Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,219   Posts: 1,532,249   Online: 802
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    321

    Kodak Tri-X- D76 vs HC110 Dilution B (upswept curve look?)

    Is there any significant difference in the results (specifically, tonality) with 400TX in these two developers? I know that HC 110B gives contrastier highlights, but is that a big difference? Also, are shadows an issue with Tri X/HC110 Dilution B at EI400?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    Kodak designed HC-110 to produce results as close to those of D-76 as possible. Any differences between the two developers are described by Kodak as being slight. Read the following site under the section Developer Characteristics for more information. http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,606
    It seems to me much of the HC-110-upswept reputation has to do with the HC-110/Tri-X Prof. combo which was the Zone System combo for legions of photographers (mostly due to Adams in the 70s-80s), and that film had a long toe, upswept curve. Tri-X Prof. (TXP 320) still has this characteristic.

  4. #4
    Kevin Kehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regina Canada (sounds more fun than it is)
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    605
    My personal experience is that Tri-X 320 (320TXP) does well in HC-110 and D-76. However, Tri-X 400 (400TX) does not do so well in HC-110 as I find it more contrasty and harder to control, so I use D-76 when developing this film. Most of the time when Ansel Adams is referring to Tri-X, it is actually a formulation of Tri-X which hasn't been made in decades (pre-320TXP, even though it was a 320 speed film as well); thus, people use the modern formulation with his times and get different results.

    I would recommend the D-76 with 400TX, much more manageable and versatile.
    Once a photographer is convinced that the camera can lie and that, strictly speaking, the vast majority of photographs are "camera lies," inasmuch as they tell only part of a story or tell it in a distorted form, half the battle is won. Once he has conceded that photography is not a "naturalistic" medium of rendition and that striving for "naturalism" in a photograph is futile, he can turn his attention to using a camera to make more effective pictures.

    Andreas Feininger

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Kehler View Post
    My personal experience is that Tri-X 320 (320TXP) does well in HC-110 and D-76. However, Tri-X 400 (400TX) does not do so well in HC-110 as I find it more contrasty and harder to control
    How does your processing method compare to what is given for the site listed above. If your negatives are more contrasty then perhaps you should reduce developer time a bit.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  6. #6
    Kevin Kehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regina Canada (sounds more fun than it is)
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    How does your processing method compare to what is given for the site listed above. If your negatives are more contrasty then perhaps you should reduce developer time a bit.
    I completely agree with the point I think you are trying to make, namely that if I were to do more testing, I could gain negatives more to my liking. However, I find D-76 produces better negatives for my particular workflow - this is not to say I think HC-110 is not a good developer, I just find for 400TX, that D-76 is a better developer. Now, maybe it is my water supply, maybe it is my agitation cycle or maybe it is my method of metering but it works for me.

    Note this is even contained within the link:

    Compared to D-76, this chart indicates that HC-110 (dilution B) produces:

    Slightly less shadow detail or true film speed;
    Slightly finer grain;
    Slightly lower acutance.

    Where HC-110 really shines is in scientific work or push-processing, where film is deliberately overdeveloped to increase contrast and speed.
    For me, shadow detail and acutance are more important than grain, when I am shooting Tri-X. If I need finer grain, I switch to FP4+.
    Once a photographer is convinced that the camera can lie and that, strictly speaking, the vast majority of photographs are "camera lies," inasmuch as they tell only part of a story or tell it in a distorted form, half the battle is won. Once he has conceded that photography is not a "naturalistic" medium of rendition and that striving for "naturalism" in a photograph is futile, he can turn his attention to using a camera to make more effective pictures.

    Andreas Feininger

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    321
    Thanks
    I'm a sucker for smooth midtones, so I was wondering if the difference was THAT great

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,562
    Sounds like a myth to me. #76 produces more of a sag in the curve than HC-110, which is capable of a
    perfectly straight line in films engineered with that characteristic.

  9. #9
    John Bragg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Penwithick, Cornwall, U.K.
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    335
    Images
    9
    I prefer HC-110 to D76 for the following reasons. Ease of mixing one shot developer, superior keeping properties, and economy. I use it 1:63 instead of dilution B and it is very forgiving and less contrasty at this strength especially when used gently with less agitation than the norm. Used in this fashion it is capable of some very smooth tones and controlled highlights.

  10. #10
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by GarageBoy View Post
    Also, are shadows an issue with Tri X/HC110 Dilution B at EI400?
    Shadows are an issue anytime you don't expose for them adequately, regardless of the film/dev combination. In the abscense of any established testing regime, if you are consistently getting unsatisfactory shadows at 400, then bump the EI down a bit, see what happens, you may have to reduce development some to keep highlights controlled.

    With that said, a shadow value in the toe region of an upswept curve will have a lower density than at the same location with very straightline curve----the straightline curve even lower than a more concave curve as seen with TG7----compare the density values in the toe at Zone III, for example, and even on up the rest of the scale to the "normal" development calibration density at VIII to VIII 1/2. The curves show how different gray scales would be produced with each curve.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Comparison-Curves006.jpg  

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin