HC110 and Kodak 400TX [Tri-X400]

I'm struggling to find the correct development time for the above combination, at Dilution A, 72F for HC110. MassiveDev has it at 3.75 minutes, while a Kodak PDF has it at 3 minutes but for Dilution B.

I've read elsewhere that times below 5 minutes aren't recommended, and these times do seem very short. Perhaps I should have gone to a different, more reasonable dilution?

Thanks

First of all, is this in fact 400TX or TX-400? The development times ARE different for the two. The massive dev chart, which I use extensively, often doesn't distinguish between them, and in truth for things like D76 1:1 the times are not that different. I'm going to assume that the massive dev chart is for TX-400, as the box I have sitting on my desk lists 6 minutes at 72º for HC-110(B).

Both of these times are repeated in the HC-110 data sheet

Assuming you are in fact using 400TX(which would be anything made in the last ~15 years or so), I'm going to suggest using HC-110 more dilute.

I would use it more dilute. I wish Kodak published an official guideline in the data sheet for how to adjust development times, but I've followed the suggestions here with good results

Kodak HC-110 Developer - Unofficial Resource Page

Namely,

Dilution D Develop 25% longer than with Dilution B

Dilution E Develop 50% longer than with Dilution B

Dilution F Develop 2.5 times as long as with Dilution B

You also have Dilution H, which is not an "official" Kodak dilution, but is given has half of B at twice the time.

Using the above, F and H would get you the desired development time.

Alternatively, see if you can do it at a lower temperature, although I know that speaking from experience, I have a hard time getting below 22ºC(72ºF) in the summer. I usually do 20ºC in the winter.

Thank you ben, likely I'll dump this tank size batch then and go with a different dilution. Yes, it's surprising how many scattered sources can be slightly different, which is confounding for the amateur. Here's the film I was preparing to develop, which is 400TX, and also Tri-X Professional.

Eric,

Since Dilution H is 1/2 Dilution B, and is 6 minutes, why not dilute your current tank 1:1? Granted I know diluted HC110 doesn't have a great shelf life, but I'd expect it to still be okay even if you use it tomorrow.

What you have is 400TX. I don't know exactly when 400TX replaced Tri-X 400, but I think it was some time in the early 2000s.

Thanks again ben, yes I guess I could have saved the batch, but lack the confidence yet for initiative. My frustration is the explosion of film names Kodak owns. Yes, the film canister says 400TX, yet above the curve in my photo it says, Kodak Professional TRI-X 400 film, neither of which from a literal point of view is even listed in the chart.

I'll obviously need to learn the language better before going much further.

I developed these this morning; Kodak 400TX, with HC110 using Dilution H for 9 minutes - Thanks ben for the info. I'm fairly happy with them, but hoping someone might point out any issues with them I should correct next time.

This HC110 is so easy to use and prepare in small quantities using a small syringe, very glad I found it.

The developed density looks good, but some of the pictures definitely look over exposed.

Maybe check your meter?

The developed density looks good, but some of the pictures definitely look over exposed.

Maybe check your meter?

Thanks rodeojoe. I'm using a Gossen SBC, used of course, and as a crude test today I set the ISO at 100, and took some incident light readings in full sun which gave readings consistently at 125th @ F16, which seems correct. I could try the used store in Tucson for a comparison from a digital camera, but likely it's operator error.

I'm studying what good negatives should look like, and what issues causes the others. Forgive the pun, but its a real process.

Thanks rodeojoe. I'm using a Gossen SBC, used of course, and as a crude test today I set the ISO at 100, and took some incident light readings in full sun which gave readings consistently at 125th @ F16, which seems correct. I could try the used store in Tucson for a comparison from a digital camera, but likely it's operator error.

 

I'm studying what good negatives should look like, and what issues causes the others. Forgive the pun, but its a real process.

Even good reflected light meters can be fooled by very bright or very dark subjects. As far as your meter is concerned, the world averages out to about 18% gray, which it does most of the time. But don't trust a reflected meter to give you the right exposure if you point it at a white wall or a backlit subject because it probably won't. Incident meters aren't affected by "subject failure" and the reading that you mention (1/125 @ f/16 at ISO 100 in bright sunlight) should be accurate.

Thanks AJG, when I began photography recently I have to admit that reflective readings were likely all I did. Then several suggestions and reading here showed me that in many [most?] situations incident readings would be best.

I do think my meter is good, and I would like to test it, though I can easily picture six people standing in a circle each claiming their meter is the most accurate.

It'll only be much more experience and several sheaths of Ilford paper before I can reasonably predict my outcome beyond a few basic rules.

Thanks again.

Incident meters aren't affected by "subject failure"...

Hi, that's not exactly right; I can think of a couple cases right offhand. But I do agree that in a great many cases, where the subject is (mostly) frontally lit and has typical reflectivity, incident readings are nearly foolproof. I've spent years making a living in portrait photography, including setting up studio lighting systems, etc. We used incident readings nearly exclusively for this. But even here, if you wanted to light directly from one side, or other non-frontal variations, then some judgment has to be used with use of the incident meter.

A couple of examples where straight use of an incident meter can lead to problems are 1) when the subject has especially low reflectivity, and 2) when the subject is very reflective; say shiny metal where reflections of the sky (or lights, etc.) are stronger than the frontal effect.

I have a couple of samples posted here on photo.net that I can elaborate on, if desired. One is a very dark-toned sailing ship that is "printed" lighter in order to show detail which would otherwise be lost in "shadow." If using an incident meter, the photographer would want to increase exposure beyond what the meter suggests, knowing that they will want to lighten the "print." As a note, the same situation can exist for portrait subjects with very dark complexions. My second example is a night shot of the St. Louis Arch, where specular reflections of surrounding lights predominate. In this case an incident meter would be nearly useless; the incident reading would have almost no relationship to the actual exposure needed.

I just wanted to make the point that an incident meter is not always foolproof. With a certain sort of situation it CAN be, but the photographer would ideally be able to recognize situations where judgment is called for.

Hi, that's not exactly right; I can think of a couple cases right offhand. But I do agree that in a great many cases, where the subject is (mostly) frontally lit and has typical reflectivity, incident readings are nearly foolproof. I've spent years making a living in portrait photography, including setting up studio lighting systems, etc. We used incident readings nearly exclusively for this. But even here, if you wanted to light directly from one side, or other non-frontal variations, then some judgment has to be used with use of the incident meter.

 

A couple of examples where straight use of an incident meter can lead to problems are 1) when the subject has especially low reflectivity, and 2) when the subject is very reflective; say shiny metal where reflections of the sky (or lights, etc.) are stronger than the frontal effect.

 

I have a couple of samples posted here on photo.net that I can elaborate on, if desired. One is a very dark-toned sailing ship that is "printed" lighter in order to show detail which would otherwise be lost in "shadow." If using an incident meter, the photographer would want to increase exposure beyond what the meter suggests, knowing that they will want to lighten the "print." As a note, the same situation can exist for portrait subjects with very dark complexions. My second example is a night shot of the St. Louis Arch, where specular reflections of surrounding lights predominate. In this case an incident meter would be nearly useless; the incident reading would have almost no relationship to the actual exposure needed.

 

I just wanted to make the point that an incident meter is not always foolproof. With a certain sort of situation it CAN be, but the photographer would ideally be able to recognize situations where judgment is called for.

No, no metering system is totally foolproof. It's down to the fool using it whether they slavishly follow its reading or apply some human judgement.

In the majority of cases though, knowing the amount of light falling on the subject is a much better guideline than knowing the amount of light reflected back off the subject.

The shiny subject with strong specular reflections you cited is a case in point. A reflective meter reading would likely be just as erroneous as an incident one.

Most of your exposures look pretty close to me.

To quickly judge the exposure and contrast of your negatives, you can make a "proper proof" -- a contact sheet in which the negatives are exposed for the paper's maximum black through the clear film edge. This will be the minimum exposure that makes the clear film print as black as the sprocket holes. Many years ago I wrote an article for Shutterbug magazine that explains in more detail. You can find it here:

How to Make a Proper Proof Sheet

Nowadays you can make a proof sheet on a flatbed scanner, too. But a traditional proof sheet has the advantage of showing the contrast and tonality on the same print paper on which you will make your enlargements.

Eric,

 

Since Dilution H is 1/2 Dilution B, and is 6 minutes, why not dilute your current tank 1:1? Granted I know diluted HC110 doesn't have a great shelf life, but I'd expect it to still be okay even if you use it tomorrow.

 

What you have is 400TX. I don't know exactly when 400TX replaced Tri-X 400, but I think it was some time in the early 2000s.

Note that the rated capacity for dilution B is one 135-36 roll in 250ml. If you dilute to dilution H, it should be in 500ml, though you might also get away with an increased time.