MCTuomey
Veteran
this is the kind of thread that gives this site its vitality, imho
After HC-110, what next?
- Thread starter jja
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 39
- Views 3K
jja
Well-known
MCTuomey said:
Man, I agree! Ask a simple question, and the varied responses make you question every step in the photo-making process. Conor, your responses leave me a lot to think about.
You said earlier that a minimum amount of HC-110 is required *PER* roll of film, which more or less agrees with what Covington (http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/) states, specifically, that you need a minimum of 3 ml of concentrate per roll of film. Do your observations suggest that perhaps Dil. H (1:63) and higher are not optimal? What does everyone else think?
To add more complications/variables, the photo of the boy and guitar that you like best was developed using Dil. B (1:31), and thus a higher concentration of developer (I started doing this when my photo instructor suggested I develop at 68 degrees, not the usual tepid temps we are used to w/ Texas water).
Your comments about the lack of tonal range in the vine photo are right on. This was developed in Dil. B, 6:10 min. @ 68-69 degrees, agitation for ten seconds at one-minute interval. Believe me, the scan was even flatter than what is presented!
As many suggested, perhaps I will give Rodinal a try, and see how much fun that is.
GeneW
Veteran
jja, I keep two developers in stock -- HC-110 and Rodinal. I find the combination of Rodinal 1:50 and Tri-X shot at 200 gorgeous. I use HC-110 on Tri-X when I need to push it to 800 or 1600.
You might also try a snappier film, like Acros 100. It develops well in both.
Gene
You might also try a snappier film, like Acros 100. It develops well in both.
Gene
jja
Well-known
Rodinal 1:50 and Tri-X @ 200 is now at the top of my list. Thanks.
nightfly
Well-known
I get very good results with HC-110 at 1:50. I basically made up the dilution when they changed Tri-X and the development times for 1:31 got really short. Although some people claimed this was a misprint, I found that my negs were consistently over-developed so I cut back the dilution to 1:50 and use it for both Tri-X and Neopan 400. It also coincides with when I started scanning more than wet printing and it scans well. In 120 film this is a gorgeous combination tonally.
I still use 1:31 if I'm pushign to 1200 or 1600. HC-110 is really good for this with longer times and very little agitation.
This was pushed to 1200 or so:
I still use 1:31 if I'm pushign to 1200 or 1600. HC-110 is really good for this with longer times and very little agitation.
This was pushed to 1200 or so:
jja
Well-known
Gorgeous photo, nightfly! Is that a Richard Serra sculpture? Regardless, you do it justice, and I bet a wet print of that would be stunning.
Could you give me a reference for the HC-110 times at 1:50?
Could you give me a reference for the HC-110 times at 1:50?
tetrisattack
Maximum Creativity!
jja, now that I think about it, I believe my problem with getting enough developing agent into a 2-roll tank had more to do with rodinal at 1:100, not HC-110. I think the minimum amount of rodinal concentrate is 8ml per 80 square inches, but I could be wrong on that.
I do recall at least one time though watching thick, syrupy HC-110 ooze out of a 10ml graduate, thinking, "wait, there's a non-trivial amount of that stuff stuck to the sides of this cylinder, huh?"
In the spirit of that, I have this tip to add: a good way to measure out liquid chemistry accurately is to measure your chemical into a graduate; then put maybe 75% your water in a beaker, pour the chemical in, then rinse the graduate into the beaker until the solution is at the proper volume/dilution.
Regarding the minimum suggested amount (3ml) of syrup per roll, I don't think there's anything wrong with Dilution H and I use it myself, but you don't want to be riding too closely to that minimum amount.
Here's an interesting, real-life scenario (as best as I can remember!): 2 reels of 36-exposure film in a stainless tank, which, per prior tests, was found to need only 450ml of solution total to cover both reels. Dilution "H" calls for 7 ml of syrup for this volume, so that gives me 3.5ml per reel, enough to develop both rolls -- barely. But my QFC syringe was off by about 10%, so when I thought I was measuring out 7ml, I was in truth measuring out maybe 6.3ml, so there was 3.15ml of syrup per roll. Now we're cutting it pretty close!
To put that in terms of temperature, a 10% error would get you just over 61 degrees instead of 68. In terms of time, a 10% error at 10 minutes of development is like being off by a full minute. And here I was, sweating how many seconds it took me to pour in my stop bath! Indeed, working with high concentrations magnifies any inaccuracies inherent to yourself and your equipment, so scrupulous lab practice is a must.
I'm surprised to hear that BOTH the picture of Roan and the outdoor scenes were developed in dilution B, since that effectively eliminates the developer concentration as the possible culprit for your flat negatives. The other obvious variable would be agitation technique. 10 seconds per minute is pretty much standard, but it could be that you're just being too gentle with your film. 🙂
Another possibility could be that your tap water is acid or too cold, or there could be residual cross-contamination from stop if you're using it. There are so many variables.
Anyway, I'm glad to see that this thread is garnering a positive response, so if any others have a similar experience or any advice to share, please do!
I do recall at least one time though watching thick, syrupy HC-110 ooze out of a 10ml graduate, thinking, "wait, there's a non-trivial amount of that stuff stuck to the sides of this cylinder, huh?"
In the spirit of that, I have this tip to add: a good way to measure out liquid chemistry accurately is to measure your chemical into a graduate; then put maybe 75% your water in a beaker, pour the chemical in, then rinse the graduate into the beaker until the solution is at the proper volume/dilution.
Regarding the minimum suggested amount (3ml) of syrup per roll, I don't think there's anything wrong with Dilution H and I use it myself, but you don't want to be riding too closely to that minimum amount.
Here's an interesting, real-life scenario (as best as I can remember!): 2 reels of 36-exposure film in a stainless tank, which, per prior tests, was found to need only 450ml of solution total to cover both reels. Dilution "H" calls for 7 ml of syrup for this volume, so that gives me 3.5ml per reel, enough to develop both rolls -- barely. But my QFC syringe was off by about 10%, so when I thought I was measuring out 7ml, I was in truth measuring out maybe 6.3ml, so there was 3.15ml of syrup per roll. Now we're cutting it pretty close!
To put that in terms of temperature, a 10% error would get you just over 61 degrees instead of 68. In terms of time, a 10% error at 10 minutes of development is like being off by a full minute. And here I was, sweating how many seconds it took me to pour in my stop bath! Indeed, working with high concentrations magnifies any inaccuracies inherent to yourself and your equipment, so scrupulous lab practice is a must.
I'm surprised to hear that BOTH the picture of Roan and the outdoor scenes were developed in dilution B, since that effectively eliminates the developer concentration as the possible culprit for your flat negatives. The other obvious variable would be agitation technique. 10 seconds per minute is pretty much standard, but it could be that you're just being too gentle with your film. 🙂
Another possibility could be that your tap water is acid or too cold, or there could be residual cross-contamination from stop if you're using it. There are so many variables.
Anyway, I'm glad to see that this thread is garnering a positive response, so if any others have a similar experience or any advice to share, please do!
jja
Well-known
I use the 10-ml syringes used to administer medicine to babies, I hope they're accurate!
Yeah, cold water is not a problem around here, it comes out at 80 degrees F in the summer, 68 degrees in winter. Maybe acidity is a problem. Also, my agitation technique may use improvement, as I'm pretty relaxed when I do it.
Btw, check out this thread, I'll be curious about your guess:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27353
Yeah, cold water is not a problem around here, it comes out at 80 degrees F in the summer, 68 degrees in winter. Maybe acidity is a problem. Also, my agitation technique may use improvement, as I'm pretty relaxed when I do it.
Btw, check out this thread, I'll be curious about your guess:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27353
Nachkebia
Well-known
Wow, great information stream in this topic! thanks Conor!
I have even serious problem, I don`t even understand what should be right, I mean I like everything I get because I can fix everything in photoshop.
This might be off-topic but I need help 🙂 here is image I have developed delta 100 in t-max by indications of ilford.
I totaly hate tones 🙁
And here is same delta 100 developed in lab,
I absolutly love tones!
I have even serious problem, I don`t even understand what should be right, I mean I like everything I get because I can fix everything in photoshop.
This might be off-topic but I need help 🙂 here is image I have developed delta 100 in t-max by indications of ilford.
I totaly hate tones 🙁
And here is same delta 100 developed in lab,
I absolutly love tones!
jja
Well-known
What do you hate about the tones?
Edit: I asked the question before you posted the second photo. The first photo is tonally a little flat, but I think it is a matter of lighting, and less so of developing/scanning/post-processing techniques. If you were printing the first photo in a wet darkroom, a contrast filter would separate the tones a little, and toning would add glow. You can do this in Photo Shop, too, no?
Edit: I asked the question before you posted the second photo. The first photo is tonally a little flat, but I think it is a matter of lighting, and less so of developing/scanning/post-processing techniques. If you were printing the first photo in a wet darkroom, a contrast filter would separate the tones a little, and toning would add glow. You can do this in Photo Shop, too, no?
Last edited:
Nachkebia
Well-known
Well, you might be right on lighting but check this image out, I sure remember lighting was pritty deep, also alot of different contrasts, a lot of shadow play but look how flat it is.
jja
Well-known
I don't know, that last one looks okay, not too flat. How much post-processing has it received? Sorry I cannot be of more help, maybe you can provide the original file and one of our PS gurus (not me!) can have at it.
Nachkebia
Well-known
Well, I don`t know how much photoshop can help, here is my try
jja
Well-known
I think it is an improvement, and worth the effort you took tweaking.
Nachkebia
Well-known
But still it lacks a detail, and tonal gradation don`t you think? it was shot on planar! common 🙂
aad
Not so new now.
Try dilution H and go for less than half the develop time, and few agititions. I just tried this and was very happy.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
For any film/developer combination it's a good thing to dial in the processing. The best/easiest method I know is outlined in Zone VI Workshop, by Fred Picker. I found the basic tests for film speed and development to be valuable regardless of one's iinterest in the Zone system. (I haven't read Beyond the Zone System, and don't want to digress into a discussion of the merits of the zone system.)
Basically, you make a series of braketed exposures of an even-toned surface (grey card, for example), placed on Zone I. Develop for time recommended by developer manufacturer; Zone I exposures do not depend on development time as long as you are not too far off. Measure with densitometer (if you have one) and find the frame that is .08-.10 over base+fog (non-exposed frame); or make a contact sheet where the base+fog frame prints just black and then find the first exposed frame that renders no detail. That frame represents the true film speed; ie the next frame with minimal detail is Zone II.
Next, at the tested speed, make some exposures of a plain white card, placing the exposure on Zone VIII. (You can also make some shots of a scene or person to fill out the roll.) Develop at the default time/temperature recommendation. Make a contact print/sheet and the card shot at Zone VIII should print pure white with just barely discernable detail. The other shots scene/people should have good highlights. If not, then your development time is either too long or too short, depending on whether highlights are blown or too grey.
You can use short rolls for the second test, trying different development times/agitation until you dial it in. Change development time by 10% either direction and "close in" on the correct times. You could also use a densitometer to determine the correct processing time for the Zone VIII exposures, again if you have access to one.
So, the bottom line is, this is a bit of work, but it can be done without a densitometer if one is not available. Just be careful and particular with your methodology, keep notes and be consistent. For example, always use the same agitation schedule and temperature until you get the time dialed in. Then you can change one variable at a time to see how it affects the end results.
