jon_porter1

I use 5ml of concentrate per 240ml of water, which works out to around 1:47, in my 8oz and

16oz tanks. I always thought the minimum concentrate to use was 3ml. At any rate, I get

beautiful, consistent results.

I've had good results with 35mm APX 100 using HC-110 1:32 for 8' @ 68 degrees.

Agitation was four inversions every minute. I use a diffuser enlarger. I like the film, but still

prefer FP4+.

It wouldn't surprise me if Kodak film and (hopefully) chemistry products are sold off the

way Agfa-Gevaert spun off Agfa Photo several years ago. Then I'd expect Eastman Kodak

to relaunch with a new name to reflect its desired product focus and to help distance the

company from all the bad financial news of the past decade.

I agree with Michael. It looks like your fixer was exhausted. I use Ilford Rapid Fix one-shot

for 4-5 minutes, giving four inversions every 30 seconds.

That's good news from Photographers' Formulary. My local camera store already plans to

carry it as soon as it's available, since their supply of Rodinal sold out within days of the

announcement about Agfa.

My experience is 2-3 months top. It doesn't just die like Xtol, but negs start coming out

thinner. Fortunately FX39 is also a good paper developer, so after two months I would just

use the remaining bottle up for that, diluted around 1:4.

Photographers Supply and Pro Camera are the only SF stores I bother with, and Keeble &

Shuchat is better than all the SF stores combined.

Both developers have their fans. Ilfosol is an excellent acutance developer with films like

Tmax 100 and Pan F. But I don't care for it with faster films, and its very short shelf life

precludes me from using it. DD-X is a good all-around developer, but I don't think it

offers anything over HC-110, which has a nearly indefinite shelf life.

HP5+, since two rolls are included with a pack of Multigrade paper, and APX 100, because

it's the least expensive film I can buy locally. Economy is everything for me these days!

..."But I found I liked the results with FX-39 much better, so I dropped DD-X."

Better in all regards?.. or grain?

All regards. DD-X gives finer grain, but with TMX the slight additional grain of FX-39

makes the print look sharper. The smooth grain of DD-X is fine for portraits, but for

objects with sharp, well-defined features (buildings, vehicles, etc.) I want as much

apparent sharpness as possible. The drawback is that once opened FX-39 lasts maybe

three months, while DD-X reportedly can last much longer.

I switched to DD-X briefly after 1L Xtol was discontinued. I found the results similar to Xtol

in grain, sharpness and shadow detail. But I still would give Xtol a slight edge and might

still be using it if it were available in 1L packages. I mainly used DD-X with 35mm TMX,

diffusion printed, seldom enlarged more than 12 inches. But I found I liked the results with

FX-39 much better, so I dropped DD-X.

Yes, at times it does seem Kodak is making a headlong rush out of photography. Lately as

a cost-cutting measure I've been trying 35mm HP5+ developed 1:60 in HC-110 and have

been pleased with the results so far. Presumably you could substitute Ilfotec HC if you

wanted to get completly away from Kodak products.

FX39 is the best developer I've used with 35mm TMX and FP4+. I also got excellent results

with Acupan 200 rated at EI 125. TMY is my favorite fast film with it. I'd probably still be

using FX39 if it had a longer shelf life.

I've found you pretty much have to do your own testing to determine development times

with highly diluted HC-110. My only experience using it at 1:119 was with 120 Tri-X rated

at 250. What worked for me was 23 minutes @ 68 degrees.

I think Kodak is doing the same thing. The last roll of Tri-X I opened was in a semi-

transparent white can with a gray cap with no label on it. At least you can write on it. How

do you mark a black cap? With a gold glitter pen?

I've used TMX/DD-X 1:4 at Ilford's recommended times and found the grain to be very fine

and smooth. I fixed the film for five minutes in freshly mixed Ilford Rapid Fixer and there

is no tint on my negatives. This is with the older TMX, though I've never seen any

difference with the newer emulsion. The negs print with a #2 filter on my diffusion

enlarger.<div></div>

I like the results I've gotten with pushed 35mm TMX and TMY using Tmax developer, but

generally it looks a little grainy and soft with 35mm film. I think it's excellent with 120 or

larger film, though.

I finally got around to trying Ansel Adam's technique for contracted development. I shot

120 Tri-X at ASA 250 and developed it in HC-110 diluted 1:119. I used 4ML of

concentrate with 16oz of water, 68 degrees for 21 minutes. Constant agitation for the first

minute followed by four inversions every three minutes. What I was looking for in the test

subject was detail in the undersides of the train sheds and undercarriage of the

locomotive, plus I wanted to avoid blocking up the white paint on the nose of the engine. I

feel I got a pretty good negative and it printed well on my diffusion enlarger. Not sure if I'll

use that dilution again, but it was a fun test.

I agree with Ronald about using a 10ML graduate instead of messing around with a

syringe. It's a lot easier to pour out precise amounts consistently. For HC-110 1:50 with

Tri-X rated at 250, I'd suggest 9 minutes at 68 degrees as a starting point. I'm getting

good negatives at that time/temp.<div></div>

Scott, I think you've picked a very tricky subject to use to evaluate your tests. Whenever I

test film/developers I always use the same subject, which lets me eliminate metering from

the equation. I know the lighting on this building is always f/16, with the shutter speed

the same as my ASA (though I double check it with an incident meter). That's how I adjust

my development. The brick and carved stone show the sharpness in the lens, film and

developer, while the sky shows the grain. I can also judge the shadow detail by the open

shade under the trees and the heavy shade under the canopy. Using this as my test for

35mm FP4+ (ASA 125), my HC-110 dil. B time is 6 minutes at 68 degrees, inverting the

tank four times a minute for agitation.

Lex, generally I'm in agreement with you about pushing medium speed film three stops.

But Kodak's literature does give the times for developing TMX rated at 800 in Xtol or Tmax

developers. I should qualify my comments by saying I've only shot TMX at 800 in low, flat

light where any added contrast from the push is probably welcome. I certainly wouldn't

want to shoot TMX at that speed in average or contrasty lighting on a general basis. My

response was in the context of Ni's question about a medium speed film that could be

pushed to 800 in a pinch.<div></div>

I've gotten acceptable results pushing 35mm TMX to 800 and developing in Tmax

developer. I personally don't like FP4 pushed past 250, or APX100 pushed at all.

I pretty much agree with Al's response. Aside from the pleasing tones I get with it, I

standardized on HC-110 for convenience; it's a small bottle that lasts indefinitely and is

easy to use, since I may go a month or more between developing sessions. Plus it's

available in every camera store that sells darkroom supplies. I shoot 35mm & 120 Tri-X at

250 and develop 1:32 from concentrate (68f/6'). With HC-110 I generally get better

shadow detail and comparable sharpness compared with D76. I only print 8x10, however,

so with greater enlargement there may be more pronounced differences.

"Professional" is kind of an archaic term to put on film boxes. Pros shoot digital. There

would be no B&W film market today without serious amateurs.

It looks like Tri-X developed in D76 to me. My guess is he liked to keep things simple,

plus most news darkrooms used D76, Acufine or HC-110. In a 1991 interview he said he

used a Nikon FM2 and F3P and took 90% of his shots with the 28mm, 35mm or 50mm

lens. Occasionally he used a 20mm and 75-150mm zoom. So you don't need a lot of

expensive lenses to shoot in his style, though that may have changed since the switch to

digital.