Jump to content


Photo

Tri-X as Negative processed in HC110

Super 8 processing HC110 negative

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Simon Lucas

Simon Lucas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Other
  • UK

Posted 04 October 2015 - 01:34 PM

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, 04 October 2015 - 01:39 PM.

  • 0

#2 Josh Gladstone

Josh Gladstone
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 323 posts
  • Editor
  • Hollywood

Posted 04 October 2015 - 01:36 PM

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


  • 0

#3 Simon Lucas

Simon Lucas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Other
  • UK

Posted 04 October 2015 - 02:15 PM

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.


  • 0

#4 Simon Lucas

Simon Lucas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Other
  • UK

Posted 04 October 2015 - 02:53 PM

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.


  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19646 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 October 2015 - 03:45 PM

Tim Tyler


  • 0

#6 Simon Lucas

Simon Lucas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Other
  • UK

Posted 04 October 2015 - 04:46 PM

Tim Tyler

thank-you


  • 0

#7 Mark Sperry

Mark Sperry
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 October 2015 - 10:03 AM

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.


  • 0

#8 Simon Lucas

Simon Lucas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Other
  • UK

Posted 13 October 2015 - 03:03 PM

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, 13 October 2015 - 03:03 PM.

  • 0

#9 Josh Gladstone

Josh Gladstone
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 323 posts
  • Editor
  • Hollywood

Posted 13 October 2015 - 04:00 PM

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


  • 0

#10 Simon Lucas

Simon Lucas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Other
  • UK

Posted 13 October 2015 - 04:32 PM

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)


  • 0

#11 Simon Lucas

Simon Lucas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Other
  • UK

Posted 14 October 2015 - 12:37 AM

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, 14 October 2015 - 12:39 AM.

  • 0

#12 Phil Clark

Phil Clark

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 28 October 2015 - 05:17 AM

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


  • 0

#13 Simon Lucas

Simon Lucas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Other
  • UK

Posted 29 October 2015 - 07:57 AM

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.


  • 0

#14 Simon Lucas

Simon Lucas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Other
  • UK

Posted 01 November 2015 - 06:25 PM

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, 01 November 2015 - 06:30 PM.

  • 0

#15 Simon Lucas

Simon Lucas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Other
  • UK

Posted 03 November 2015 - 06:38 PM

Contact print from Tri-X neg.

 

zDSC_0153%20contact%20print%202secs%204m


  • 0

#16 Jay Young

Jay Young
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Lexington KY

Posted 04 November 2015 - 09:07 AM

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,


  • 0



rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Technodolly

Tai Audio

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery