New Tri-X in HC110

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Simo Veikkolainen - 27 Sep 2003 21:26 GMT

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

Reply to this Message

Michael A. Covington - 27 Sep 2003 22:47 GMT

> Hi,
> How many of you out there are using the new Tri-X developed in HC110?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Thanks
> Simo

I would like to know too!

Reply to this Message

David Nebenzahl - 27 Sep 2003 22:48 GMT

On 9/27/2003 1:26 PM Simo Veikkolainen spake thus:

> How many of you out there are using the new Tri-X developed in HC110?
> Michael Covington's page http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> solution than using it. HC110 might be a good alternative. Any
> opinions...?

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.

Signature

Why isn't "phonetic" spelled fonetically?

Reply to this Message

Michael A. Covington - 28 Sep 2003 14:57 GMT

> On 9/27/2003 1:26 PM Simo Veikkolainen spake thus:

> 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.

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.

Reply to this Message

William Schneider - 28 Sep 2003 13:28 GMT

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

Reply to this Message

Michael A. Covington - 28 Sep 2003 14:58 GMT

> 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).
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Bill Schneider

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!

Reply to this Message

Mark in Maine - 29 Sep 2003 02:51 GMT

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.

>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).
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Bill Schneider

Reply to this Message

Michael Scarpitti - 29 Sep 2003 14:17 GMT

> 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,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> >
> >Bill Schneider

TX and TXP are different emulsions, and should not be confused.

Reply to this Message

F?dor Pavlovic' - 29 Sep 2003 12:16 GMT

> Hi,
> How many of you out there are using the new Tri-X developed in HC110?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> solution than using it. HC110 might be a good alternative. Any
> opinions...?

I use HC110 dil. E, exposed at 200 for 5' at 400 for 6'30''.

for condeser enlarger is ok.

Reply to this Message

Alexis Neel - 02 Oct 2003 14:32 GMT

> Hi,
> How many of you out there are using the new Tri-X developed in HC110?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Thanks
> Simo

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

Reply to this Message