 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / September 2003Plus-X + HC-110(B) = > ISO 125?
Just souped a roll of Plus-X (120) in HC-110 dilution B. I used a recommended (by another amateur) time of 5 minutes (temp. was ~ 72°), since I'd gotten much too dense negatives using the recommended development time. This time the negatives were better, but still too dense: probably printable, but looking like highlights could easily be blown. Does anyone have a better scheme for this film+developer combo? I suppose I need to visit Mr. Covington's site. My speculations on this situation are that while I could reduce the development time, this would get me into the "too short" area. Instead, perhaps I need to try rating the film at a higher speed, like maybe 200. I'm not averse to doing film tests, but I lack a densitometer, so I'm not really sure what the most useful way to do this would be. So you may ask, was it "new" or "old" Plus-X? Damned if I know: the film was recently bought from B&H, and the emulsion edge says "KODAK 125PX".  SignatureWhy isn't "phonetic" spelled fonetically? > Just souped a roll of Plus-X (120) in HC-110 dilution B. I used a recommended > (by another amateur) time of 5 minutes (temp. was ~ 72?), since I'd gotten [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > So you may ask, was it "new" or "old" Plus-X? Damned if I know: the film was > recently bought from B&H, and the emulsion edge says "KODAK 125PX". You need to use on of the more dilute / dilutions like the "E" dilution. Then you can subtract time to your hearts content. Signaturewebsite: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank Take a look at: http://www.mironchuk.com/HC-110.html his guy is a pro and uses HC-110 B/2. BTW, 125PX is new emulsion. Jorge > Just souped a roll of Plus-X (120) in HC-110 dilution B. I used a > recommended (by another amateur) time of 5 minutes (temp. was ~ 72?), [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > film was recently bought from B&H, and the emulsion edge says "KODAK > 125PX". > Just souped a roll of Plus-X (120) in HC-110 dilution B. I used a recommended > (by another amateur) time of 5 minutes (temp. was ~ 72?), since I'd gotten > much too dense negatives using the recommended development time. > > This time the negatives were better, but still too dense: probably printable, > but looking like highlights could easily be blown. ... > So you may ask, was it "new" or "old" Plus-X? Damned if I know: the film was > recently bought from B&H, and the emulsion edge says "KODAK 125PX". Didn't the film come with an instruction sheet giving some development times? In any case, Kodak's recommended time for 125PX in HC-110 (B) at 72 F is 2 3/4 minutes, which is too short for good uniformity. The data sheet is: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4018/f4018.jhtml I don't recall whether this is up to date on my web page. On 9/26/2003 4:37 PM Michael A. Covington spake thus: >> Just souped a roll of Plus-X (120) in HC-110 dilution B. I used a > recommended [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Didn't the film come with an instruction sheet giving some development > times? Well ... yes, it did. I just managed to avoid looking at it somehow. > In any case, Kodak's recommended time for 125PX in HC-110 (B) at 72 F is 2 > 3/4 minutes, which is too short for good uniformity. The data sheet is: > > http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4018/f4018.jhtml > > I don't recall whether this is up to date on my web page. My, I guess I majorly overdeveloped this roll. So what do you think of [whatshisname]'s 1:63 dilution method? I can't say I'm very impressed with this guy's grasp of things: his assertions, for instance, that acid stop baths are a violent shock to the film, and his ideas about "grain clumping" both sound pretty meshuggah to me. SignatureWhy isn't "phonetic" spelled fonetically? > > In any case, Kodak's recommended time for 125PX in HC-110 (B) at 72 F is 2 > > 3/4 minutes, which is too short for good uniformity. The data sheet is: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4018/f4018.jhtml > > I don't recall whether this is up to date on my web page. > > My, I guess I majorly overdeveloped this roll. Yes... the 5-minute time may have been for old PX or PXP, I'm not sure. > So what do you think of [whatshisname]'s 1:63 dilution method? I can't say I'm > very impressed with this guy's grasp of things: his assertions, for instance, > that acid stop baths are a violent shock to the film, and his ideas about > "grain clumping" both sound pretty meshuggah to me. Actually it appears that HC-110 works appreciably faster on 125PX and 400TX than on the previous versions of these films. I don't know if HC-110 is still practical with these films. If you want to experiment, dilute it 1:63 (i.e., half of dilution B) and try 5 minutes again. (In general, when you double the dilution, you don't double the time; I'm guessing that 5 minutes will be in the ballpark at 1:63 and 72 F.) If you dilute further than 1:63, you'll probably want to use a double-size tank and make enough soup for two rolls, even though you're developing only one roll, so that the developer isn't exhausted. I don't know about grain clumping or "violent shock." I'd say that if your development time is short, your stop bath needs to be acidic so you can go ahead and stop development quickly. For one-shot use, though, the stop bath need not be very strong. If you're using indicator stop bath, try using half the usual strength, or less. And let me know how it works! SignatureClear skies, Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope (The HC-110 web page is: www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110) On 9/26/2003 4:37 PM Michael A. Covington spake thus: >> Just souped a roll of Plus-X (120) in HC-110 dilution B. I used a > recommended [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > In any case, Kodak's recommended time for 125PX in HC-110 (B) at 72 F is 2 > 3/4 minutes, which is too short for good uniformity. Let me restate my question to you: do you think it would be better for me to a) use a higher dilution (say 1:63) to extend development time (and possibly increase acutance, though that seems to be unconfirmed), or b) use dilution B but rate the film at a higher EI (i.e., push-process it)? In either case, the idea would be to approach a 5-minute or longer development time. SignatureWhy isn't "phonetic" spelled fonetically? > On 9/26/2003 4:37 PM Michael A. Covington spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but rate the film at a higher EI (i.e., push-process it)? In either case, the > idea would be to approach a 5-minute or longer development time. Definitely the former. HC-110 is not a speed-increasing developer. Overdevelopment in HC-110 is not very much like a speed increase; you'd have excessive contrast, excessive highlight density, and a lack of shadow detail if you simply uprated the EI. : On 9/26/2003 4:37 PM Michael A. Covington spake thus: : >> Just souped a roll of Plus-X (120) in HC-110 dilution B. I used a : > recommended [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] : > In any case, Kodak's recommended time for 125PX in HC-110 (B) at 72 F is 2 : > 3/4 minutes, which is too short for good uniformity. : Let me restate my question to you: do you think it would be better for me to : a) use a higher dilution (say 1:63) to extend development time (and possibly : increase acutance, though that seems to be unconfirmed), or b) use dilution B : but rate the film at a higher EI (i.e., push-process it)? In either case, the : idea would be to approach a 5-minute or longer development time. Development times shorter then 5-minutes can give uneven development. That's not been a problem with my Jobo but it makes the fill time of the tank a significant percentage of the development time. Rather then using development times lower then 5-minutes I would increase dilution and use the increased times. One area that scarpitti and I almost agree on is that of dilute developers. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message news: ..... > My speculations on this situation are that while I could reduce the > development time, this would get me into the "too short" area. ..... As we are told, uneven development is the result of very short dev times. I use 4min for one film+dev combination without unevenness, but care is needed. I wouldn't try it with more than 2 rolls in a tank because of the time differential. > Just souped a roll of Plus-X (120) in HC-110 dilution B. I used a recommended > (by another amateur) time of 5 minutes (temp. was ~ 72°), since I'd gotten [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > So you may ask, was it "new" or "old" Plus-X? Damned if I know: the film was > recently bought from B&H, and the emulsion edge says "KODAK 125PX". Kodak's recommended times may be a little on the long side, but you may want to try a higher dilution ratio rather than shorter times. The shadow detail is controlled by exposure and the development time controls the highlights. If you like the shadow detail you're getting then the exposure is right. If the highlights are over exposed you've overdeveloped the film. What was the contrast of the scenes you were photographing? Frank : Just souped a roll of Plus-X (120) in HC-110 dilution B. I used a recommended : (by another amateur) time of 5 minutes (temp. was ~ 72??), since I'd gotten : much too dense negatives using the recommended development time. : This time the negatives were better, but still too dense: probably printable, : but looking like highlights could easily be blown. : Does anyone have a better scheme for this film+developer combo? I suppose I : need to visit Mr. Covington's site. : My speculations on this situation are that while I could reduce the : development time, this would get me into the "too short" area. Instead, : perhaps I need to try rating the film at a higher speed, like maybe 200. I'm : not averse to doing film tests, but I lack a densitometer, so I'm not really : sure what the most useful way to do this would be. : So you may ask, was it "new" or "old" Plus-X? Damned if I know: the film was : recently bought from B&H, and the emulsion edge says "KODAK 125PX". SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > Just souped a roll of Plus-X (120) in HC-110 dilution B. I used a recommended > (by another amateur) time of 5 minutes (temp. was ~ 72°), since I'd gotten [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > So you may ask, was it "new" or "old" Plus-X? Damned if I know: the film was > recently bought from B&H, and the emulsion edge says "KODAK 125PX". Are you unalterably commited for some reason to using HC110? There are better developers out there. HC110 is not preferred for its imaging properties, but widely used because of its convenience and stability. On 9/27/2003 11:32 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: >> Just souped a roll of Plus-X (120) in HC-110 dilution B. I used a recommended >> (by another amateur) time of 5 minutes (temp. was ~ 72°), since I'd gotten [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > better developers out there. HC110 is not preferred for its imaging > properties, but widely used because of its convenience and stability. Once again, you've failed to answer the question at hand. The contestant is therefore disqualified from this round, and any further replies will be ignored. Next! SignatureWhy isn't "phonetic" spelled fonetically? > On 9/27/2003 11:32 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Next! Who put YOU in charge? If the time in HC110 B is too short, and if HC110 is not the best developer in the world (it isn't) then those are good reasons to use something else, and I say that's a BETTER answer. On 9/27/2003 4:46 PM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: >> On 9/27/2003 11:32 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > HC110 is not the best developer in the world (it isn't) then those are > good reasons to use something else, and I say that's a BETTER answer. The plain truth of the matter is that I'm just not interested in your (non)answer. f.ck off. SignatureWhy isn't "phonetic" spelled fonetically? > On 9/27/2003 4:46 PM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: > > Who put YOU in charge? If the time in HC110 B is too short, and if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The plain truth of the matter is that I'm just not interested in your > (non)answer. f.ck off. Watch it girls, your messing your Karma up, in the next life you might be room or cell mates ;-) Signaturewebsite: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank On 9/27/2003 4:59 PM Gregory W. Blank spake thus: >> On 9/27/2003 4:46 PM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: >> > Who put YOU in charge? If the time in HC110 B is too short, and if [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Watch it girls, your messing your Karma up, in the next life you > might be room or cell mates ;-) OK, I've seen this error enough times that I get to call you on it: The contraction of "you are" is "you're", not "your", OK? Otherwise, you sound like a dumbass clueless AOL user. You're welcome. SignatureWhy isn't "phonetic" spelled fonetically? > OK, I've seen this error enough times that I get to call you on it: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You're welcome. David you are pain in the butt, and equal to if not as bad as MS sometimes,....you are a borderline a troll in my book,.. simply because you act like a jerk most of the time. So YOUR welcome as well. Signaturewebsite: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank On 9/27/2003 5:50 PM Gregory W. Blank spake thus: >> OK, I've seen this error enough times that I get to call you on it: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So YOUR welcome as well. So you insist on using this, even though you *know* it's wrong? Hmmmm ... And yes, it's a valid subject for discussion. One only hopes you're not as sloppy with your film and prints as you are with the English language. Just as film and prints are the media of this newsgroup, so is the English language the media of our discussions here. The language has rules, you know: don't look at me, *I* didn't make them up. If one knowingly chooses to misuse the language, isn't that a whole lot like choosing to show a bad print? SignatureWhy isn't "phonetic" spelled fonetically? > So you insist on using this, even though you *know* it's wrong? Hmmmm ... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > look at me, *I* didn't make them up. If one knowingly chooses to misuse the > language, isn't that a whole lot like choosing to show a bad print? What are you some kind of english teacher? I betcha I could teach you more about printing and developing film than you could ever possibleehe teach me abouts anglise. Signaturewebsite: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank On 9/27/2003 4:59 PM Gregory W. Blank spake thus: >> On 9/27/2003 4:46 PM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: >> > Who put YOU in charge? If the time in HC110 B is too short, and if [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Watch it girls, your messing your Karma up, in the next life you > might be room or cell mates ;-) Oh, and this isn't German, so nouns like "karma" aren't capitalized. David "my karma just ran over your dogma" Nebenzahl SignatureWhy isn't "phonetic" spelled fonetically? > On 9/27/2003 4:46 PM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > The plain truth of the matter is that I'm just not interested in your > (non)answer. f.ck off. The answer is unacceptably short times for that combination. So, rational people would try something else. On 9/28/2003 10:18 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: >> On 9/27/2003 4:46 PM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> >> Does anyone have a better scheme for this film+developer combo? I suppose I >> >> >> need to visit Mr. Covington's site. [...] > The answer is unacceptably short times for that combination. So, > rational people would try something else. As it turns out, one "something else" is using the (unofficial) Dilution H (1:63) for HC-110, which gets the development time into a better zone (5 minutes or longer). SignatureWhy isn't "phonetic" spelled fonetically? > On 9/28/2003 10:18 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > (1:63) for HC-110, which gets the development time into a better zone (5 > minutes or longer). That's fine. You'd want to try other developers too, no doubt. > On 9/27/2003 11:32 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> imaging properties, but widely used because of its convenience and >> stability. IIRC, Ansel Adams preferred it on Tri-X because it was sharper and had finer grainyness than Plus-X in D-76. At least, Fred Picker said so, and while I may not agree with Fred Picker on technical matters, he made technically very fine prints. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 9:15pm up 13:38, 3 users, load average: 2.15, 2.17, 2.10 > > On 9/27/2003 11:32 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > while I may not agree with Fred Picker on technical matters, he made > technically very fine prints. The consenus is that it's a bit on the agressive side, and does not shoulder off much. HC110 is a bit too rough-working for the best 35mm results. Personally, I use Acutol or FX-39, and if I mix my own, FX-15 or similar softer-working solvent powder developers. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.