Not a HC-110 virgin anymore and some thoughts

[Ronald_H]

Hi all,

Long ago (well, about 8 monts), I started developing my own. Used Diafine and Tri-X for my high contrast concert work. Golden combination.

But alas, Diafine isn't the best solution for slower speed films and flat lighting. So I decided to give HC-110 a try, mostly because it is a well known and understood developer that keeps for a long time in concentrated form.

I mixed solution B directly from concentrate, figured out the times and developed. Negs and scans came out very nicely, albeit quite a bit more contrasty than I am used to. But everything could be brought into pleasant tonality with a bit of massaging in Photoshop.

Frankly, I introduced too many new variables for my first roll in HC-110 (new developer, film, camera and lens), so I cannot tell yet how it will work out in the long run.

But with Delta 100 negs were contrasty, with quite bright highlights. That gave my Nikon Coolscan V a bit of trouble, although there is still detail there. I dind't feel the negs were particularly overexposed. Maybe this is because I am used to Diafine, which is a compensating developer? Would HC-110 in more diluted from have more of a compensating effect? Will be fun to find out. I'm also going to try pushing HP5+ a bit and see how that works.

My usual slow film is Ilford FP4+ so I am looking forward to try that as well, and compare it to Delta 100. Although I am quite pleased with the first results, some of the scans almost looked digital to me, emphatically not what I want from analogue B/W!

 

[javimm]

I mainly use HP5+ now, and have always developed with HC-110 dil B. HC-110 varies contrast a lot with the agitation scheme you use. When I was using TRI-X shot a 400 ASA, the best results where developing for 5:45 to 6 min and 4 inversions (or inversions during 10 seconds) every 1:30 min, if I remember correctly. I started using 6:30 and 10 secs agitation and they were a bit contrasty.

I now use HP5+ as I said, and use the Ilford times and agitation method; 5 min, agitation for 10 seconds every minute, and the negatives look good to me, and scan well. A bit grainy, but that's expected and gives character. I like HP5+ more than Tri-x, less contrast, and a bit better shadow detail, no so dense highlights.

I once developed a roll of FP4, and the results were good, but I read somewhere that there are better developers for a slow film. As I only use HC-110, that's what I'll be using for everything, anyway. Keeps forever and that's what I need as I only develop a 2-4 rolls a month.

Hope that helps.

Cheers.

EDITED TO ADD: More dilution with HC-110 gives a bit more grain, but more control over shadows. I once tried dil H, and prefer dil B, for a bit less grain.

 

[charjohncarter]

I find the dilution H give me more control over contrast just because little mistakes in agitation and time are diminished. But it is a hassle to develop for twice as long. And to your second point here is Ansel Adams compensating development using HC-110h with TriX, but I'm sure it could be used on any film:

ANSEL ADAMS: HC-110 1:119,18-20 minutes, 68 F, 30 pre-soak, 1 minute agitation to start, then 15 seconds every 3-4 minutes (compensating development)

 

[mr_phillip]

HC-110 and FP4 isn't the happiest of combos in my experience, but HP5 and Tri-X are great in it (as is Acros BTW).

Remember too that, unlike Diafine, the development times on the box are only a suggested starting point - everyone's technique and equipment are different so it'll take you a little time to find your own best dev times. Try adjusting times downwards in 30 second chunks if you feel the highlights are coming out a little hot.

You've probably seen it already, but the Covington site is a great source of HC-110 info.

Oh yeah, and I'll second what javimm said. Dilution H does give some compensation effect, but it also increases visible grain somewhat. I only tend to use that dilution now with Pan-F, but that's mostly to help extend out the development time to something more comfortable.

 

[Ronald_H]

Yep, the Covington site gave me everything I wanted to know. I agree that I have to fine tune somewhat, but the exposure/development combo seems pretty spot on. I'll experiment further, no doubt.

This was from the first HC-110 roll. Ilford Delta 100 in HC-110, dilution B for 6.5 minutes (19 degrees Celsius). 30 seconds agitation at first, two inversions for every 30 seconds thereafter. FED5 with CV 25mm snapshot Skopar. Shot from a tripod with a cable release, about 15 seconds exposure at f8.

 

[mfogiel]

To reduce contrast, you can do 2 things: increase the dilution, but this may come at the expense of tonality, or, foremost, cut the development time (and reduce somewhat the agitation). If your negs are too contrasty, try to scan as positive (slide film), that normally takes care of the dense highlights.

 

[oscroft]

I find the dilution H give me more control over contrast just because little mistakes in agitation and time are diminished.

I agree. For bright light or contrasty conditions, I'll use dil-H and will control the contrast using agitation - up to semi-stand development.

And if contrast is looking too great when shooting, it can be very effective to downrate the film (eg Tri-X at 200) and adjust the dil-H development accordingly.

 

[Al Kaplan]

You're making the classic mistake most all of us made in the beginning. We want to try ALL of the available films and see what they look like in every developer made using every possible dilution and agitation regiman. All you'll do is get confused, perhaps fill a notebook or two with notes, and when you do luck out and get some great negatives you'll have no idea how it happened. Instead, buy a "brick" (a brick is slang for twenty rolls). Choose either Tri-X or HP5. Stick ALL your other film in the freezer until next year. Now pick ONE developer and ONE dilution. I like D-76 1:1 but with HC-110 start, and STAY WITH, 1:31 until next year or beyond.

The standard classic agitation is 30 seconds of gentle continuous agitation when you first pour in the developer followed by 5 seconds of agitation every 30 seconds until the time is up. DO IT. It works just fine. Try to standardize on a temperature. I'm here in subtropical Miami, Florida and I use 75f but when I lived in Boston 68 degrees made more sense.

With all of that under control you still have several variables to contend with. One is the film speed rating, such as exposing Tri-X at ISO 250, 320, 400, 500, or perhaps even 640. To start, you might want to down rate the film to 250. Now all you need to do is find out how much developing time gives you the best negative. Even that might vary, depending on the lighting, the subject itself, how you make your meter reading, and how accurate your shutter speeds are. By the time you've shot, developed, and printed the twentieth roll you should be pumping out some pretty damned good negatives. Time to buy another brick and more developer. Time to ask yourself if you want to give up getting consistantly great negatives for the cheap thrill of some strange new film in a different soup? "If it ain't broke don't fix it!" Go out and shoot some great photographs. That's what it's really all about, isn't it?

 

[charjohncarter]

By the way, Ansel Adams HC-110 compensation does work, here it is using my own modifications with Tmax100 at 50:

 

[Ronald_H]

You're making the classic mistake most all of us made in the beginning. We want to try ALL of the available films and see what they look like in every developer made using every possible dilution and agitation regiman. All you'll do is get confused, perhaps fill a notebook or two with notes, and when you do luck out and get some great negatives you'll have no idea how it happened. Instead, buy a "brick" (a brick is slang for twenty rolls). Choose either Tri-X or HP5. Stick ALL your other film in the freezer until next year. Now pick ONE developer and ONE dilution. I like D-76 1:1 but with HC-110 start, and STAY WITH, 1:31 until next year or beyond.

The standard classic agitation is 30 seconds of gentle continuous agitation when you first pour in the developer followed by 5 seconds of agitation every 30 seconds until the time is up. DO IT. It works just fine. Try to standardize on a temperature. I'm here in subtropical Miami, Florida and I use 75f but when I lived in Boston 68 degrees made more sense.

With all of that under control you still have several variables to contend with. One is the film speed rating, such as exposing Tri-X at ISO 250, 320, 400, 500, or perhaps even 640. To start, you might want to down rate the film to 250. Now all you need to do is find out how much developing time gives you the best negative. Even that might vary, depending on the lighting, the subject itself, how you make your meter reading, and how accurate your shutter speeds are. By the time you've shot, developed, and printed the twentieth roll you should be pumping out some pretty damned good negatives. Time to buy another brick and more developer. Time to ask yourself if you want to give up getting consistantly great negatives for the cheap thrill of some strange new film in a different soup? "If it ain't broke don't fix it!" Go out and shoot some great photographs. That's what it's really all about, isn't it?

With all due respect, I will decide myself what I want to do with B/W photography. I do know how to agitate, and I also know what a brick is 🙄 I have been doing 'serious' photography for more than 10 years, and even as a 100% amateur have been published every now and then in artwork, local newspapers and on websites. I think I know what I'm doing here, even if I have a lot to learn.

B/W is my break from digital. I do a decent amount of concert photography. So after doing my homework I settled down on Diafine and my first brick of Tri-X. Even my first dusty and stained roll was infinitely better than what the lab used to do for me. So I persevered.

After many rolls with varying success, I now want to get the best out of my favourite slower film. Homework again. For my volume and purposes HC-110 seemed a good choice. I say seemed, because I developed only one roll in it yet. It just so happened that I had a single roll of Delta 100 in my cam. Surprisingly, I will focus my attention on FP4+ now. Some people already have stated that they don't like the HC-110 / FP4+ combo. But I don't know yet if I agree with them. But I will know soon.

In a few months I expect myself to get a simple MF camera and a few months after that, maybe build a darkroom. Several people have offered me one for free. And why? Because it's FUN. And I don't really care about anything else.

 

[mr_phillip]

Because it's FUN. And I don't really care about anything else.

Well said.

And I'll be really interested to see how you get on with the FP4/HC-110 combo. - it might not work for me, but that's no assurance that it won't work for you. Just as, whenever I've tried developing Tri-X in Rodinal I've hated the results, yet some of my favourite pictures from other people have been made with that exact same combination. Like I said earlier, everyone's equipment, technique and style is different.

 

[Matt(1pt4)]

I've given HC 110 a try a couple of times over the years, at various dilutions with a wide variety of films. The higher cocentrations always seemed a bit too high contrast, the lower dilutions a bit too grainy. I think alot of people forget that Adams made HC110 famous in combination with much biggee negs. It seems less than ideal fo 35 mm.

You might try some of that FP4 in Xtol 1+1.

M6TTL 50 Hex FP4@200 Xtol 1+1

 

[slm]

My last three photos (linked below) in my gallery are Ilford FP4 in HC110 dil. B, for 9mins at 20C
I recently tried stand development in Rodinal at 1:120 for 1 hour (with pointers from Matt 1pt4, cheers !), but was surprised by low contrast. I think I prefer the HC110 for now, but I'm not done with rodinal experimenting.

Window Arches

Fountain

Vine on wall

 

[charjohncarter]

http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?w=49958431@N00&q=HC-110+fp4&m=pool

http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?w=49958431@N00&q=delta100+HC-110&m=pool

Here are some examples of FP4 and Delta in HC-110. Good luck with it, I really don't think that grain will be a problem with these films. I use HC-110h with TMax100 and it is very creamy. If HC-110 has a failing for me it isn't grain, it is softly sharp.

 

[karthiks]

I find the dilution H give me more control over contrast just because little mistakes in agitation and time are diminished. But it is a hassle to develop for twice as long. And to your second point here is Ansel Adams compensating development using HC-110h with TriX, but I'm sure it could be used on any film:

ANSEL ADAMS: HC-110 1:119,18-20 minutes, 68 F, 30 pre-soak, 1 minute agitation to start, then 15 seconds every 3-4 minutes (compensating development)

At the risk of appearing a bit dense here, what exactly does 30 pre soak mean? and is this for Tri X 400? A bit of a newbie in film photography and trying to get the best out of my TriX 400. 🙂

Thanks

 

[wray]

Ansel Adams used Tri-X 320 not 400 ISO, by the by!

 

[charjohncarter]

Ansel was, I think (I don't have the book handy), talking about Trix, and the 30 pre-soak refers to: 30 seconds of development temperature water poured into the tank prior to development. That means pour out the water after 30 seconds and then pour in your developer, continue as normal.

 

[karthiks]

Ansel Adams used Tri-X 320 not 400 ISO, by the by!

Would that make much of a difference? From what I can read, one stop push doesn't require you to change any timings. And this is between 320 or 400. 🙁

Ansel was, I think (I don't have the book handy), talking about Trix, and the 30 pre-soak refers to: 30 seconds of development temperature water poured into the tank prior to development. That means pour out the water after 30 seconds and then pour in your developer, continue as normal.

I suppose the water is to wash off the base a bit? Its a lovely purple 😀 Have you tried to develop the new 400Tx using Ansel's method?

 

[wray]

The dev times for the two emulsions are different. With HC110 dil B at 68º F there is a minute's difference in dev time between Tri-X 320 and 400. You just can't use Ansel's time recommendations for Tri-X 400 since he used 320. That's all I was saying!🙂

 

[vieri]

...

I suppose the water is to wash off the base a bit? Its a lovely purple 😀 Have you tried to develop the new 400Tx using Ansel's method?

The wash was used with older (thicker) emulsions to facilitate the developer's absorption into the emulsion itself; I am not sure it helps any in washing the purple off the base having it done before developing, but surely a good thorough wash helps cleaning the base a bit after developing. 😀 With newer, thinner emulsions, most feel that a pre-wash is not as necessary if at all.