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
    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

    Simo Veikkolainen, Sep 27, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. I would like to know too!
    Michael A. Covington, Sep 27, 2003
    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
  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
  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
    Michael A. Covington, Sep 28, 2003
  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
  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
  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
  9. TX and TXP are different emulsions, and should not be confused.
    Michael Scarpitti, Sep 29, 2003
  10. Simo Veikkolainen

    Alexis Neel Guest

    According to 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 Neel, Oct 2, 2003
    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.