New Tri-X in HC110

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Simo Veikkolainen, Sep 27, 2003.

  1. Hi,
    How many of you out there are using the new Tri-X developed in HC110?
    Michael Covington's page http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/
    says Kodak made a mistake with the development times for Dilution B.
    Can anyone confirm this? 3 3/4 minutes at 20 degrees C seems awfully
    short. Would the "correct" time be somewhere around 5...6 min?

    I've been using Xtol so far and I'm happy with the results, but I
    shoot so little b&w (sigh) that I end up throwing away more stock
    solution than using it. HC110 might be a good alternative. Any
    opinions...?

    Thanks
    Simo
     
    Simo Veikkolainen, Sep 27, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I would like to know too!
     
    Michael A. Covington, Sep 27, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. While you'll have to accept this for the moment as largely unverified (at
    least scientifically) results, I just souped HP5 in HC-110. I used half (or
    double, depending on how you look at it) dilution B, or 1:63; developed for 7
    minutes at 72°. While I haven't yet printed the negatives, they look generally
    good: not too dense or thin, no apparent blocked highlights, etc.

    I know HP5 isn't Tri-X, but it's probably close enough to serve as at least a
    starting point.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 27, 2003
    #3
  4. I develop Tri-X (shot at EI200) at 5M in dilution B in (3-reels of film in a
    4-reel tank for a bigger air space in the tank).

    That developing time works with both the old and the new Tri-X, and I've
    even done a couple runs with the old and new films mixed in the same tank
    with no problem.

    Bill Schneider
     
    William Schneider, Sep 28, 2003
    #4
  5. That's useful for 1:63 (which is unofficially known as Dilution H - a
    designation I made up :). But the mystery we're trying to solve is whether
    Kodak, when reformulating Tri-X recently, published the wrong development
    times.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Sep 28, 2003
    #5
  6. OK, that tends to confirm my suspicion, which is that although the
    originally published times for TX in B were a bit too long, the new 400TX is
    not much different from TX, and the published times for 400TX are way too
    short. Thanks!
     
    Michael A. Covington, Sep 28, 2003
    #6
  7. I too have been rating Tri-X at 200, and developing 5min in dilution
    B. I have shot a few sheets of the new emulsion, and negs look OK,
    but I have yet to do testing on it. I use 4x5 in BTZS tubes.
     
    Mark in Maine, Sep 29, 2003
    #7
  8. I use HC110 dil. E, exposed at 200 for 5' at 400 for 6'30''.

    for condeser enlarger is ok.
     
    Fëdor Pavlovic', Sep 29, 2003
    #8
  9. TX and TXP are different emulsions, and should not be confused.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Sep 29, 2003
    #9
  10. Simo Veikkolainen

    Alexis Neel Guest

    According to http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html which might
    just be a collection of manufacturers dev times, you/kodak are right.
    However, it has long been known that those short of dev times are not
    sufficient to develope the film properly, and can lead to
    surge/mottling, among other things. Of course, with tube processors
    or constant agitation you might get printible results, but I'd suggest
    at least a 6 minute dev time. to start. you might find you need to
    use a different dilution.
    With that said, I personally do not care for HC'110 and would
    reccomend sticking with xtol. But thats my personal opinion.

    Alexis
    www.alexisneel.com
     
    Alexis Neel, Oct 2, 2003
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.