Re: [Leica] Chalk and Charcoal in HC110

[Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu>]

Hi, Mark, and thanks.  This thread is interesting to me because 
it reflected some of the confusion I deal with at work daily.

First, the Tri-X/HC110 combination is NOT reccommended by me.
If Ansel had not mentioned it in the revised edition of the 
basic photo series, NO one would be using it for 35mm.......
but NOT because of "chalk and charcoal"!!! -- this is easily 
remedied by reducing time or concentration.....it's the lack of 
solvent (fine-grain) characteristics that limit its use 
for 35mm. Like most "Ansel-ites", its proponents IGNORE the 
comment, by him, that 35mm gives high quality "up to 5x7 or 
even 8x10"......not what we aim for in the 90s!!!

The oft-mentioned "35mm that look like 4x5" comments (partially)
quoted by Fred Picker (!) fail to mention that this was a comparison 
of 35mm prints to >similar sized< 4x5 contacts!! Not too hard
to do....ya think?

I know that Rodinal is valued for its "sharpness" -- I agree.....
the 6x9" prints I make from Pan-F are breathtaking....the 
8x12" prints are similar if you don't look too close....but 
I don't push it to 12x18" ( my third standard print size).
But even fullframe prints on 11x14 paper look like hell from 
400 speed films in Rodinal.....to me.

Tri-X/HP5 in Microdol have given me the best "high-speed" results.
(ISO 250-300)

Don't get me wrong, I like TMZ at 3200-6400 for available light.
Just don't bother with talk of "quality" under those conditions--
these photos work on levels far removed from "Leica quality"....
the drama/content outweighs pronounced grain, slight unsharpness 
from movement, etc......

But the TX/HC110 combination has nothing special to offer.  It doesn't 
offer speed (TMZ@1600 looks better) and even with slow films, 
while acceptable, it doesn't out-do D76, FG7 w/o sulfite, or a 
host of other developers.  

God knows how much HC110 "the ol' man" sold by mentioning it a few 
times.

Walt