no remedy for extreme underexposure.

Tri-X in HC-110 at about EI 200 is magic, but I wouldn't use that developer for pushing (anything over 400). In fact, HC-110 is likely to blow out highlights and give low speed. See:

 

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

 

I've had best results from Acufine, but that was around EI 1000.

 

Maybe Microphen, or some people say a generous amount of diluted Xtol works well.

Thanks, folks (wasn't a typo). Since it's probably gonna be barely there, I am gonna take my chances and try it in D76. Worst case scenario, I have nothing printable, right?

 

ben

See Ilford's data sheet for HP5. They give developing times for Ilfotec HC (equivalent to HC110) to EI 3200. They give developing times for ID-11 (equivalent to D-76) to EI 1600. You're not going to have any shadow detail, and will have VERY contrasty negatives, but the midtones will have reasonable densities.

 

Similarly, Kodak's Tri-X data sheet gives developing times for EI 1600 and 3200.

 

The film manufacturers do provide informative data sheets, which are helpful when you refer to them.

getting 3200 out of HP5 or TX is doable. To tame the contrast I usually resort to dev'ing in dilute developers with infrequent agitation. Shadows are gone, sure, but there is still something left to work with. I remember Scott Eaton recommending Acufine/Diafine for pushing (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005KtL). As I never used any of the developers you list all I can do is to show you how TX@3200 looks in my hands (dev'ing info included): http://www.photo.net/photo/1567156

Oh no.

 

At 12,000 I'd agree with Hans on this one. You are pretty much S.O.L. with the Tri-x. On the HP5, you say 3200 "and more"...How much more?

An EI of 12000 divided by an iso of 400 is 30. This is about 5 fstops underexposure.<BR><BR> Use a high energy developer; such as acufine; which has a slight real increase in iso; abit. <BR><BR>For a low contrast scene; more development can be done; before the highlights get blocked up. With a high contast scene; less development is warranted.<BR><BR>Without knowing the lighting conditions; everyone is just stabbing in the dark.<BR><BR>You can develop just 1/2 of a roll; buy cutting it in half; in total darkness; and spool each half in a different reel and tank. You might loose a good frame in the middle. But but after the first

half is developed; you can process the second half at a different time; With some feedback; by inspecting the first processed half.

I'd use Microphen straight as stock solution. After an initial 30 second agitation I'd agitate only three times every three minutes for half an hour total development time.

 

And cross my fingers.

 

If you're satisfied to capture some recognizable faces, you'll probably manage that on at least a few frames (depending on your metering style).

Two things other than to tell you that you are SOL.

 

Excel from Photographers' Formulary might help.

 

A Hydrogen Proxide vapor bath might help. The procedure is in "The Film Developing Cookbook."

 

Either way good luck.

Steve, how much more speed can be obtained by the hydrogen peroxide vapor method? Is it true film speed that is gained?

 

I've heard of hydrogen hypering tech pan and other films to increase contrast and improve reciprocity characteristics. Is this hydrogen peroxide vapor method a similar endevor, or is it something completely diferent?

Steve, My bad. I should have searched before I asked...I found a few posts on this that answered my questions. Looks like it is worth trying...I stand corrected on my SOL statement.

 

Thanks

I've done HP5 plus in the Under the Hill Saloon in Natchez, Miss. It was pretty

dark but the girls were drunk and dancing on the tables to a blues band. I

couldn't resist and shot with a f2 Summicron. I used Ilford's recommendations

for HP5 plus in HC110, that is dilution A for 9.5 minutes at 20 celcius. The

contrast is hard to deal with in printing but it was possible. The emotional

content of the photos came across, the action, the sexuality, but none of that

depended on detail. The graininess, and they were grainy, didn't detract from

that scene. Another scene depending on detail in the print wouldn't have come

across. Don't go past 3200 with HP5 plus unless you just gotta get the photo,

and if you'd seen these chicks dancing you'd have gone for it.

 

Lee England

 

Natchez, Miss.

 

http://www.englandphotographic.com

Sorry, the figures I gave for HP5 plus in HC110 were for a push to 3200. I

think that's the extreme for HP5 plus.

 

Lee England/ Natchez, Mississippi

There is really no true remedy for underexposure of this magnitude.

And there is no substitution for the emotional content Lee described.

 

Sometimes you just have to make do with what you have. The best advice we can offer is that which will help Benjamin make the most of a difficult situation.

 

First, Ben, if these photos are really important to you, don't touch 'em yet. Try to reproduce the conditions on another roll or two. Do some experimental developing on those rolls. Go ahead with the HC110 and D76 but don't hope for much.

 

I'd use Microphen because I'm accustomed to it and it's worked well for me. Other good possibilities include DDX, Acufine.

Hi Kids,

 

Thanks for all your suggestions. I decided to see what would happen if I tried the HC110, since I'm not gonna have access to anything other than that or diafine for a while.

 

I'm not disappointed, as some of the shots came out <a href="http://www.getdown.org/~ben/gallery/20March2004-EllenBirthday">pretty decent</a>, at least when I scan the negs. I should make it to the darkroom in the next week or two.

 

Ben

Benjamin; thanks for sharing you cool results. The shot of Duane has some shadow detail in his hair. The sequence shots are cool too. Is the one buying flowers from a steet vendor?<BR><BR>He is your quoted development <i>Tri-X at approx 6400 and HP5 at 3200, pushed in HC-110, dilution A, for 10 minutes, agitation every 30 seconds, then standing in water for 3 minutes to try and let the midtones and shadows come in a bit.</i><BR><BR>With my Noctilux; one has more light gathering power; but the focus is way shallower. What camera and 50mm F2 lens did you use?

What was the temperature of the developer?

<i>The speed of Tri-X is ISO 400. You have underexposed it severely. There is no remedy for extreme underexposure.</i><p>

vell, Hansy, it luks like zee negatifs vur salvageable. now, vat do you haff to say?

Ze scanning process makes more detail visible.

 

Also, these were not exposed at EI 12000

I think scanning definately brings out detail that would be harder to get in the darkroom. I'll find out in the next week or so when I get some time.

 

The developer and water bath were 68-70 degrees farenheit. I was using a 50mm M-Hexanon (wide open (f/2) for the indoor ones), which were the ones I was concerned about.

 

The range of exposures varied. Obviously, the shots on the street were not 12000 but the one of Ellen in shadow (you see detail in neck and chest and chin) was in an extremely dark setting and was the shot I was hoping would come out of the push. Several others from the same setting have more and less density, but were boring compositionally, so I didn't scan them. On this shot and the others from then, my camera set to 3200 told me that I was underexposing by more than a stop, so, I guess it was somewhere at least 6400.

 

I really appreciate all your help.

 

Ben

Nice shots Benjamin. Glad they came out.

Yup, excellent results considering the difficult conditions.