120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

Cschwa17
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:44 am

120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Post by Cschwa17 » Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:51 am

Im developing 120 tri-x shot @ 1600 with hc-110. I have a three reel plastic tank but im only using 2 rolls of 120. I have read all the sites like mass dev and have been all over google. Can someone please give me a standard dev time and dilution. I do not understand about hc110, do i take syrup and put it in water, then use that mixture with other water to create working solution? I could really use someone just spelling it out for me. Thank you in advance. Also is it ok to just use 1000ml of solution, which will cover the 2 rolls of 120, but wont fill the tank.


Ornello
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: 120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Post by Ornello » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:11 pm

You have under-exposed your film. Nothing can be done.

pirateoversixty
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Re: 120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Post by pirateoversixty » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:04 pm

this has been ornello's mantra for years, and fortunately, not everybody has bought into it. true, you may lose some "shadow detail" but so what. you probably didn't want to take a picture of shadows anyway. anyway, yes, the syrup is mixed with the final volume of water. for example, my current preferred method of using hc 110 is to mix 1 oz of syrup with 120 oz's of water to stand develop (another technique that makes ornello's hair stand on-end) for around an hour, no agitation after initial agitation of 30". have never tried this with film underexposed this much, but I have entertained the thought. I would test with a snipped-off portion of this film before committing the whole roll. with 120 this may be a bit awkward. try a sacrificial roll exposed about the same way, if pix on first roll are really important.
also, I tend to overfill by an ounce or two, no matter what developer. I am a little neurotic about premature developer exhaustion and full coverage of film. anyhow, this is only a suggestion. it's all fun.
jim

Ornello
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: 120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Post by Ornello » Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:13 pm

Your film is two stops underexposed. Nothing can be done. If you had overexposed it by the same margin, there would be no problem, and no change to processing would be needed. B&W negative film has no underexposure latitude, but about five stops of overexposure latitude. If you make the best prints possible from a negative given 1/2 stop underexposure, and one given proper exposure, loss of shadow detail will already be evident. A print from a negative given one or two stops addition exposure will be basically identical to that made from a properly exposed negative.

pirateoversixty
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Re: 120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Post by pirateoversixty » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:51 pm

Orny:
please explain what you mean, "nothing can be done". tri-x has been underexposed two stops for decades, with results that have satisfied the shooter. though the results may not be satisfactory by your standards, if they were so terrible to other people, who have continued to do it, what does that say about their standards?
jim

Ornello
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: 120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Post by Ornello » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:24 pm

pirateoversixty wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:51 pm
Orny:
please explain what you mean, "nothing can be done". tri-x has been underexposed two stops for decades, with results that have satisfied the shooter. though the results may not be satisfactory by your standards, if they were so terrible to other people, who have continued to do it, what does that say about their standards?
jim
Underexposure cannot be cured by increasing development. End of story.

Jim Appleyard
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: 120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Post by Jim Appleyard » Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:39 pm

Tri-X (TX) is a 400 speed film. This has been set by Kodak. TX likes to be exposed at or near 400, depending on lighting conditions and personal taste. When you expose TX at an EI other than 400, (EI is exposure index, not the same as ISO. If you have your meter set at 400, but shoot TX at another speed, you are using an EI) and you are either under or overexposing the film. By shooting at EI 1600, you are underexposing it by two stops as Ornello says. You can soak the negatives in selenium toner at a 1+10 dilution for 6 minutes and this will increase contrast slightly. You may still coax a print from the negs, but they will not be as easy to print as if you exposed them at at EI of 400. Many folks deliberately overexpose their film to record more information (shadow detail) and to guard against underexposure. A negative with more info in it is generally more printable than one w/o the info. A common recommendation is to expose TX at an EI of 320 or 200.

Generally, people will "push" film so that they can shoot in low light levels. By shooting at an EI of 1600, you can go two shutter speeds faster than you could at 400. You can then increase the time in the developer to compensate and get generally printable negs. Photojournalists would do this all the time. Do you get perfect negs? No, but you generally have an image that is printable and that is better than no image at all. Some folks quite like the image given by "pushing" film and they do it regularly.

Go to http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/. and you may find info on how to push with HC-100 and TX.

You can also visit Roger Hicks website and learn more about exposure, ISO, EI and developing and pushing.

Jim Appleyard
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: 120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Post by Jim Appleyard » Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:46 pm


Ornello
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: 120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Post by Ornello » Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:01 pm

Jim Appleyard wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:39 pm
Tri-X (TX) is a 400 speed film. This has been set by Kodak. TX likes to be exposed at or near 400, depending on lighting conditions and personal taste. When you expose TX at an EI other than 400, (EI is exposure index, not the same as ISO. If you have your meter set at 400, but shoot TX at another speed, you are using an EI) and you are either under or overexposing the film. By shooting at EI 1600, you are underexposing it by two stops as Ornello says. You can soak the negatives in selenium toner at a 1+10 dilution for 6 minutes and this will increase contrast slightly. You may still coax a print from the negs, but they will not be as easy to print as if you exposed them at at EI of 400. Many folks deliberately overexpose their film to record more information (shadow detail) and to guard against underexposure. A negative with more info in it is generally more printable than one w/o the info. A common recommendation is to expose TX at an EI of 320 or 200.

Generally, people will "push" film so that they can shoot in low light levels. By shooting at an EI of 1600, you can go two shutter speeds faster than you could at 400. You can then increase the time in the developer to compensate and get generally printable negs. Photojournalists would do this all the time. Do you get perfect negs? No, but you generally have an image that is printable and that is better than no image at all. Some folks quite like the image given by "pushing" film and they do it regularly.

Go to http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/. and you may find info on how to push with HC-100 and TX.

You can also visit Roger Hicks website and learn more about exposure, ISO, EI and developing and pushing.
B&W negative film has great latitude in the direction of overexposure, but none for underexposure, and what people believe or do has no effect on the truth of this statement. The film is two stops underexposed, and there is no cure or compensation.

Jim Appleyard
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: 120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Post by Jim Appleyard » Sat Mar 17, 2018 10:07 am

[quote=Ornello post_id=5512 time=1515463875 user_id=244]
You have under-exposed your film. Nothing can be done.
[/quote]


Very, very helpful.

Ornello
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: 120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Post by Ornello » Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:37 am

Jim Appleyard wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 10:07 am
Ornello wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:11 pm
You have under-exposed your film. Nothing can be done.

Very, very helpful.
Well, what do you want me to do? Lie? Nothing can be done. Perhaps this will help the OP to understand:

http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/pdf/10.1148/ra ... .6.8946547

"Exposures below the recording threshold of the film (the toe of the H&D curve) or above saturation of photographic sensitivity (the shoulder of the H&D curve) cannot demonstrate differential film optical densities that correspond to differences in exposure."

There is this old patent, the value of which is unknown:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US3266898

pirateoversixty
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Re: 120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Post by pirateoversixty » Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:33 pm

Jim Appleyard:
I don't think Ornello really believes what he is saying here. There is obviously too much evidence to the contrary concerning pushing film two stops and beyond. Either he is having fun by provoking an argument or he simply refuses to look at prints and negs that are produced by filmthat is underexposed. Anyway, I am signing off on this one; too frustrating to devote any more time to.
jim m.

Jim Appleyard
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: 120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Post by Jim Appleyard » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:36 pm

Agreed, I think it's you latter explanation.

Ornello
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: 120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Post by Ornello » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:58 pm

pirateoversixty wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:33 pm
Jim Appleyard:
I don't think Ornello really believes what he is saying here. There is obviously too much evidence to the contrary concerning pushing film two stops and beyond. Either he is having fun by provoking an argument or he simply refuses to look at prints and negs that are produced by filmthat is underexposed. Anyway, I am signing off on this one; too frustrating to devote any more time to.
jim m.
You're quite mistaken. I used to 'push' film all the time, back in the late 1960s. I learned the hard way. Once I saw how good my prints looked when I gave more exposure and less development, I never 'pushed' again. If someone wants to overdevelop just for the look it gives, that's fine. It does not, however, compensate for underexposure:

"This unequal rise in exposure—in which bright areas become lighter, while shadows stay more or less the same—increases the contrast and grain of the film. This is why pushing film in processing isn’t a way to “save” underexposed film as much as an artistic tool in your bag of photog tricks."

"When pushing or pulling film in processing, it’s important to note that the most noticeable effects will be seen in the increase or decrease of contrast in the image, not an increase or decrease of effective exposure."


"http://www.richardphotolab.com/blog/pos ... mate-guide"

Jim Appleyard
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: 120 Tri-x @ 1600 in HC-110

Post by Jim Appleyard » Mon May 07, 2018 8:46 am

Yup, NOTHING can be done! Try-X, Diafine, EI 1000
Attachments
img305.jpg
img305.jpg (121.71 KiB) Viewed 717 times

Post Reply