Having the weirdest problem with HC-110

S

streethassle

Newbie
Local time
3:39 PM
Joined
Apr 19, 2022
Messages
5
I developed Tri-X for several years using HC-110 Dilution B following Mass Dev's guideline of 6 minutes and had great results every single time. I also got good negatives when developing it at 1600 at 16 minutes. When Kodak raised their price astronomically I decided to switch to hp5. When I push the hp5 to 1600 and follow Mass Dev's time of 11 minutes, I get good negatives. But for some reason, when I shoot hp5 at box speed following Mass Dev's time of 5 minutes, the negatives look terrible. They're super flat and shitty looking. I tried increasing the time to 6:30 but even that doesn't quite do it.. Tri-X looks way way better.

With both Tri-X and hp5, I've always agitated the whole first minute, and then the first 10 seconds of every following minute..

I am exposing all my negatives properly so that isn't the problem. Has anyone else experienced this? You think Ilfotec DD-X is worth a try??

SOS

Thanks
 
Give stand a try with HC-110. 100:1 for 60 minutes with 4 inversions at start and at 30 minutes. Only shot a few rolls of HP5 but I like how stand worked with it. I develop pretty much all my B&W this way now and it even works mixing different emulsions.

Shawn
 
I have never been a fan of phenidone based developers (HC-110, FX39, Xtol). At least that is the particular ingredient I blame. My experience with those developers mirrors what you said about HP5 (I never tried pushing with them). I much prefer traditional metol-hyrdroquinone based developers. And Rodinal. Though I don't think HP5 in Rodinal will be what you're looking for. I would try D-76 or D-72. It's hard to go wrong with either of those two.

Addendum: I just looked up Ilfotec and it is also a phenidone-Hydroquinone developer. I wouldn't expect much different from it than HC-110.
 
Kodak reformulated HC-110 a while back, its not the same developer that you used for so many years. That's why your results don't look right.

DDX is good developer but if you want the same look you got with the old HC-110, buy a bottle of Ilfotech HC. It is ilford's clone of HC-110 and is the same as the original HC-110.
 
Are you sure your thermometer works well? My standard way of working with HP5+ and HC110 is the following

--------------------------------
HP5+ at 400 ISO in HC-110

Dilution 1:50. (6ml developer in 294ml of water)
Overall time: 8mins 00 sec,
Chemicals temperature: 20oc
30sec continuous initial agitation.
1 invertion every minute
----------------------------------

Some samples of taken with HP5 and developed this way:

Scan12076.JPG


Scan12089.JPG


51394348915_3a1f6afd01_o.jpg
 
Just develop longer! 30 seconds more isn't much. The massive development chart is uncurated and might have crappy info even without a change in formulations, which has occurred with hc110 as Chris mentions above. Follow official information from the manufacturers. That being said, I see a lot of flat looking stuff from hp5+ on the internet, which has dissuaded me from using it. But this can be remedied by longer development, if necessary with reduced exposure, as you've seen with your pushed roll.
 
Your procedure seems accurate to me, per my experience and the HP5+ datasheet. Are you sure your ratio, measurement, and temperature are correct? I ask because you are agitating more than Ilford recommends, yet getting flat results.

Maybe try dilution H or Pan's formula above to give yourself more tolerance. Five min. is right at the minimum recommended time. I occasionally use B with fine results but am more comfortable and consistent with H.

John
 
I use the 1+47 dilution at 7m30s and results are good. 30s agitation + 2 inversions every 30s. I have the off-brand LegacyPro version. From last week. I developed 6m because I overexposed. HP5+ 120.

Toronto beach by Olivier, on Flickr
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Kodak reformulated HC-110 a while back, its not the same developer that you used for so many years. That's why your results don't look right.

DDX is good developer but if you want the same look you got with the old HC-110, buy a bottle of Ilfotech HC. It is ilford's clone of HC-110 and is the same as the original HC-110.
Click to expand...

I've used the new formula HC-110 for Tri-X at multiple speeds and Delta 3200 with perfect results, so that isn't it unfortunately
 
p.giannakis said:
Are you sure your thermometer works well? My standard way of working with HP5+ and HC110 is the following

--------------------------------
HP5+ at 400 ISO in HC-110

Dilution 1:50. (6ml developer in 294ml of water)
Overall time: 8mins 00 sec,
Chemicals temperature: 20oc
30sec continuous initial agitation.
1 invertion every minute
----------------------------------

Some samples of taken with HP5 and developed this way:

Scan12076.JPG


Scan12089.JPG


51394348915_3a1f6afd01_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Those scans look nice! Afaik the thermometer works fine. I haven't had any problems with anything up until switching film stocks a month ago or so. Maybe I should try that dilution but a higher dilution usually means less contrast, right?

I'm at 1:31 with is 10ml developer and 310 water which I'm pretty sure is right?
 
retinax said:
Just develop longer! 30 seconds more isn't much. The massive development chart is uncurated and might have crappy info even without a change in formulations, which has occurred with hc110 as Chris mentions above. Follow official information from the manufacturers. That being said, I see a lot of flat looking stuff from hp5+ on the internet, which has dissuaded me from using it. But this can be remedied by longer development, if necessary with reduced exposure, as you've seen with your pushed roll.
Click to expand...

Well the recommended time from both Mass Dev AND Ilford is 5 minutes and I tried increasing the time an entire minute and a half which didn't yield great results.. I might try to bump it to 7 and a half minutes but it just seems odd since other folks are getting contrasty, usable negatives at 5 minutes... hmmm
 
bluesun267 said:
I have never been a fan of phenidone based developers (HC-110, FX39, Xtol). At least that is the particular ingredient I blame. My experience with those developers mirrors what you said about HP5 (I never tried pushing with them). I much prefer traditional metol-hyrdroquinone based developers. And Rodinal. Though I don't think HP5 in Rodinal will be what you're looking for. I would try D-76 or D-72. It's hard to go wrong with either of those two.

Addendum: I just looked up Ilfotec and it is also a phenidone-Hydroquinone developer. I wouldn't expect much different from it than HC-110.
Click to expand...

I'm buying some d-76 right now from b&h. I think I'll try 1:1 with it. Sucks because I just got a new bottle of HC-110 not too long ago and already dumped them into several glass airtight bottles but at least the d-76 is only $10 for a gallon. Plus the HC-110 will keep a loooong time and I know it works for hp5 pushed and Delta 3200..
 
streethassle said:
I'm buying some d-76 right now from b&h. I think I'll try 1:1 with it. Sucks because I just got a new bottle of HC-110 not too long ago and already dumped them into several glass airtight bottles but at least the d-76 is only $10 for a gallon. Plus the HC-110 will keep a loooong time and I know it works for hp5 pushed and Delta 3200..
Click to expand...

Serious photographers should have at least 3 different developers on hand at any given moment :rolleyes:
 
I've had similar problems with HC-110 and HP5. Flat negatives, lacking contrast. Nothing that can't be fixed in post when scanning, but I'd prefer to get good results right away. I also wondered why others seem to be getting great results with the same setup. Is it possible that it's the tap water? I know we have very hard water with high mineral content where I live. Is that something that could impair the development for a given film/dev combo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom