hc-110 dil h

B

bukaj

Established
Local time
2:59 PM
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
118
I started using dilution h as so many have raved about it. But I just spent some time searching, and can't find concrete reasons for why it's so much better than b, other than the time issue. I've got some delta 3200 to develop, and wonder if it's worth developing for nearly half an hour or if I should just still with dil B.

-jakub
 
I never used dilution H, but I don't see an advantage to it. It won't save much chemicals either. Because I've heard you need at least 19ml concentrate per roll of film.
 
I used to develop with dil H because I want to save on chemical cost. After a while I find it useless though because of the longer time makes it harder to control temperature (I live in a tropical climate, so 20 degrees is considered cold). I don't see the advantage in image quality too againts dil B.
 
I have used HC-110 Dilution H as my standard for 10+ years. The advantage to me is the longer developing time dampens out the impact of the pour-in / pour-out times between 2 reel and 5 reel tanks.

I occasionally use Dil. B when in a hurry. I cannot see any real difference in the final negs. Cost saving is not a factor as HC-110 is so cheap that we are talking about pennies.

Consistency is important for me. I picked a standard and it was dilution H. It always works, so no need to consider anything else.

Edit: I don't worry about controlling temperature. I know my 20 degree developer warms a little during the developing time. But that warming is consistent so it is automatically compensated in the times I use.
 
Last edited:
Bob Michaels said:
I have used HC-110 Dilution H as my standard for 10+ years. The advantage to me is the longer developing time dampens out the impact of the pour-in / pour-out times between 2 reel and 5 reel tanks.

I occasionally use Dil. B when in a hurry. I cannot see any real difference in the final negs. Cost saving is not a factor as HC-110 is so cheap that we are talking about pennies.

Consistency is important for me. I picked a standard and it was dilution H. It always works, so no need to consider anything else.

Edit: I don't worry about controlling temperature. I know my 20 degree developer warms a little during the developing time. But that warming is consistent so it is automatically compensated in the times I use.
Click to expand...

Bob sums it up nicely. Dil h lets you control the time much more accurately. It is not necessarily better- just more flexible.

Using 6ml of concentrate per roll is well in the safety zone.
 
Double Negative said:
Just don't do what I did - think you're mixing up a batch of H and instead make B... Yet develop it for the H time. Talk about dense negatives and golfball grain! I kind of liked the effect though. ;)
Click to expand...

We all make mistakes ;)
You could try to save your negatives with 'farmers reducer'.
 
I just wanted to add one to what all others have pointed out:
For some films the time required for Dil B is just too short and will leave you in a scurry mode. I recently tried an Arista EDU Ultra 200 and the dil B time specified was 3.5 mins, which made me uncomfortable. I tried dil H at 7 minutes and got some very nice results.
 
Double Negative said:
Just don't do what I did - think you're mixing up a batch of H and instead make B... Yet develop it for the H time. Talk about dense negatives and golfball grain! I kind of liked the effect though. ;)
Click to expand...

Another good reason to use one developer, one dilution consistently.

I always mix .5 oz. developer with 32 oz. of water for a 2 reel tank and 1 oz. of developer with 64 oz. for a 5 reel tank.

Yes, I always pour about 10 oz. of unused developer down the drain as I always fill the tank to exactly the same level in the spout. It probably costs me an extra $1 each year. A very cheap price for accurate and consistent developing.
 
Jakub,

as Bob Michaels pointed out, many use Dil H. in order to avoid development times around the 5 minute mark (think Hp5/Tri-X @400). Also, some feel that for pictures taken in contrasty light, Dil. H. is better suited to "pull" the film, and will have a better compensating effect than Dil. B.

How did you expose your Delta 3200, and in what kind of light? If you exposed it at 1200/1600/3200 etc., I would go for Dil. B. , since the film is more or less underexposed.

You can also feel free to make up your own dilution, say 1:50, or anything that is a good fit to the size of your developing tank.

All the best, Ljós


bukaj said:
I started using dilution h as so many have raved about it. But I just spent some time searching, and can't find concrete reasons for why it's so much better than b, other than the time issue. I've got some delta 3200 to develop, and wonder if it's worth developing for nearly half an hour or if I should just still with dil B.

-jakub
Click to expand...
 
No idea why you would use HC110 with delta 3200. I tested with 1+49 which is essentially dilution E and the speed I got was around EI800. With dilution H you will get less speed, and a longer shallower toe meaning little shadow separation. But if thats what you want then go ahead.
And with dilution A (1+15 from syrup) I got a speed of only around EI 1250.

If you are looking for real additional film speed then Ilford DD-X or Microphen is a better option with D3200.
For EI 1600 use DD-X 1+4 for 18mins @ 20deg C.
For EI 3200 use Microphen stock(no added water) for 9 mins @ 20degC (this gives much more grainy result than DD-X at EI 1600.
 
Thanks all. This is pretty much what I summed up from my searches, but I thought I read once of all these advantages of a higher dilution. Bob, you make a good point about consistency. I use dil H for 400 speed films @400 because of the time issue, but when pushing it does get a little tiring doing half hour dev times, which really made me start questioning why I'm doing this.

-jakub
 
tlitody said:
No idea why you would use HC110 with delta 3200. I tested with 1+49 which is essentially dilution E and the speed I got was around EI800. With dilution H you will get less speed, and a longer shallower toe meaning little shadow separation. But if thats what you want then go ahead.
And with dilution A (1+15 from syrup) I got a speed of only around EI 1250.

If you are looking for real additional film speed then Ilford DD-X or Microphen is a better option with D3200.
For EI 1600 use DD-X 1+4 for 18mins @ 20deg C.
For EI 3200 use Microphen stock(no added water) for 9 mins @ 20degC (this gives much more grainy result than DD-X at EI 1600.
Click to expand...


I use Dilution H, but I use it because of the ease in my case. HC-110 does loss film speed so if you properly compensate for the long toe that box speed provides or with other developers pushed speeds; you have to move the EI speed slower to move Zone III up the H-D curve. Then there is plenty of shadow detail.

Noon, TriX, HC-110h, almost white walls, almost black door at Mission Sonoma, CA;

2944251713_713fac3dcd.jpg
 
I'm just assuming OP is looking for some real extra speed by using D3200. If EI 800 is all he wants then pushing any 400 speed film will get you there with much finer grain. But without knowing exactly what the aim is, then it's hard to say which is best option.
 
I'm using HC-110 because it's what I'm familiar with and what is available to me. I develop and print at a public lab, so using anything than HC-110 or F76 (what's available) would be a huge hassle.

My aim is to get a fair amount of grain in 120 as I posted in another thread. I had good results exposing tri-x at 400 and developing at 1600 so I want to try the same thing with delta 3200 exposing at 800 and 1600 and developing at 3200. Was planning on use 14.5min for dil B which is recommended by ilford and some others I've seen from searching.
 
Ah well, as I posted in other thread Microphen or rodianl will give you the grain you are after.
But if you only have HC110 then 1+49 from syrup (not stock) for 14 minutes @ 20deg C will give around EI 800. I haven't tried dilution H but 1+49 is not hugely different.

I would also suggest trying 135 film and not 120 as the grain will become more apparent from 135 format on the same size print.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom