Confessions like "I have been inadvertently developing all of my Tri-X with an accidental 2 stop push since sometime in 2012." Luckily, this error has remained a happy accident and the idiot-proof nature of film may have lead to the growth of a unique personal style along the way.
In short, it's a good thing Tri-X looks damn good when pushed to ISO1600 and souped in HC110.
Read on to see how I discovered this error in my ways, how I might have gotten there and some lessons newcomers to B&W home developing might appreciate.
#Warning# This post is going to get deep into the weeds!
It all started back in late 2012, when I began to shoot a lot more film and was looking to get into developing my B&W film at home. A quick blitz through the interwebs narrowed my research down to a few vital questions; what type of film am I going to shoot, what am I going to use to develop it, how do I go about developing it and how will I share my results digitally?
For a number of reasons well beyond the reach of what will already be a longwinded blogpost, I settled upon Kodak Tri-X film, Kodak HC110 developer, a Paterson Development Tank and an Epson V500 flatbed scanner. Patient and understanding roommates help too, since this stuff can get a bit unwieldy as a newb claws their way to a manageable workflow. Three of those four primary elements of my home development process are still the same. The only aspect that I am changing is the V500 scanner. It worked (honestly, it did) well enough for the first few years I got into film since I simply used the V500 to digitalize my true B&W negatives for sharing on the web. That's it. Flatbed scanners cannot do a lot with film. But I knew that. I wasn't going to make gallery prints out of my scans. I wasn't trying to make scans to satisfy even the laziest of pixel peepers. I was merely trying to post 1200dpi sized JPEGs on the net. Realize what you need and what can get you there. That philosophy is always important.
There. Flatbed scanning defense rant is out of the way. The new digitalization process is going to be via a copy stand, Full Frame DSLR, a lightbox and Adobe Lightroom, but that is for another day. Now, where was I? Oh right, learning how to process film and somehow veering way off the beaten path along the way.
When one decides to use Kodak HC110 developer, they will eventually stumble upon the forever important work on Michael Covington's Unofficial HC110 Resource Page. It's an incredible guide to all things HC110 (and he has an Xtol page, too!) and should be thoroughly read, studied, re-read, and referenced again and again by any HC110 user. I did all of those things except take the time to re-reference the page every once in a while throughout the following couple years of home development, to make sure I wasn't doing anything too too wacky. Keep in mind that Covington's Resource Page, and any other guides, are simply a rough starting point though as all photographers have different needs and home developers are presented with a myriad of variables according to their specific situations; type of water used, type of film used, type of conditions they are shooting in, how the negatives will be used after being development, etc etc, but they are great starting points. (Kodak's Reference Chart of B&W Films and 400TX, HC110 technical publications are exponentially useful, too).
So I read the resources and after some research, I settled upon Covington's recommendation of DilutionE (1 part HC110 for every 48 parts water) as my go-to dilution combo for all B&W films. This did not change. I stuck to the same development combo time and time again. It was the only constant in my process. The foundation of all the elements that went into my B&W film photography and a dependable control for whatever tweaks and changes were made to the rest of my process. The results from experimenting with different lighting scenarios, metering techniques, lenses and cameras were all baked onto the same film (Tri-X) and souped with the same developer and emulsion. The use of a constant control creates consistency and allows for real analysis of experimental cause and effect.
Covington recommends a development time of 6.5 minutes when using new Tri-X in HC110, DilutionE in 20C degree water. This baseline time of 6.5 minutes works for Tri-X shot at box speed or metered at 800. Very versatile stuff. But, if one does the math, the development time for 20C water can be extended to 10 minutes if one is trying to push Tri-X two stops to ISO1600.
 |
| From the Covington Unofficial Resource Page |
Here is where the math happens. DilutionH (1:64) is simply half the strength but requires twice the development time of DilutionB (1:32). The mixture is half as potent, which means the same film would need to swim in DilutionH for twice the amount of time as it would in DilutionB for similar results. The DilutionB recommended development time of 3.75 minutes now becomes 7(ish). Follow? Right. Me too. DilutionE(1:48) is about 66% weaker than DilutionB(1:32) and Covington recommends that one can estimate the development time for DilutionE by developing their film for a 50% longer period of time than they would with DilutionB, so the 3.75mins of DilutionB turns into about 5.5-6 minutes, as a starting point, for DilutionE. So, if Kodak recommends that Tri-X shot at 1600ISO sit in a DilutionB bath of HC110 for 6 minutes, than you end up with a DilutionE development time of about 9 minutes. (Wait, what? 50% of 6 minutes is 3, so if using DilutionE than add 3 minutes to the 6 minute time of DilutionB).
This is where I eventually "lost" my way. Since late 2013, I have been metering all of my Tri-X film at 800ISO and developing it in a DilutionE mixture of HC110 for 10 minutes, way beyond the recommended baseline time. I should have been developing for about 6-6.5 minutes, not 10. Why the massive difference? Beats me. My guess is that I was experimenting with development times for film shot at 1600ISO and landed on 10 minutes, but never reverted back to the standard development time of 6 minutes when working with 400/800 metered Tri-X.
What does this mean??? ART! (kind of, maybe). I have been inadvertently pushing the development of my film waaaaay beyond the manufacturers recommended tolerances for both the film and its developer, and that's OK. That's what makes playing with film so great. Tri-X took this abuse like a champ and spit out some amazing, contrasty negatives in the process. I always wondered why my Tri-X scans were so contrasty straight out of my scanner, and this extreme development process could have played a major part. It also explains why I had a pretty tough time making darkroom prints from some of my favorite frames last fall. It turns out that I have been baking so much contrast into my negs via my whacked out development process that I started off with a more difficult neg to print in the first place. No shit, sherlock...
Of course, I only became aware of my accidental journey into experimental art land this morning as I scrolled through the Covington Resource page for a light refresh. Something that I probably should have done much more often over the past few years... Now, I could just lie and say I did all of this extreme push development on purpose, but I am too honest for that. I now just have another development trick up my sleeve and something to continue working on. Another important fact to take from this is that I stayed consistent with my dilution and development time throughout this entire period, so my results can still be grouped together and studied as a collective body of work. My accidental blue period, if you will.
Edit: Useful B&W film development resources
Kodak B&W Films Reference Sheet
Kodak New (October 2007) 400TX Tri-X Tech Publication
Kodak Old (April 2003) Tri-X PAN Tech Publication
Kodak TMax (October 2007) Tech Publication
Kodak TMax400 (October 2007) Tech Publication
Kodak Old T-MAX Tech Publication
Kodak B&W Chemicals Reference Sheet
Kodak HC110 (October 2002) Tech Page
Covington Innovations HC110 Unofficial Resource Page
Digital Truth Massive Development Chart