BrianPhotog
Well-known
I typically do...did...PanF in DD-X, but that is not an option anymore SO what's the best developer and dil+time (fine grain and maybe a little accuance...neutral contrast) out of HC-110 and Rodinal?
I have some T-Max developer, too (I use it for pushing film).
Suggestions?
I have some T-Max developer, too (I use it for pushing film).
Suggestions?
EmilGil
Well-known
You'll definitely get more accutance from Rodinal than HC110 but I don't know how the combo PanF+Rodinal works. IIRC it's a pretty good one but I have yet to try it myself.
For dev.times and dilutions, check the Massive Devchart.
For dev.times and dilutions, check the Massive Devchart.
wintoid
Back to film
PanF and Rodinal are very nice. I took this with that combo:
peterc
Heretic
It's been about 20 years since I used Pan F, but of the available choices, I'll add a vote for Rodinal.
If you can find some Perceptol use that.
Peter
If you can find some Perceptol use that.
Peter
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Somebody recently posted a set of PanF+ in HC110 that were really smooth and nice. I'll see if I can find.
Jerevan
Recycled User
I am only familiar doing Pan F+ with Rodinal 1:50 for 11 minutes (the standard time Ilford gives). Looks fine to me, with my equipment.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I could easily live with anything mentioned here. Rodinal has its charms esp. with a fine-grain film like Pan F+. But Ilford positions DD-X as an equivalent for T-Max developer, so if you like the DD-X results you may find the substitution to be "plug-n-play".
R
ray_g
Guest
I tried PanF with Rodinal recently and was very pleased with the result.
Here was that recent thread:
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37500
Here was that recent thread:
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37500
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Another vote for Rodinal. If you bother to shoot with a fine-grain film like Pan F, then go for acutance with the development. Rodinal isn't super high in terms of that, but it's higher than the others.
DDX is relatively fine grain with the added speed of phenidone as the main developing agent. But it should not be very high acutance.
allan
DDX is relatively fine grain with the added speed of phenidone as the main developing agent. But it should not be very high acutance.
allan
BrianPhotog
Well-known
So a high dilution (like 1+63) of HC-110 won't give a little acutance?kaiyen said:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Yes, it will give some acutance; Allan is more knowledgeable in this regard. I never found HC-110 acutance to be so much "worse" than Rodinal to worry about , unless we're talking about very large prints.
So the HC-110 1+63 would be a good choice, IMO; 1+100 might be interesting, but I don't know times. GeneW and others use that dilution for Tri-X and Neopan work, but I don't recall seeing any Pan F+ at that dilution. I use Rodinal @ 1:100 for all films rated at my normal EI, and use 1:50 for push processing. If I were to use HC-110 again, I would work with the 1:100 dilution simply because it's easier to measure and I like the results I've seen.
Earl
So the HC-110 1+63 would be a good choice, IMO; 1+100 might be interesting, but I don't know times. GeneW and others use that dilution for Tri-X and Neopan work, but I don't recall seeing any Pan F+ at that dilution. I use Rodinal @ 1:100 for all films rated at my normal EI, and use 1:50 for push processing. If I were to use HC-110 again, I would work with the 1:100 dilution simply because it's easier to measure and I like the results I've seen.
Earl
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Grain is a no-issue with PanF so I'l vote for the Rodinal. 1+50 or 1+100
However you may get "creamier" tones with HC-110
However you may get "creamier" tones with HC-110
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I apologize that I didn't address HC-110. I don't use it, so didn't mention it. I didn't, however, mean to imply anything about it by not mentioning it. Okay, I just ran a circle around myself 
HC-110 is an acutance developer. I don't know where it rates re: Rodinal, but you'll get acutance, and one of the reasons why that particular dilution is popular is that, with decreased agitation and extended development times, you get very nice compensation.
In fact, many of the comments made about Rodinal in terms of acutance, compensation, stand development and edge effects also apply to HC-110, it seems. I just don't know whether it's got more or less acutance. Both are excellent all-around acutance developers, that give sharpness without going hog-wild with grain (not that you have to go wild with grain with high acutance - pyro devs being the counter example there).
allan
HC-110 is an acutance developer. I don't know where it rates re: Rodinal, but you'll get acutance, and one of the reasons why that particular dilution is popular is that, with decreased agitation and extended development times, you get very nice compensation.
In fact, many of the comments made about Rodinal in terms of acutance, compensation, stand development and edge effects also apply to HC-110, it seems. I just don't know whether it's got more or less acutance. Both are excellent all-around acutance developers, that give sharpness without going hog-wild with grain (not that you have to go wild with grain with high acutance - pyro devs being the counter example there).
allan
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
One of the things I like about HC-110, Rodinal or other developers that are used at high dilution rate is just that ... they are compensating and develop to exhaustion. If exposure was correct, then I don't have to worry about blown highlights and can pretty well count on good tonal scale. The downside is that if a roll contains shots in really flat lighting and/or low contrast subject, those negs are low contrast and need more work. That's the price of using roll film.