HC-110 (new formula)

B

bert26

-
Local time
11:02 AM
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
161
Hi guys,

When using Kodak HC-110 (new formula) at 1+31, development time is either 6:00 or 7:30 when doing Tri-X at box speed. This is according to the Massive Dev app and I believe 6:00 is for the new formula. I did a couple rolls tonight @ 6:00 and they came out fine, just wondering what others are doing.

I’m gonna process some Tri-X at 1600 tomorrow and what confuses me is that on Massive Dev, there is only one developing time present and that is 16:00. So why are there two separate development times for 400, but only one for 1600? Wouldn’t the old formula and new formula have different development times for the same film stock pushed a couple stops?

Oh and do you recommend 1+31 or 1+15 and why? Thanks!
 
Woah thanks, good to know. Looks like my Tri-X at box speed should’ve been developed for 3:45 instead of 6:00. And maybe I’m looking at the chart wrong but wouldn’t it be 6:00 for 1600 @ 20C? My bottle of HC-110 doesn’t say “solution B” but it reads “new formula” which is the same thing yeah?
 
bert26 said:
Woah thanks, good to know. Looks like my Tri-X at box speed should’ve been developed for 3:45 instead of 6:00. And maybe I’m looking at the chart wrong but wouldn’t it be 6:00 for 1600 @ 20C? My bottle of HC-110 doesn’t say “solution B” but it reads “new formula” which is the same thing yeah?
Click to expand...

Dilution B is 1+31 (developer + water). It has nothing to do with it being the new or the old versions. 3:45 is too short and can lead to uneven development. Try dilution H, 1+63 (developer + water) for 7:30 (i.e. twice the dilution B time).

The new and old HC 110 are substantially chemically different but the new version was formulated for the same dilutions and times and to produce the same tones. The most substantial difference is that the new version uses a different alkali and has chemistry that seems like it might not last as long as concentrate in the bottle.

Marty
 
bert26 said:
Hi guys,

I’m gonna process some Tri-X at 1600 tomorrow and what confuses me is that on Massive Dev, there is only one developing time present and that is 16:00. So why are there two separate development times for 400, but only one for 1600?
Click to expand...

The development time needs to be longer for film exposed at 1600 ISO versus the box speed of 400 ISO. In short, the film was under exposed by two stops.

***********

Now a few words about Kodak's published times for HC-110 Dilution B that I just read on the above .pdf link - it is too short for my use.

For Tri-X exposed at ISO 400 - then 6 minutes in Dilution B sounds correct. An E.I. of ISO 1600 would definitely need to be longer than that, but I'm unsure that 16:00 is correct. I would probably do stand development, if I under exposed Tr-X by two stops.

I use Dilution H, 1+64, with a reduced agitation regime for 11 minutes, 45 seconds for Tr-X exposed at box speed. - Thank you John Carter, where ever you are. -
 
I'm here, you are welcome. Like everybody I'm concerned about times and storage length. What I've read (three sources) have been that the times per dilution are exactly the same. The storage time is for me a wait and see.

I'm glad you like the reduced agitation scheme, but it was adapted by me from the work of D.F. Cardwell.

HC-110h gives great smooth tone with TriX with a slight loss of film speed:

Trix at 200 HC-110h by John Carter, on Flickr

Tmax films too:

Tmax100 HC-110h by John Carter, on Flickr
 
canal%20drain%201%20sm.jpg




I just uncapped my first bottle of HC110 and 1:60 gave good results with 5222. I bought it when news was that the formula was going to change, and can't tell if mine is "old" or "new".
Just noticed the exp is 2019-05 so I suppose it is the old formula.
 
Solinar said:
The development time needs to be longer for film exposed at 1600 ISO versus the box speed of 400 ISO. In short, the film was under exposed by two stops.

***********

Now a few words about Kodak's published times for HC-110 Dilution B that I just read on the above .pdf link - it is too short for my use.

For Tri-X exposed at ISO 400 - then 6 minutes in Dilution B sounds correct. An E.I. of ISO 1600 would definitely need to be longer than that, but I'm unsure that 16:00 is correct. I would probably do stand development, if I under exposed Tr-X by two stops.

I use Dilution H, 1+64, with a reduced agitation regime for 11 minutes, 45 seconds for Tr-X exposed at box speed. - Thank you John Carter, where ever you are. -
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info! Yeah, the 3:45 recommended for Tri-X at 400 made no sense to me whatsoever. 6:00 worked just fine, so 16:00 seems at least like it’s gotta be ballpark for 1600. What makes you choose Dilution H over Dilution B? What’s the main difference? I’m new to this and am using Dilution B simply because that’s what’s my buddy told me to start with.

Am so excited to process a million rolls and start experimenting once I’m comfortable!
 
I use dilution H for no reason (other than a minute with H is a smaller percent of total than a minute with B and total agitation is also effected). I don't fool around with different films anymore, but back in those experimental days I didn't want too short a development time so I settled on H. I'll treat you to D.F. Cardwell's short essay on this minimal method:

You can shape your film's tone curve by balancing exposure and development time with agitation.

Agitation is used to control the highlights of a negative.
More agitation raises the highlight density, less agitation lowers highlight density.

In this system, development time places your shadows. Exposure places your midtones.

It is effective to visualize comparative curves pivoting at Zone V rather than rising out of film base fog as is conventional in various systems. Introducing agitation as the third variable allows us to define any density as a 'speed point'.

This system of exposure and development was common in the early 20th century, and was often referred to as 'standing', or 'minimal', or 'tank ' development. The principle has often been called 'compensation', although I observe that compensation is due less to special properties of developers and due almost entirely to certain films like Tri-X and TMY2 which are designed to hold information when given a great deal of extra exposure.

NB. Standing agitation is a misnomer. Few old timers ever witheld agitation completely over long periods of time, as is often attempted today. The necessity of agitation was well documented and understood. The use in this test of 5 minute resting cycles is safe, in my experience with Rodinal, for 35mm and 120 negatives and steel reels. Some experts limit their cycles to 3 minutes. Little is gained, I have found, by using longer resting cycles while the risk of negative defects are increased.

Rodinal is an excellent developer with this technique. You may use many other developers with this method. Pyrocat, FX2 and dilute XTOL are some of many good choices.

*** I forgot to mention that I needed to move away from contrasty developers like Dektol to print these slightly higher density negatives.

I have withheld the speed rating of the test film. The intent of this short article is simply to illustrate the principle while not introducing yet another 'magic bullet'. It is better to do this work without a densitometer, and judge the results by making contact prints. After all, if you see a difference, there IS a difference. If you are interested in this method, try it out ...find your own way! You are, after all, your own magic.

His method is different than the old expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

With Cardwell you develop for the shadows, expose for Zone V (midtones) and agitate for the highlights. This is helpful when using an in-camera meter or a reflective hand meter.
 
Thankyou John for reprinting Don Cardwell's wisdom. I was thinking of that description a day or so ago, and it was helpful to see it again.
 
Hi John. Ravillious was a true master and his brew of choice was Perceptol 1:2 I believe. He was an early inspiration to me and I also knew a friend who was a Leica dealer and supplied him with camera equipment. He eschewed multi coated lenses and made elaborate lens hoods to eliminate flare. I love the way he was able to keep texture in his highlight tones, and even able to make a simple bowl of sugar look tactile.
 
charjohncarter said:
I use dilution H for no reason (other than a minute with H is a smaller percent of total than a minute with B and total agitation is also effected). I don't fool around with different films anymore, but back in those experimental days I didn't want too short a development time so I settled on H. I'll treat you to D.F. Cardwell's short essay on this minimal method:

You can shape your film's tone curve by balancing exposure and development time with agitation.

Agitation is used to control the highlights of a negative.
More agitation raises the highlight density, less agitation lowers highlight density.

In this system, development time places your shadows. Exposure places your midtones.

It is effective to visualize comparative curves pivoting at Zone V rather than rising out of film base fog as is conventional in various systems. Introducing agitation as the third variable allows us to define any density as a 'speed point'.

This system of exposure and development was common in the early 20th century, and was often referred to as 'standing', or 'minimal', or 'tank ' development. The principle has often been called 'compensation', although I observe that compensation is due less to special properties of developers and due almost entirely to certain films like Tri-X and TMY2 which are designed to hold information when given a great deal of extra exposure.

NB. Standing agitation is a misnomer. Few old timers ever witheld agitation completely over long periods of time, as is often attempted today. The necessity of agitation was well documented and understood. The use in this test of 5 minute resting cycles is safe, in my experience with Rodinal, for 35mm and 120 negatives and steel reels. Some experts limit their cycles to 3 minutes. Little is gained, I have found, by using longer resting cycles while the risk of negative defects are increased.

Rodinal is an excellent developer with this technique. You may use many other developers with this method. Pyrocat, FX2 and dilute XTOL are some of many good choices.

*** I forgot to mention that I needed to move away from contrasty developers like Dektol to print these slightly higher density negatives.

I have withheld the speed rating of the test film. The intent of this short article is simply to illustrate the principle while not introducing yet another 'magic bullet'. It is better to do this work without a densitometer, and judge the results by making contact prints. After all, if you see a difference, there IS a difference. If you are interested in this method, try it out ...find your own way! You are, after all, your own magic.

His method is different than the old expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

With Cardwell you develop for the shadows, expose for Zone V (midtones) and agitate for the highlights. This is helpful when using an in-camera meter or a reflective hand meter.
Click to expand...

What an excellent piece of advice. I now expose solely for Zone V and control highlights through gentle agitation and PMK Pyro in slower films. I may not be doing everything right - guessing what Zone V is for starters! - but I love the results.
 
I don't know what happened to D.F. Cardwell. He was full of good ideas 10 years ago but haven't seen him post on APUG since.

EDIT: you were concerned in the above post about finding Zone V. And I agree; I just don't see it when I looking at a scene. I have been trying to decide for 50+ years. BUT I find that if you have a definite subject in a photo (and you think it may be close to Zone V -or+) use an incident meter.
 
Advice needed. Just cracked open a 1ltr bottle of the new formula. The bottom of the bottle was full of large ice-like crystals. Is this normal? I've had the bottle for a month and it's been stored at the bottom of a dark cupboard.

Edit: I've emailed Freestyle Photo from whence this bottle came.
 
Gads, I just checked, my new bottle has the same. I haven't opened mine either, also a couple of months old. I'm going to try to email Kodak.

Edit: I just sent an email to Alaris, we will see if I get an answer. I'll PM you if I do.

Carter
 
Carter, thanks. The crystals were so large that I couldn't get them out of the bottle and they didn't dissolve when given a good shake. I'm loathed to use this batch; seems like a dud to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom