35mm Tri-X in HC 110

I’m in a quandary regarding development times in dilution B. Kodak recommends 3 3/4 minutes while the massive dev chart says up to 7.5 minutes. BTW, this is at ISO 400. What’s a guy to do?

Kodak film. Kodak developer. Probably follow Kodak's recommendations. IMO, the developing time is a bit short for good control, but not too bad. What anybody should do is run a test roll before doing anything you care about. Your personal time is better than any generic recommendation.

Film-development times shorter than five minutes are generally discouraged, because minor variations in timing are a larger percentage. Even the time required to pour out the developer and pour in the stop bath becomes significant.

 

For many years I developed Tri-X, Plus-X, HP4/HP5, and other films in HC-110 and obtained good results, but I can't remember the development time. It was definitely longer than 3.75 minutes. Either I used a higher dilution or a lower temperature to get above five minutes. In the 1980s I switched to Kodak T-Max developer because it gave me better results than HC-110. The difference wasn't huge, though -- mostly higher speed, not finer grain.

I thought this sounded familiar, but it seems that someone (else) asked about TMax 400 with different times.

 

There are a few different versions of TMax 400, and at least two different versions of Tri-X, with different

development times. The later Tri-X has 400TX in its name, and the older one does not.

 

The recent data sheet is here:

 

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/f4017_TriX.pdf

 

and does say 3.75 minutes. As for timing, the rule is from when you start pouring

the developer, until you start pouring the stop bath, or whatever comes next.

 

There is still developer in the emulsion for some seconds after you pour it

out, so it keeps working a little longer. At least in theory, as the level of the

stop bath rises, at matches the speed the developer was rising, such that the

times are uniform.

 

If you look at the notes for the ISO 400 Tri-X in HC-110 (B), ones says that it is for the

older film, and ones suggests that the Kodak 3.75min is too short.

 

HC-110 is my favorite developer for old film, and I suspect that I have some old

enough to use the older time.

 

The data sheet for the older film is here:

 

http://wwwru.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.pdf

 

which does say 7.5 minutes, and has a note at the top about the change.

 

That one is dated 2003, so if your film is newer than that, or says 400TX, use

the new times.

 

(I do have some Tri-X older than 2003.)

If you think there's a danger of underdevelopment with Kodak's times, do a 'snip' test.

 

All that's needed is a small offcut of film. A bit of fogged leader will do.

Develop the film in room light in a cupful of developer at the right temperature and for the intended time. Rinse and fix. If the film density is thin and brown, then more time is needed. OTOH, if the film is so black and opaque you can hardly see through it, then the time needs to be cut.

 

A Golidilocks density is just right.:rolleyes:

 

(DMAX should be about 2.4 if you have a comparison wedge or a densitometer.)

I just answered a question elsewhere on the site about this a day or two ago.

 

The "long" time is for Tri-X 400(TX) as confirmed by-among other references-an old box I have and data sheets you can still dig up on Kodak's site.

 

The short time is for 400TX, which was introduced in the mid-2000s and IS a different film from TX. Kodak is consistent with this time across a couple of different publications, including both the 400TX data sheet and the HC110 data sheet(the latter differentiates both "old" and "new" Tri-X with their different times).

 

I haven't personally done it at Dilution B, but have tried at H, which is twice B at double the time, and had good results. Thus, I tend to consider it correct.

 

From the HC110 Data Sheet

 

An old Tri-X film sheet - which is what I always followed using D-76

FYI, I ended up using dilution E at 1:47 for 7 minutes and got good negs. Thanks to all that replied!

...if your film is newer than that, or says 400TX, use

the new times.

 

Wow, 3.75 minutes for new Tri-X versus 7.5 minutes for old Tri-X. That's 100% more development time! I haven't used the new Tri-X (400TX) and didn't realize it was so different. It's not really the same film. Kodak must have changed the emulsion when moving production to a new factory.

Most often the changes aren't so big, but it is interesting to wonder how it is different.

 

For many years, my favorite developer has been Diafine.

 

More recently, especially with older (expired) film, I have started using others.

 

But also, newer films have a much smaller recommended EI increase

from Diafine than they used to.

Years ago I experimented with Diafine as a push developer. My first few rolls showed great results in film speed, but only with so little agitation that my negatives suffered from uniformity problems, especially in clear sky areas. When I increased agitation to achieve uniformity, I lost the film-speed gains. I couldn't find the happy medium between stand development and uniform development. After using up one can of Diafine, I gave up and went back to T-Max developer. Others have found the happy medium, apparently. It's an interesting developer.

Diafine specifies agitation every minute.

 

As I understand it, most of the development is done in the first about 15 seconds, with the

additional time to allow shadows to build up, similar to stand development, but faster.

 

As above, though, most new films don't give much EI increase. I believe the recommendation

for TMax 100 is 160, and for TMax 400 is 500.

 

Given the name of this thread, I don't know that 400TX has the same EI increase as

old TX. Old TX at 1200 or 1600 was very popular.

 

I used to buy 100 foot rolls of Panatomic-X (ASA 40) from Freestyle for $5 (about 50 years ago)

and use them at EI 160 or 250. (Different boxes gave different suggested EI values.)

 

I was young enough not to know much about the details of ASA measurements, and, mostly

believed the increased values.

 

I have a lot of available light shots from yearbook photography in 7th and 8th grade, all in

Diafine, and many with Tri-X. Our classrooms were well lit with fluorescent lamps, and also

one wall that is mostly windows, but even so 1600 helps a lot.