Am I overdeveloping my TX400 in HC-110

[Charles_Webster]

I'm following the Massive Development Chart recommendation of 4-1/2 to 6 mins in

HC-110 Dilution B, for Tri-X400, even though the Kodak recommendation on the

inside of the box says 3-3/4 minutes.

 

My negatives look a bit flat and grainier than I'd like. The attached photo was

shot in my front yard yesterday. I exposed for the 18% gray card (below the hose

reel), and developed for 5 minutes in Dilution B HC-110 mixed 31+1 from

concentrate with distilled water. The negative was scanned at 600 dpi with a

Canon 4490 scanner with all settings at the defaults.

 

Please don't comment on sharpness, composition, or lens flare. I'm trying to

calibrate my workflow so I get the best possible negatives to the scanner.

 

BTW, the negatives are exposed in an Argus C-3 made in 1953, the light meter is

a Sekonic L-503 in Spot mode. For this exposure I metered the gray card, and

used the meter's recommended exposure.

 

The "unprocessed" histogram in the scanner s/w looks severely compressed with

little data at either end of the scale, even though there are obvious spots

(highlight on the ladder) where the histogram should have shown data near 255.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

<Chas><div></div>

[michaelging]

I have developed hundreds of rolls of tri-x film in HC110, del B and the time is 3 1/2 minutes at 68 degrees.

[conrad_hoffman]

The answer requires me to comment on the lens flare, and probably the sharpness. Consider that you're trying to develop to a particular contrast for scanning or printing. The contrast you get is not only determined by the amount of development, but the contrast range the negative was exposed to to begin with. If you have flare or blur, the contrast is usually lower, and normal development may not be correct. The C-3 is a neat camera, but very few are in pristine condition. Do a penlight test on the lens to look for any haze. Remove it and shine the light through off axis, looking from the other side. If you see haze, do an internal cleaning or have it done. Check the focus on reassembly. For your test shots, don't shoot into the light, unless that's the typical scene you shoot. IMO, the new processing times for new Tri-X are a bit short, but for scanning that might be just what you want. A bit thinner neg is usually better for scanning. I wouldn't worry much about what the default exposure/contrast histogram from the scanner says. Expose the neg so you have good shadow detail, and develop so the highlights just allow you to read newsprint through them, in contact, under bright light. Remember that meters can suffer from flare too.

[Charles_Webster]

So, Michael

 

You're advising me to ignore the collective wisdom of all those who contributed to the Massive Development Chart?

 

On what basis other than "I've developed hundreds of rolls..."? Dude, this is the internet, and I'm not likely to believe you any more than the guy trying to sell me a bridge unless you back up your answer with some credibility and tracable provenance.

 

Show me the results, and I'll accept your answer with more than a "..."

 

<Chas>

[bobmichaels]

Chas: a few thoughts:

 

1) the histogram in the scanner tells you zero, zilch, nada, nothing about development.

 

2) you can expect the lens in a C3 to be very low contrast, especially when it flares

 

3) you can reliably suspect the shutter speed accuracy of a C3

 

4) you can't tell much about a neg from looking at a JPG

 

5) Michael was telling you what works for him. You are correct to assume that it may not work for you. But cut him some slack as he was trying to help.

 

I'd suggest trying to print or scan the negs you have. See how they work. Remember that you want good prints, not good tests.

 

Bob

[Charles_Webster]

Thanks Bob,

 

I aplologize to Michael, I wrote before looking at his work. He's done one hell of a lot more b/w than I ever have, and speaks from experience. He's not selling any bridges ;-)

 

I do not generally get good b/w prints from my Epson 320 printer, so am hesitant to judge by those. But I seem to have lost sight of "how good is good enough for your end use." After posting the test shot, I realized that the results I'm getting are "good enough" for their use, posting on the web for my friends and PN members.

 

I have a tendancy to become obsessed by the details, and forget the big picture. And here I forgot that my objective is to share "good enough" pictures made with a 53-year old camera with friends. I'll not win TRP ratings with any of my work, and making my photos more perfect "by the numbers" will not contribute to my ability to see pictures.

 

Thanks to all who contributed to my enlightenment.

 

<Chas>

[ann_clancy6]

several years ago when kodak made some changes with Trix and then posted times for hc110 sol. b at much different times and there was a loud hue and cry . The upshort was that a mistake was made and many folks, including a lot at this location continued to develop the "new" version at the "old " times, which was not 3 1/2 or 4 1/2 minutes.

 

the massive development chart as any other reference is just that, a reference for determing a starting point. To nail down a specific time depends upon individual variables, which means doing some personal testing.

 

For instance in our lab we use 6 minutes, altho the old times listed by kodak happened to be 7 1/2. That is the starting point and on occasion that time needs to be tweaked to allow for equipment differences.

[mitchell_kirschner]

You mentioned the unprocessed histogram. Have you tried processing the scanned file? What happens when you spread the histogram across the range, with a simple levels adjustment? I would do this quick test, but I'm not currently at a computer with an image editor installed. It's one of the standard adjustments I make in post-processing of scans.

 

Tri-X is not the finest-grained of films, as you probably know. Can you post a 100% crop that illustrates the grain?

 

Your Tri-X time seems to be in the right general ballpark. With proper post-processing, your scan looks useable, except for the flare. When I shot Tri-X I used (if memory serves) 8.25 minutes for 1+45 dilution @ 68F, with standard agitation (5/30). That's at EI 320.

[shawn_h.]

A compressed histogram may be due to your scanner setting. If scanned with "Transparency" setting rather than "Negative" a compressed histogram may result.

 

Regards.

Shawn

[stefan heymann]

<p>From Michael Covington's <a href="http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/" target="_blank">Unofficial HC-110 Resource Page</a>:

 

<p><i>After further thought, I suspect that there really isn't much difference between 3.5 minutes and 5 minutes. The reason? This is almost entirely within the induction time (the time taken to start development). Results with development times this short are notoriously irreproducible and I recommend higher dilutions.</i>

[michaelging]

I will be a little more exacting. The only time I used HC 110 was when I was on deadline, for 99% of my shooting I developed my film in D 76. The reason I, and others at the paper developed the film for 3 1/2 minutes, is that we were looking to print the photo on Grade 3 or 4 paper. HC 110 in this dilution is a high energy developer (especially with Dilution B) can block up the highlights very quickly and make it hard to print. I think this is why many photographers who use HC 110, dilute it even more to keep their highlights under contol.It was when we were shootng film, and still is my thought, that its better to build contrast in a print , via a higher contrast paper, or adjusting the levels in PS rather than adding contrast in development. Expose for the shadows , Develop for the highlights. I have a Argus C3 and as said above the lenses even when new were not that contrasty and a 50 yr old one certainly would not be.

[Charles_Webster]

All this discussion has led me to decide to try the unofficial Dilution H, and will start w/ a development time in the neighborhood of 7 - 7-1/2 minutes (2X 3-3/4). I am not extremely precise in my work and doubt my ability to get repeatable results with extremely short development times. The greater dilution and longer times will give me more tolerance.

 

The Argus C-3 has been professionally CLAd, and is as sharp and clean as when it was new. But, I recognize that the standards of lens design in the 30's (when the lens was probably designed) are not up to modern standards, and that I should not expect Canon L lens quality from an antique.

 

But, I plan to continue to use the camera, and experiment with development in an attempt to get usable photos out of it. I'll continue to post pictures to my portfolio for those who might be interested, and ask questions of those who might answer.

 

Thanks

 

<Chas>

[sanders_mcnew]

I'll offer a comment, that goes more to the reasoning here than to any concrete advice.

 

It is too easy, when thinking about film processing, to get hung up on slavish adherence to

the elements of the recipe: dilutions, temperature, duration, agitation and so forth. The

fact is, there are so many variables beyond the recipe, as to make the recipe no more than

a starting point. To wit: Your meter may be inaccurate. The way you use your

meter is idiosyncratic. Your shutter may be inaccurate. Your beaker or graduated cylinder

might be mislabeled. Your thermometer is almost certainly miscalibrated. Your agitation

style is vigorous. And so forth.

 

Once you start to see the process in a more holistic way, you will come to understand that

the recipe is just a starting point. So, if you find your negatives look flat with your current

recipe, don't blame the recipe. Instead, adjust your developing time. Or your exposure

time. Trial and error will bring you to a combination that works for you. Once you find it,

stick with it.

 

One last observation. It is good to really goof up on your recipe from time to time. The

goofs will show you how much (or, in most instances, how little) a variance in the recipe

will matter.

 

Sanders McNew (www.mcnew.net/portraits)

[scott_kinkade]

Chas...

 

Almost every negative I've developed looks like yours (relative newbie...been at it for about a year.) In fact, I am comforted to see you post it. I had the same concerns as you, and posted for help soon after I started getting these results. I was told that nothing was "wrong" with my negatives...that the scanning process is different than printing in a darkroom and just simply produces different results. When I accepted the fact that I would have to fiddle with curves and endpoints after scanning, I was much happier with my work. If you hit--shudder--"auto contrast" in Photoshop or equivalent, do your images look good (or at least better) to you?

[Charles_Webster]

Sanders & Scott, thanks for your comments. I am coming to realize that "analog is analog, and digital is digital" and the meeting of the two in the scanner is not a nice clean, precise, easily repeatable process. After taking pictures in the digital domain for 5 years, I have become accustomed to the repeatability and precision of digital photography. Do this, get that, every time. Film photography, especially with a 50+ year old camera and processing in my kitchen, is more like "Do this, get something like that, mostly."

 

I'd like to thank all those who contributed to this thread, I've learned a lot about the techniques of developing Tri-X in HC-110 and subsequently scanning the negatives. But I've learned a lot more about the philosophy of the process. The technical issues I probably could have solved on my own through trial and error, the philosophical issues, have been brought to light for me through the discussion, and could not have been solved without help.

 

Thanks all.

[johnmarkpainter]

Charles,

 

Dilution H is the answer. I used it for a few years but got tired of messing with the Syrup

and went back to Rodinal.

[stefan heymann]

John, how are the negs from Rodinal compared to Dilution "H"? Can you see a difference? (grain, tonality, acutance)