first dev with hc-110 - negs too thin...

Hello. I just developed my first roll of film in HC-110 (i've used d-76

before). Issue is that my negatives seem too thin. Perhaps more importantly,

even the numbering/lettering on the edge of the film is thin.

 

<br/>Process: (all at 68 degrees F) tri-x at 400, HC-110 dilution H (something

short of 5mL of syrup to make 300mL total) - with distilled water - 9.5 minutes.

Agitate for first 45s or so - then once every minute. stop with water (3

refills with agitation). then 1 part kodafix and 3 parts water for 4.5 minutes

- with more frequent agitation than the developer. then wash thoroughly with

water (ilford method). final wash with distilled - and 2 drops of photo flo.

 

<br/>the scan below (flatbed) has two negative strips. the top is from one

today (hc-110) and the bottom is a good negative from before (d-76 neg that i've

printed from). the scan itself is awful, but notice the numbers on the edge -

much darker on the bottom strip.

 

<br/>Could this be from over-fixing? I tested the fixer last night and at

working strength it cleared the film in just over a minute, but I went with the

4+ minute fix based on other posts and the instructions on the bottle.

 

<br/>Thanks for your time

chris

 

<br/>

It's me again - wouldn't let me post with an img src tag...<div></div>

Two additions - I scanned with my negative scanner and they look okay. I'm seeing some issues with highlights though. Below are two scans, the lower is the detail of a kid's hat that is totally blown out. I noticed similar stuff on other negatives as well. As always, I appreciate your time.

Chris<div></div>

Detail of kid's hat<div></div>

Chris,

 

You picked a relatively conservative starting time, and I'm pretty sure your negatives will print just fine.

 

How do the seemingly burned-out highlights appear on the negative under a loupe? HC110 Dil. H should give good compensating action. I can't know for sure without seeing your negatives, but I'm relatively confident it's simply a scanning problem, specifically a case of the scanning software "clipping" highlights.

 

Re: those thin film markings, I too experience that occasionally with Tri-X, and only with Tri-X. Don't know what causes it. I originally thought it was just bulk-loaded Tri-X, but preloads seem susceptible too, though less often. But - when the edges are thin - the rest of the negatives aren't underdeveloped (in my case using D76h). So I'm doubtful you have a developing or fixing problem.

 

Since you make wet prints, that's where the true test will obviously be. Please post back and let us know how it works out!

Random question and HC-110... Chris mentioned he's used D-76 before. I've often heard HC-110 referred to as liquid D-76. Is this true...do the two developers share some common characteristics, give similar results in terms on tone, contrast, grain?

HC-110 & D76? Nope.

The kid's hat doesn't appear "blown out," it appears very bright and degraded by grain. HC110 isn't known for fine grain, nor is TriX, especially with HC110.

I wouldn't consider HC-110 to be liquid D-76, as they are chemically very different. That said, there isn't a lot of difference in the end result w/ 400TX between HC-110 and D-76. Nothing that I'd concern myself with as a beginner.

 

I don't see any issues arising from your fix time. If the negatives are clear and not milky - your fixing of the film probably went o.k.

 

If you are concerned about the highlights, a lot of people new to film development often over-develop the film simply because they unintentionally had the developer solution at a slightly higher temperature than the target. It's certainly a mistake I have made but it's easily corrected with care.

 

Your negative itself has adequate shadow detail (i.e it does not look thin). I think an EI of 400 should be quite reasonable for Tri-X/HC-110 in a medium or bright overcast.

 

So here is what I'd recommend:

 

- Try printing those negs and determine if the highlights can be printed

 

- Try a test roll with extra special care paid to the temperature

 

- If that test roll still fails to give you printable highlights, reduce the development time by 10% increments until you can print the highlights.

 

A final, but unrelated tip - if you shoot 400TX in bright, contrasty light, I recommend setting your EI to 200.

 

Judging by your scans, I'd say you are off to a pretty good start.

Great - thanks for the responses. I was pretty careful with temperature - but i'll continue to watch it. I'm hoping to try the first round of printing tomorrow - so that should answer my questions. i'll develop my next roll shortly as well. Depending on the printing results, i may adjust my developing slightly.

 

thanks

chris

Chris: This subject comes up a lot. I find the only way to decide on developemt times is to shoot a roll of the film I want to use and test it.

 

I do this by shooting the entire roll (usually 24 exp is fine) of the same subject at the same lighting. I try to get a scene with blacks, shadows, white and hard chromes. Cars in bright sunlight work well.

 

Then I clip a few inches from the beginning of the roll and develop it using some starting set of conditions. I'll usually run 2 more clip tests, each about 2-3", changing the conditions I want to control. I only change one variable at a time; it gets too complicated otherwise. I completely dry the negs and examine them unbder a loupe.

 

You can see what the changes you made in the developing process do to the shadows, highlights, and neutral tones. Usually this points you in the right direction and I do another set based on the new conditions to zero in on exactly what I want.

 

At the end of this process, I know how to achieve detail in shadows, prevent blown highlights, etc. depending on what I want to do. While this technique works really well for sheet film, it also applies to rollfilm.

 

When you get a new lot of film or make up a new developer solution, referal to these negs can also be useful.

 

Needless to say, detailed records are helpful.

 

By the way, in my setup, HC-110 takes about 11.0 min for best results with Tri-X. I'd suggest longer development times - or higher temperature, both will get you closer to where you want but each hane practical limits.

 

Good luck.

Chris, I use almost the exact process with my Tri-X and HC-110(H). I usually go 13:00 minutes. Even then I sometimes think I should have gone longer. I also shoot Tri-X at 200 ISO or rated, for this I use 10:30 minutes. I know that it is hard to find times for HC-110, they are very thin on the ground on this site and the 'web' in general. But I feel that I get very good results, so don't be discouraged.

john - right - i searched the web and found a wide range of numbers for hc-110 dilution h and tri-x...for whatever reason, i started with the low end, and i'm guessing it's much too low as you and another poster suggest. I'll add a few minutes for the next batch.

 

thanks

chris

Chris thinks highlights are too dense (I don't agree), so longer development would be the wrong direction..if he continues his current agitation.

 

But he's wildly over-agitating: 45 seconds!

 

Chris, no more rap, put on something calming. Less coffee, more wine.

 

Use ONLY five GENTLE inversions, once (only) per second (one-a-thousand) at the beginning. If you're afraid of that, simply hold upside down a little longer, but don't agitate more. Then set it down, DON'T walk around with it!

 

Then, ONLY three GENTLE inversions every minute (one-a-thousand, two-a-thousand, three-a-thousand)...or only one inversion, if you want...but I don't think that makes sense with this developer, that's Rodinal agitation. Set it down after agitation cycles.

 

Agitation works like time and temp. More agitation means less time.

 

If using a plastic reel it wouldn't hurt to pre-soak with water, invert a few times to eliminate any bubbles and insure good chem coverage (relevant to plastic reels, not to stainless).

Sometimes people advocate rapping the tank on the table top after an inversion or two, to be sure bubbles are gone. I don't think that's necessary with stainless reels, but it would only hurt if you did it more than once or twice in the beginning. Beyond that, set it down gently.

I agree with John Kelly. I don't agitate like Chris does, but there may be other problems with the feeling of blow out. One is the scan, another is post processing of the scan. These are hard to evaluate. As I said I had much better results with rating at 200.

Interesting about the agitation. That was what I learned when I was doing development with d-76. Agitate for the first minute, then every minute afterwards - and I had seen similar things in other posts here, I think. Anywho, I completed my second attempt at development - this time 11 minutes and a bit less agitation - and things seem better. I've only looked at the negatives and scans so far (no prints yet), but I think the development time was the issue with my first dev.

 

Thanks for all of the help.

chris

I found that almost all of the published times for HC-110 were too long. I have not used Tri-X in a while, but I do recall having to go to higher and higher dilutions to get what I wanted. Having said that, the highlights in the hat do not look "blown out" to me. If you think they are too much, then do some testing by reducing the development time. I use sheet film so I am not sure how to advise you, but you might try the following (assuming you have already established an EI for Tri-X): shoot an entire roll of the same static subject, one with a good tonal range, and one you don't care about saving. Shoot each frame exactly the same, and then just cut the roll up in to maybe three lengths and develop each individually, adjusting the time until you get the highlight densities you want.

 

With roll film, I agitate for the first 30 seconds, and then for the first 5 seconds of every minute. I let the tank sit in a water bath to control temperature in between agitations.