Agitation (less and gentler is usually better) and wet times are big factors. I like to process at 24C/75F to keep wet time down. Especially with Rodinal and other higher acutance developers, keeping grain tight pays off, and reduced wet time helps in that regard. Also, water quality and composition will affect results. My results may differ from someone else's on another water system, even if everything else is the same. Is their water harder or softer? Are there some chemicals in their water not in mine, even if they have the same hardness nominal hardness? It ain't rocket science, but it is chemistry!
edited for correction regarding Zone I vs. Zone II.
Basically, you make a series of braketed exposures of an even-toned surface (grey card, for example), placed on Zone I. Develop for time recommended by developer manufacturer; Zone I exposures do not depend on development time as long as you are not too far off. Measure with densitometer (if you have one) and find the frame that is .08-.10 over base+fog (non-exposed frame); or make a contact sheet where the base+fog frame prints just black and then find the first exposed frame that renders no detail. That frame represents the true film speed; ie the next frame with minimal detail is Zone II.
Next, at the tested speed, make some exposures of a plain white card, placing the exposure on Zone VIII. (You can also make some shots of a scene or person to fill out the roll.) Develop at the default time/temperature recommendation. Make a contact print/sheet and the card shot at Zone VIII should print pure white with just barely discernable detail. The other shots scene/people should have good highlights. If not, then your development time is either too long or too short, depending on whether highlights are blown or too grey.
You can use short rolls for the second test, trying different development times/agitation until you dial it in. Change development time by 10% either direction and "close in" on the correct times. You could also use a densitometer to determine the correct processing time for the Zone VIII exposures, again if you have access to one.
So, the bottom line is, this is a bit of work, but it can be done without a densitometer if one is not available. Just be careful and particular with your methodology, keep notes and be consistent. For example, always use the same agitation schedule and temperature until you get the time dialed in. Then you can change one variable at a time to see how it affects the end results.
Agitation (less and gentler is usually better) and wet times are big factors. I like to process at 24C/75F to keep wet time down. Especially with Rodinal and other higher acutance developers, keeping grain tight pays off, and reduced wet time helps in that regard. Also, water quality and composition will affect results. My results may differ from someone else's on another water system, even if everything else is the same. Is their water harder or softer? Are there some chemicals in their water not in mine, even if they have the same hardness nominal hardness? It ain't rocket science, but it is chemistry!
edited for correction regarding Zone I vs. Zone II.
Last edited:
John Bragg
Well-known
Try this link. http://www.dragonsgate.net/mbell/leica/hc110.html
I have got good results with Tri-X rated at 200asa. developed in HC-110 Dilution H for 9 mins @ 20c. (And now the important bit !) Agitate as follows :- 30seconds initial agitation and only 2 inversions at the start of each subsequent minute. This should impart some compensating effect, boosting shadows and holding highlights in check.
Regards, John.
I have got good results with Tri-X rated at 200asa. developed in HC-110 Dilution H for 9 mins @ 20c. (And now the important bit !) Agitate as follows :- 30seconds initial agitation and only 2 inversions at the start of each subsequent minute. This should impart some compensating effect, boosting shadows and holding highlights in check.
Regards, John.
nightfly
Well-known
jja said:
Thanks. It's Serra at the Dia Beacon, where technically you are not allowed to photograph but no one was around and I had my Mamiya 6.
That shot was on 120 film and I think I just did HC 110 1:31 for 7.5 minutes.
Generally I use HC 110 at 1:50 for 7.5 minutes for all my 35mm stuff on Fuji Neopan 400 or Tri-X. I used them pretty interchangeably.
I have a big inkjet of that shot using black only printing on my Epson 1280 and it looks really, really nice. It's what sold me on black only printing but truthfully I think it's just that 120 film has so much more tonally than 35mm.
thelovecollect
Established
i like hc-110, it's easy to mix...
but i always blow highlights with slow film like plus-x...
but i always blow highlights with slow film like plus-x...
Similar threads
