Jump to content
Simon Lucas

Tri-X as Negative processed in HC110

Recommended Posts

Photoshop levels applied to boost blacks, gentle low-pass filter added to increase sharpness.

 

Maybe my best Tri-X test so far, and a good alternative to the previous gritty Rodinal (APH09) look. I like the poetry in this frame. Out of focus, perhaps due to the fact it is a hand-held panning shot, made in haste whilst the sun broke through he clouds.

 

Of course HC110 is cheap and has a long shelf-life. My sealed glass bottles are now over 2 years old.

 

Note. Pan X in HC110 lacked compared to APH09, so this is a nice surprise.

 

 

Next up will be D19, later in the week, But maybe it will be hard to match this.

 

DSC_0007.jpg

Edited by Simon Lucas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to make just one thread for all your experiments, instead of a new thread for each one. Just a suggestion.

That's an idea. I could ask Andries to delete them and then I could start again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an idea. I could ask Andries to delete them and then I could start again.

Sorry - who is the administrator for this forum? I'm confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What tank are you using? The Lomo ones? I really want to try this. I've done a lot of b&W processing for still cameras over the years. I would shoot a ton more Tri-X Super 8 if it was easy to run the film.

 

I guess a problem would still be the xfer. I don't really feel like dropping the cash on the Retro-8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What tank are you using? The Lomo ones? I really want to try this. I've done a lot of b&W processing for still cameras over the years. I would shoot a ton more Tri-X Super 8 if it was easy to run the film.

 

I guess a problem would still be the xfer. I don't really feel like dropping the cash on the Retro-8.

I do have a full-size Lomo, but at the moment am running small strips . I usually shoot 7 secs of film in a re-usable cartridge and chop off 5" to develop in a 35mm stainless tank.

 

This makes it easy to tune my results before risking my work-in-progress film, being shot on a full reel. So far I have used APH09, HC110 and D19.

 

Developing to negative makes it more possible for me and like you I'm much more at home doing simple B&W processing. I enjoy it. With regards the end result, I think it is around £12 + VAT to get a cart scanned in the UK. I will build my own scanner later.

 

When you say 'Retro 8' do you mean transfered from negative to positive?

Edited by Simon Lucas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Retro-8 is an 8mm scanner sold by http://moviestuff.tv/, although the newer model, the Retro Universal, does multiple formats.

 

thanks - I suddenly realised. Sounds cheaper to get it scanned, or make your own scanner. (As you can probably testify, Josh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some TX, rated at 100asa, processed in D19.

 

Photographer's Formulary D19 suggests times starting at 9 minutes* for this very active developer. But the 9 minutes which I started with gives very dense negs, so I eventually worked down to a potentially adequate 3.5 minutes. All are usable with adjustment in photoshop. The longer times give more contrast, although the dense 9 minutes neg has become very grainy and requires considerable adjustment.

 

I think the main difference between this developer and the HC110 or APH09 developed films is a large increase in overall contrast, with much better blacks in the neg.

 

(*I wonder whether the 9m starting times are aimed at reversal processing?)

 

9 minutes:

 

DSC_0019new.jpg

 

6.5 minutes:

DSC_0020c.jpg

 

4.5 minutes:

DSC_0021c.jpg

 

3.5 minutes:

DSC_0024c.jpg

Edited by Simon Lucas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

V interesting thread.

 

I've done some BW reversal processing and I can confirm that the process requires an active first developer. D19 is one of the commonly used formulae. Ten minutes is a typical time.

 

Of course D19 is no longer sold as a ready mixed product but it can be easily mixed from scratch. I also add a bit of potassium thiosulphate (silver solvent) to give it an extra kick.

 

I've also read that Dektol (paper developer) is a good choice for the first dev, but I've yet to try it.

 

hth

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

V interesting thread.

 

I've done some BW reversal processing and I can confirm that the process requires an active first developer. D19 is one of the commonly used formulae. Ten minutes is a typical time.

 

Of course D19 is no longer sold as a ready mixed product but it can be easily mixed from scratch. I also add a bit of potassium thiosulphate (silver solvent) to give it an extra kick.

 

I've also read that Dektol (paper developer) is a good choice for the first dev, but I've yet to try it.

 

hth

Phil

Hi Phil,

 

I suppose the point of what I am doing is to show that, with negative processing almost anything can be made to work, if the image is going to be scanned and adjusted through PP. Reversal is less forgiving in terms of first developers.

 

For me the acute flatter Rodinal is as satisfying as the more contrasty but less sharp HC110 or D19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to see if I could reasonable results pushing Tri-X for indoor shooting.

 

Push processed Tri-X. 11 mins D19. Taking in as RAW and then levelled to even out the 4 variant images. First levelled versions, then unprocessed. Tungsten lighting.

 

tri-X%20push%20corrected.jpg

 

 

tri-X%20push%20uncorrected.jpg

Edited by Simon Lucas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to do a lot of complaining this morning, but that MovieStuff company sounds... interesting.

First I have to buy a $5000 machine, then for some crazy reason (that I assume they don't know what they are talking about) I can't use an AMD chip in my computer

to run software that costs more money? If I'm paying $5000 for a machine it had better come with software to make it work, OR use standard available software.

You are not IBM, nor is your machine millions of dollars. A quick search tells me I can get a diTTo for $2500 or so, and it comes with everything I need to make jucy 10-bit DPX files.

 

Now I realise they are making a machine that would normally cost close to 1M in the commercial world, and I should be happy and not complain,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Just Cinema Gear



    Ritter Battery



    G-Force Grips



    Visual Products



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    CineLab



    Wooden Camera



    FJS International



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Tai Audio



    Abel Cine



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Paralinx LLC



    Metropolis Post



    Glidecam



    Serious Gear



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Broadcast Solutions Inc


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...