After HC-110, what next?

[jja]

After a little over a year of developing b&w at home, I am nearing the end of my bottle of Kodak HC-110 concentrate. For around $14 (16 oz / 473 ml), I have developed 42 rolls of film, and counting (I'm sure I'll get at least 50 rolls with this bottle)! The primary films I have used are Kodak Tri-X and Ilford HP5+, in dil. B (1:31) or dil. H (1:63).

The question is, what next? More HC-110? Something new to experiment with? I have nothing really to complain about--I love the simplicity of mixing liquid, the long shelf life, and the negatives are pretty satisfactory, but is there more to be had?

One thing I'd like to see from my negatives is more shimmer, more of a "silver" quality, because sometimes the scans are muddier than I would like? Is it possible to get more shine from a developer, or am I facing the limitations of the film I use, or perhaps the scanner, or my own? I should put photos on my gallery to exemplify, but I'll leave it for now, and wait for some suggestions.

 

[jja]

To answer my own post, the obvious alternative route is to stick w/ HC-110 and try some new films, maybe Ilford Delta 100 or FP4, or perhaps Fuji Acros?

 

[mr_phillip]

I'm a big fan of HC-110, but in my experience Ilford Delta films don't make a happy match for it. Acros on the other hand, is excellent in this (and pretty much any other) developer.

As you like using liquid devlopers (and I confess I'm with you on that too), I'd recommend Rodinal as a next step. With the right films, it gives precisely the gradation you seem to be craving. It's available in smaller bottles for not much money, so it won't cost much to give it a go. If you can find some AGFAPan APX100 (or Rollei Retro 100) to go with it, then all the better.

 

[w3rk5]

I'd stick to what you're currently using unless it's not giving you what you want. But trying different films is fun. 🙂

 

[jja]

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions so far. Here is a link to three photos I've posted:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=818

 

[Socke]

Hard to answer since I never used HC-110, but as far as I understood it HC-110 was made to get printable negatives under unfavorable circumstances, like deving your negs in a no star hotel room in Nicaragua while the local drug traders are after you without aricondition and temperated water.

There are developers for low grain, for sharpness, for higher speeds and combinations of those.

I started with Amaloco AM74 which is easy to handle and good for push processing. After that I tried ID-11, Neofin blue and Rodinal and at the moment I use Tetenal Ultrafin plus for HP5 and Rodinal for APX100, I have two bottles Neofin blue left which I'll save for some autumn leaves shots I want to make later this year.

IMHO Neofin blue has a nice effect on slower films like APX100 and FP4 and produces razorsharp negatives with some grain and good tonality while ID-11 AM74 and Ultrafin plus reduce grain but some contrast and sharpness, too.

Today I usualy develop APX100 and APX400 in Rodinal 1+50 and HP5 in Tetenal Ultrafin Plus 1+4.
I shoot HP5 mostly at EI800 and the Agfas at 100 and 400.
With my FSU lenses I develop for more acutance and contrast and with my Contac G lenses I often go for less contrast but higher EI.

So to answer your question, you now know what you get from your lenses and film, I'd stick to the film and change the developer, if you want to try T-Grain films later trying a T-Grain developer like T-Max developer, DDX or Ultrafin plus seems to be a good idea.

 

[nightfly]

I've been down this road. I did a bunch of film and developer experimentation and ended up back with HC-110 and Neopan 400 and 1600. I like Rodinal sometimes but I find I like the tonality of HC-110 better. The blacks seem to be deeper.

I would try other things if you like but the best advice is really to concentrate on shooting and keeping the variables down in your development.

 

[Trius]

jja: You didn't say how you're rating the film, and how you're agitation. My experience with TX in HC-110 is that it is really a 200 speed film. (I think it's a true 200 in most developers, but that's another discussion...)

Scanning technique is also a variable, and I never did any scanning of TX, only wet printing, so that could make a big difference.

My own choice is Rodinal, but for years it was HC-110, with an occasional dip in FG-7.

 

[jja]

I'm mostly rating the films at 400, with occasional forays to 800 and 1600. Maybe I'll try rating Tri-X at 200 and see how it goes. To be clear, if I rate at 200, do I develop it as 200 speed film, or stick with 400?

As for wet printing, I only recently took an intensive b&w darkroom workshop, and I was getting a luminosity that I do not see in my scanned/machine printed photos.

I'll upload a few more photos, and label them appropriately. Please feel free to comment.

 

[peterc]

I'll second Rodinal. My other favourite over the years has been Ilfosol-S.

Peter

 

[jja]

Interesting comment about overdevelopment. I have taken this advice in the past, slightly underdeveloping, and the results are usually: dark scans w/ HP5+ and closer to 'normal' scans w/ Tri-X (using Konica-Minolat SD IV at close to default).

Here is a photo w/ Tri-X @ 400, where I had to move the right-hand slider on the histogram from 255 to 200 (w/ other adjustments as well):

 

[Nachkebia]

jja : wow, What lens is that?
btw how to identify if negative is overdeveloped or underdeveloped? 😀

 

[jja]

I think I shot the posted photo w/ my 50mm Summicron (latest).

The best way to determine proper development is to look at the negative w/ a loop. There should be a broad range of tonality--deep blacks to white.

 

[Nachkebia]

Hmm, What if on the picture itself there are no shadows or pure whites?

 

[jja]

I don't know if I can answer definitively, but you still need tonal separation, delineation of details, esp. if you want the viewer's eyes to be drawn the subject of the photo.

 

[mpt600]

I started with Ilfosol S and (mainly) FP4 and HP5. I then tried out HC-110, but while it was fine for Ilford film, bizarrely I never liked the results with Tri-X. I'm now pretty much content with DD-X and Delta 400, although I still put Tri-X through every now and again. I'm much happier with Tri-X through DD-X than HC-110.

 

[tetrisattack]

I'll second the suggestion of Rodinal, though you will probably have to chase some down from the photographer's formulary. Not because it will magically add more sparkle to your negatives but because it's substantially different. No solvency, higher accutance, different curve shape, etc.

One thing I'd like to see from my negatives is more shimmer, more of a "silver" quality, because sometimes the scans are muddier than I would like? Is it possible to get more shine from a developer, or am I facing the limitations of the film I use, or perhaps the scanner, or my own? I should put photos on my gallery to exemplify, but I'll leave it for now, and wait for some suggestions.

I went through the pictures you posted and I can see what you mean. The picture of the kids in the hammock, for instance, has an odd look. One highlight on the right kid's collar and everything else is gray.

I think what's happening is that the negatives are either underexposed or underdeveloped, and the scanning software is seriously pushing the curve to compensate.

It would probably be worth investigating whether you're getting the most out of your HC-110. You might take a look at the shadow detail of your negatives, is there anything there? How dense are your brighter tones, can you easily see through them? The only remedy for lacking shadow detail is more exposure, and the cure for thin highlights is more development, or more agitation.

An interesting exercise is to take your camera and set it in front of a featureless white/gray wall, with the lens focussed to infinity and the aperture set to somewhere in the middle range. Then, shoot a gray scale from -5 stops to +5 stops (metering off the wall) and develop the film like normal. You should expect to see a nice, even gradation of tones.

After doing well over a hundred rolls I started printing in the darkroom and found out that I had learned a bunch of bad habits that simply "worked" for my scanner but produced suboptimal negatives. The first was that I was underagitating, and the second was that I had a tendancy to not put enough developer in the tank, especially when doing multiple rolls with HC-110 diluted 1:65. Each roll needs a minimum amount of the syrup in order to fully develop in the recommended time.

Oh, and this one's interesting; just the other day I switched to real lab-grade beakers and graduates and found that my kitchen-grade measuring cups and medicine syringes were off. The syringes were off by 10%!

Anyway, those are some things to look at, and I apologise if you've already investigated these things. 🙂 Good luck!

 

[jja]

Conor, your comments about the photos may be consistent with my own experience vis-a-vis camera exposure. Until recently I've been shooting w/ M6 (and Nikon FM3a before), and I am noticing different exposure values vs. my M4 w/ handheld meter. Seems that my in-camera meters are asking for less exposure than my handheld meter. In the gallery, photo of my son w/ guitar and the outdoor scenes are shot w/ M4. Do you notice a broader tonal range in those photos?

 

[Nachkebia]

Great info Conor! somehow I think my films are suffering from over agitation 😀 anyhow, I found that photos I shot at night have quet nice tonality, thouhg images shot on midday are very flat, so my shadows are nice but my midtones with highlights are not that great 🙂

 

[tetrisattack]

Seems that my in-camera meters are asking for less exposure than my handheld meter. In the gallery, photo of my son w/ guitar and the outdoor scenes are shot w/ M4. Do you notice a broader tonal range in those photos?

Well, to me, Roan with the guitar is the best looking of the four! And you shot that with the M4, so you were presumably using a handheld meter, so that's looking about right. The skin tones are good, and that's probably the most important part.

I'm at work now, with a more run-of-the-mill high-gamma CRT, and I'm having a harder time making any real conclusions about these pictures. I have a better LCD at home with oodles of shadow detail and that makes things a little easier.

The outdoor scenes are tricky to interpret without seeing the negatives. I'm wondering if the white patch of overcast sky in the photo of the tree next to your home is tripping up the scanner. Considering that possibility, I don't want to conclude much from that image, so I'll skip to the other.

The last one, the picture of the vine (tree trunk?) against the fence, is more telling. Look at all that midtone! Save for some very subdued highlights, there isn't much happening here tonally, the area to the right of the trunk is rendered one shade darker with little variation. It's like most of the image is squashed into a spread of two stops. I don't know what to conclude from this, either, except that in the darkroom I would probably print this negative at a higher contrast.

So, to answer your question, I certainly notice a broader tonal range in the picture of Roan with the guitar, but I still think the outdoor scenes could show more. As to the culprit... gosh, I don't know. I'm still leaning more toward the film processing, not the metering.


It's difficult to help somebody optimize their film shooting and processing routine over the internet because of the added variables introduced by scanners and differences in display type and calibration. I think, and I'm speaking generally here, that frustration has lead a lot of RFF participants to post what they can pull out of the scanner with minimal editing. This is usually a bad practice, because most film scanners are designed to present you with as much detail as possible so that you, the photographer, can whittle the tonality down to just the range that you like.

Last year, when I found out we had a densitometer on campus, I did some tests with FP4+ and some cheap rebranded agfa paper to see what kind of brightness ranges they could usefully capture. I found that the FP4+ could register somewhere around twelve stops, with about nine or ten stops of good, strong contrast. The paper, at grade two, was only capable of rendering about five stops. The art of printing, I realized, was being able to decide what to shoehorn into the paper's limited contrast range. The same thing is true in the digital realm, with the scanner delivering what amounts to a low-contrast original.

Anyway, I'm digressing. Time to get back to work. 🙂