HC-110 or Rodinal for contrast?

[erikhaugsby]

I don't want to start a flame war, but...

My local camera shop has 4 500mL bottles of Agfa Rodinal left for a parsly $9.89 apice, and they have plenty of HC-110 stocked at $12.99 a bottle (concentrate apparently makes 2 gallons, didn't bother to see what dillution they use.)

My question to you: What developer would you prefer if you are interested in contrast more than anything else (fine grain, resolution...)? I am leaning towards the HC-110 purely because I know that it isn't discontinued at the moment, but I have little other information to base a decision on.

For the record, I usually use FP4 @125 and Tri-X at ISO400, sometimes 800


Thanks,
Erik

 

[ben lloyd]

Are you looking for high contrast? dev for longer in either...

I find Rodinal kills shadow detail, I rate FP4 at 64 in Rodinal 1:50, and would probably go EI 50 or lower if I used 1:25. I likr the look though.

Also, Rodinal is being maunfactured again, I suspect this is what you have seen. Though I can't remember the differences in the new labels...

 

[nightfly]

I use both developers for both films and I think that there is indeed a difference.

For me Tri-X at 1:50 in Rodinal isn't contrasty enough. It seems to really bring out the mid-tones think of Selgado's work with the really rich grey mid-tones. If I'm scanning I can always adjust this but I find that I like the negatives better in HC-110 for this reason.

Using Rodinal at 1:25 for Tri-X makes it more contrasty but also more grainy. For really high contrast like the kind seen in Ralph Gibson's work, Tri-X in Rodinal developed for 11 minutes rather than the usual 7 will give you very dense, very contrasty and very grainy negatives. It works for him. I find that it's not suited for general photography but can work on the right subjects.

Since the revamp of Tri-X where they changed the recommended times of HC-110 Dilution B (1:31) to under 5 minutes, I've been using HC-110 at 1:50 (from concentrate, I never make a stock soluiton as the directions say to). I end up with contrasty but not overly contrasty negatives that both scan and print well. I recently switched back to this after a Rodinal phase.

Conversly, with FP4, I find that HC-110 makes it look overly contrasty with no midtones. So I use Rodinal at 1:50 for FP4 and get much nicer, more balanced tones.

Take it for what it's worth. It might due to my own idiosyncracies but I've spent a lot of time with both film and both developers trying to find what works for me. Your milage may vary.

 

[rich815]

I'd say buy either and develop for the contrast you want.

 

[Trius]

In general I agree with nightfly. IMO the primary strength of Rodinal is in its compensating action and high acutance at higher dilutions. At 1:25 it is more muscular, but acutance is not nearly as good, so there is more apparent grain. HC-110 also give good acutance and microcontrast, but can be more muscular without giving the appearance of grain at lower dilutions. Hope this makes sense. I haven't made direct controlled tests for a long time, so my opinion is worth what you're paying for it.

All that said, I love Rodinal.

 

[wintoid]

I'm using HC110 a lot now, and I've found that it gives extremely dark shadows with Neopan 400 especially and also TriX. Very black blacks, very contrasty. I use it mostly with HP5, which tames the contrast somewhat, and seems to be a great combination to me.

I like and use Rodinal too, but these days I just save it for PanFPlus.

 

[plexi]

I'm using HC110 a lot now, and I've found that it gives extremely dark shadows with Neopan 400 especially and also TriX. Very black blacks, very contrasty.

That means that you develop too long and probably rate your film at a too high ISO.

 

[wintoid]

I'm talking about Neopan 400 @ 400. No pushing. In fact I simply steer clear of that film now. Hp5 gives me everything I need and more.

You could be right though. I didn't try reducing development time.