Still too much density

I've been trying to calm the highlight density I get developing Tri-X

in HC110 on a jobo in a 3010 tank. I've got an EI of 250 (.1 over

FB+Fog), a Zone VII (not zone VIII, that's not a typo, I just don't

have a full zone VIII in my test environment) density of 1.2. I'm down

to dilution H, which is 1+15 (stock). 20C, 40RPM, 5 minute pre-soak

(per Jobo's instructions), 5 minutes of development.

 

I can't get much more dilute (and more dilution doesn't seem to help

much anyway with the constant agitation of the jobo), much shorter

time (uneven development worries), or much slower rotation speed

(again, uneven development worries).

 

My question is, does anyone else out there have this kind of excessive

density problem with Tri-X and HC110 on a jobo? If so, what do you do

to bring the density under control?

 

If I can't use HC110 with the Jobo, what developer can I use with the

Jobo to get good acutance and good tonality (I'm not interested in

going the solvent developer route, so I'm going to stay away from

D-76, D-23, and most of the FX-n type developers). How does XTOL 1:1

work with Tri-X in a Jobo?

HC-110 is a very active developer. It can be a problem for use with the Jobo 3010 if you want to load the drum with 10 sheets. I know you want good tonality and acutance but with 4x5 I beleive you can use D-76 or Xtol and still get what you want. I get good results with Xtol 1:1 and Tri-X in my 3010 and I can load it with all 10 sheets. The contrast index is easily controlled by development times that are reasonable (4 to 16 minutes, 8 minutes for 0.62 CI). I use the "F" rotation rate.

 

Since 5 minutes of HC-110 at 1:15 (stock) dilution should produce a much lower CI than you seem to be getting even with the constant agitation, it raises many questions.

 

How are you exposing the test film? Step tablet? Controlled exposures?

How are you metering the exposure? How do establish the Zone VII at which you are measuring the log 1.2 density? How are you measuring film density? If you have a densitometer, do you have a way to verify its calibration? Are you certain about the developer dilution? These are a few questions that immdiately come to mind. Please give us the details of your process.

Try lowering the temperature by 5-10 degrees.

 

CP Goerz

Use pyrocat HD and stop figthing the extreme contrast. A lot depends on the place, here in Mexico where I shoot (central part) it is semi desertic with very little industry, I get Zone V or Zone VI skies without a filter. If I use the red filter or a red filter with polarizer I get black skies....really horrible....

I noticed a similar thing when I lived in the states, in AZ, NM and parts nearby, the skies were great, and they photographed beautifully, but in TX, LA, FL the humidity killed them and they always came out white, at least in my case.

Try Ilford DD-X developer, I use this in my 3010 drum and I also get full film speed with this developer.

I'm probably way off base, but excess density is caused by overexposure. Changing the developer time, contrast, etc, controls the contrast not the density. I think that you're fighting a losing battle in the darkroom; your problem is pre-darkroom.

If you can lower the rotation speed to the lowest setting and make your

presoak either 30 seconds or elliviate it altogether, this should help. By using

such a long presoak, your swelling your emulsion so that it is taking on alot

more developer and as already stated, HC110 is an ACTIVE developer.

Mostly, the purpose of a presoak is to wet the film so that you get even results.

I have experimented with it and found that it does little other than getting the

airbells out of the equation and with the Jobo, this hasn't usually been a

problem. If this doesn't work, definitely lower the temp and be very diligent on

note keeping! You might also want to shoot TXP @ 400 providing your getting

decent shadow detail also. Put together, if these don't work, which I imagine

they will, a change in developers is the next step. Others can say more about

Xtol because I don't use it because of all the failures I have heard and with the

added rotation/agitation, you might experience this too.

Can you tell the difference in a negative that is overexposed compared to one that is overdeveloped? I go with Bill on this and say to start pre-chemistry to see what you are doing & get it fixed.

I was thinking along the same lines as Bill though not with quite that degree of certainty. But why are you so sure it's a development problem rather than an exposure problem?

 

Given all you've done in the way of reducing times and increasing dilution without success, I'd at least take a look at the exposure side of things. I realize you've done zone system testing but sometimes testing and real photographs can be two different things. HC110, Tri X, and Jobo aren't rare or esoteric products. You surely aren't the first person to try this combination and if they were inherently incompatible you'd think it would be common knowledge by now.

 

Properly exposed but overdeveloped negatives show slightly heavy shadow detail, very dense highlights, and the overall appearance of the negatives is dense with high contrast. Properly developed but overexposed negatives show a lot of shadow detail, robust highlights, and an overly dense look. At least that's the theory. Putting it into practice can be difficult, especially since a particular negative can be both overexposed and over developed, which results in the classic "bullet proof" negative. But I'd at least look at your negatives with those thoughts in mind.

 

You could try increasing your EI and see what happens to the shadows and highlights, especially to the shadows. If you get a reduction in highlight density but retain good shadow detail and density then you know that was the problem. Or try placing something you think should be on Zone VII on Zone VI and see what happens. If the result is a Zone VII density then you know your problem is exposure.

It's not the exposure. If I expose less, I lose shadow detail. My shadow detail is currently thin enough that it would cause problems in conventional printing. These negatives are definately not over-exposed.

I have density problems with Tri-X & HC110. I try not to use it to often. Check the ph level of your water to see if the alkline level is high. This seems to excellerate the developing action of HC110. You can get a ph test kit at pool & hardware stores. Bringing down the ph may help some with your density problems. Hopes this helps.

copied from the b&w forum archives..

 

Effect of HIGH dilutions HC-110 Tri-X?

 

Hi, I've been using HC-110 dilution 'B' with Tri-X for years. Mostly shooting 6X7. 1-What is the effect of greater dilutions? 2-What difference will you see with intermittant vs. Jobo agitation? I read that Ansel Adams actually developed for 18 minutes with 15 secs agitation every 3-4 minutes or so! (for compensation effect?)

Any input appreciated. I do have a densitomter and run Zone 1 and Zone 8 tests to calibrate film/developer. Thanks, Howard

 

-- Howard Posner , October 16, 2001; 09:47 P.M. Eastern

 

Answers

It depends how high a dilution you're talking about, Howard.

If you dilute any developer to the point where the maximum density of the negative is affected, then it automatically becomes a compensating developer. That is to say; the film curve will show a distinct and early 'shoulder', where highlight density flattens off. The mid tones and shadows are relatively unaffected, so it's a useful technique for dealing with long tonal range subjects.

The look of the print is quite distinct from simply pulling a normal development, since the mid-tone separation is maintained and only the highlights are compressed.

Compensating developers are best used with 'stand' or semi-stand agitation, since this enhances the effect, by starving the highlights of fresh developer.

The method that you describe of Ansel Adams' is a good example of semi-stand agitation. Using a Jobo would defeat the object, I expect.

I don't use HC-110, so I can't tell you exactly how far you have to dilute it to turn it into a compensating developer. 'Quite a lot' would be my best guess.

 

-- Pete Andrews , October 17, 2001; 04:26 A.M. Eastern

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Bruce Barnbaum has a section in his book (The Art of Photography) on highly diluted HC-110, also a two bath HC-110 which includes times,agitation methods, etc.

 

-- Don Sparks , October 17, 2001; 05:47 A.M. Eastern

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ansel Adams in "The Negative" describes the use of HC-110 at 1:120 dilution. The minimal agitation is to enhance the compensating effect in the highlights. You could expect more edge effects and more grain. The text below is copied from one of Richard Knoppow's erudite answers to a similar question in rec.photo.darkroom. I hope that it is in order for it to be pasted here.

"I think the chemical rule of thumb is that time is increased at about the square root of the dilution. e.g. diluting 1:1 should take about 1.4 times as long to reach the same contrast. Some effects of dilution depend on the formulation of the developer. High-sulfite developers may produce slight additional film speed when diluted because of the lowered concentration of Sulfite. They will also be a little grainier. Highly active developers may exhibit just the reverse effects. Many developers will produce increased "edge effects" due to local exhaustion of the developing agents and build up of reaction products at the interfaces of high and low density areas. Again, the lowered sulfite contcenration will tend to cause this since part of the function of the sulfite is to regenerate the reaction procucts. Diluted developers, again because of lower sulfite concentration, will have shorter lifetime than full-strength solutions since the sulfite will be less able to protect the reducing agents from oxidation from dissolved air or air at the surfaces. Edge effects are also partially controlled by the amount of solution which can be held by the gelatin emulsion. Modern films have rather thin emulsion layers so are more likely to show the effects of diluted developer or lack of agitation. A developer like D-76 will have very similar characteristics at 1:1 as it has at full strength but at 1:3 will start exhibiting very strong edge effects with many films. If a developer is diluted enough it may start to run into problems with general exhaustion of the reducing agents. Such a developer may produce very low contrast and low densities even with extended development times. The localized effect of such exhastion will be exagerated "compensation" which is actually sometimes useful." --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, Ca. dickburk@ix.netcom.com

 

-- John Stockdale , October 17, 2001; 09:33 A.M. Eastern

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I've used HC-110 with Tri-X sheet film at up to 1:30 (from stock not concentrate) such as Adams mentions. You will have to give an extra 1/2 stop of exposure or so or you will end up with pretty thin negatives. As Pete says a Jobo defeats the purpose of using high dilutions for compensating effects. For extreme highlights I think I would rather try a divided developer, I didn't really see any great difference using HC-110 at such a high dilution over a more moderate dilution with shorter developing times, but your results may vary!

 

-- Andrew Kupczak , October 17, 2001; 09:55 P.M. Eastern

 

I have recently been working with HP5 in my Jobo (and old CPE2) so this may or may not be of use to you. I started with dilution B and had the same problems. By the time, I was through the first phase of testing (I am still at it), I had established times for normal, n+1, and n-1, using dilution E. The n-1 was only 5 minutes so I am going to go to dilution F. I develop at 20C/68F and use a 1 minute prewash. The water in my area is quite soft. I check all my results on a densitometer.

 

For what it's worth, in my fridge I found 5 or 6 sheets of exposed but unprocessed Tri-X that were about a year old and not terribly important. I still had my notes on them so I tried the HP5 development times that I had established on my Jobo. Although the EI's were slightly different, the Tri-X negs look ok. The highlights are fine.

 

HC-110 is a great developer but you really have to dilute it if you don't want really short times. I had a similar experience when I was developing Tri-X in trays with HC-110. Michael Covington's page on HC-110 is very useful. He is quite knowledgeable and was very helpful to me.

 

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

 

 

Don Wallace