Start with D-76 or HC-110?

Start with D-76 or HC-110?

  • D-76 stock

    Votes: 4 5.3%

  • D-76 1:1

    Votes: 38 50.0%

  • HC-110 Dilution B (1:31)

    Votes: 13 17.1%

  • HC-110 Dilution H (1:63)

    Votes: 7 9.2%

  • Relax, just pick one

    Votes: 12 15.8%

  • None of the above

    Votes: 2 2.6%
  • Total voters
    76
  • Poll closed .
There is an intentional signature to every developer.

D-76 tends toward a linear tone curve with any film,
and HC-110 tends to give softer shadows and the highlights have more contrast,
regardless of dilution.. a curve like a ski jump.

This makes it easier to get consistent, and easy to print / scan negatives from D-76. The detail in the brights and the darks is easier to retrieve.

At some point you may find you're always trying to perk up the brights of your D-76 negatives. That would be the time to test drive HC-110. It all has to do with your subjects, and your vision. But for now, why not make your development a constant, not a variable, and become boringly successful at the rest of the process ?

(HC110 became famous for studio photographers,and for Ansel Adams, who was ALWAYS trying to add some snap to the highlights... the vast western sky was like a giant softbox !)
 
D-76 1:1 is a great starting point.

It is very flexible and forgiving at the same time. Use as directed for great overall results. Use additional agitation to increase contrast, less agitation to reduce it.

I've experimented a lot in the last few years and still return to the developer I started with over 20 years ago - D-76, 1:1...
 
I picked D76 1:1 but after reading your intentions of shooting HP-5 and wishing to make enlargements (no scanning) Why even think of using Kodak developers. Start with Ilford and stay with it. If you want that "WOW" factor in making enlargements then learn to use Perceptol. You said you have a pretty good working knowledge of how each developer works then don't be afraid. I would start with Ilfotec HC. Kodak hasn't been very loyal to us in discontinued products so why not use Ilford products instead.
 
NB23 said:
Wow! I got a lecture about D76! Incredible! And the lecture was confusing, to say the least... :confused:

HC110 is 100% linear in development times VS dilutions in practice, which makes it a champ in the easiness department. The fact that it can be used as a compensating developer as opposed to D76 also makes it Easier.

I prefer D76 for its rendition but HC110 has its place right next to it.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't ignore emoticons. They are there for a purpose. This was not a lecture at all. >>> :) <<<< You expressed amazement that D76 was being called easy-to-use in this thread, and you were able to state why you thought HC-110 was easy. Allow someone else the same courtesy. I simply offered why I thought D76 is easier, NOTE: I did so without taking any offense to your post.

My explanation was offered, as was yours (I assumed) for the educational purpose of the original poster, who is a beginner, with regards to black and white film processing.

I made no assumption about your abilities. I'm sure it's obvious to everyone in this thread that you're no beginner when it comes to developing black and white film, and that you fully understand the simplicity of D76. Although, I'm now confused as to why you are confused by my "lecture." (making a mental note not to quote you again)

again please note >>>> :) <<<<<



But the original package is powder.
Click to expand...

Which you pour into a quantity of hot water and mix to create a stock solution, very easy to do.

None of this stuff is "difficult," really. If you want to split hairs or degrees of simplicity then do so. Some folks believe that the easiest developer to use is Diafine, and I would agree, trumping both D76 and HC110, but I don't use it.






.
 
For HP-5, D76 1:1 is my favorite based on printable results. I'm using HC-110 alot lately because I'm liking it's compensating effect and the convenience of the liquid right from the beginning. I use it 1:100. Not a tremendous difference in end result for my purposes, but it might be worth your time to try both as neither is overly expensive. That being said... HP-5 and D76 1:1 is hard to beat if you look only at the end product.
 
Wow ! A lot of good information in this thread, so I can only add a little... I started with HC-110 and found it very easy to use, the results were OK. Later, I changed to D-76 in 1:1 and found the neagitves more pleasing. Lately, I use XTOL a lot. The disadvantage is that it has to be mixed in a one gallone amount at once. The advantage is that I can use it for all the films I like, Tri-X, Neopan Super Presto 1600 and sometimes HP-5.
 
I started a friend out developing last year, and the first thing I told her to do was mix a gallon of D76. Then shoot film and develop in small batches until it was gone. Her concern was not so much learning one film/developer combo, but getting the *process* of the developing experience locked down. Now I get questions about mixing chemistry from scratch, and I have to refer her to folks much smarter than myself...

I spent most of the holidays working my way through a gallon of D76 1+1 and the last bit of a bottle of Rodinal left over from my high school days (about 10 years ago). I much prefer mixing the Rodinal, but the D76 results were just as satisfying.
 
I said HC110h, but the answer should be 'Pick one and relax'. You will probably want to eventually (although you said slowly: excellent) try more than one film developer, so it doesn't really matter which one you start with.

D76 is the standard, and for good reason, it balances grain control with sharpness and gives a printable negative in most cases. It is fairly easy to use, however, for home use I prefer not needing to mix powders.

HC110 produces a pronounced grain, dilution h more-so since you keep the film in the developer for a longer period of time. It also produces the best sharpness of the choices you listed. (I should probably add a disclaimer that NB23 turned me on to dilution h, I was a die-hard dil-b user before that.) Make it by syringing 17mL into a liter of water at 20°C, and mix by inversion.

D76 1:1 probably produces the best tonal curve for a correctly exposed negative. When I shoot with any of my older film cameras, I don't always get those kind, so it is less of an advantage. When I shoot with my F5 or N80, my exposure is dead on, so I soup them in (good old) D76 1:1.

However (here it comes) when I want my negatives (ok, I rarely shoot hp5+, more often trix or delta 400) to have a look that is different than anything else I see, I use my own formulation of caffienol.

What's caffienol you ask? I make it with 32 oz of Starbucks house blend coffee, 32 g Arm & Hammer washing soda (not! baking soda.) Mix, and use within 8 hours. I suggest a development time of 30 minutes at 68°F agitating every 3 minutes for 10 seconds for a normal film speed of 400. To shorten the development time by 2/3rds, and increase the contrast, mix in a crushed 400mg vitamin C tablet.
 
Last edited:
It really doesn;t matter which one you pick.
At the beginning os more important you develop consistency in your methods, and get some good pictures.

D76 has been the "standard" after Mees and Co told the world that MQ developers rock!
Yet mixing powders is a pain, shelf life is about 6 months
The good thing is that there's a few CLONES in liquid form you can buy for the first one
and that if you use D76 1+1 or 1+3 it is a one shot developer so 1 gallon goes quite fast.

HC110 is liquid, can be mixed on the spot (use a syringe), lasts an awful long time and produces brilliant pictures comparable to those on D76.
Can be used in many dilutions

So IMHO for a beginner HC110 is better (I started with Rodinal and metinol some 30yrs ago)

CAVEAT: you will screw up more than once, do not be discouraged it is called learning curve!


CHIRS: Caffenol/Folgernol with vitamin C also decreases the fog base, which was the initial reason vitamin C was added in tests some years ago. A bit of extra washing soda is needed to compensate for the added vitamin C, but 400mg in 32 oz is very little 4 g/l makes a world of difference (2 x 400mg tablets in 8 oz)
 
Last edited:
Chris101 said:
I said HC110h, but the answer should be 'Pick one and relax'. You will probably want to eventually (although you said slowly: excellent) try more than one film developer, so it doesn't really matter which one you start with.

D76 is the standard, and for good reason, it balances grain control with sharpness and gives a printable negative in most cases. It is fairly easy to use, however, for home use I prefer not needing to mix powders.

HC110 produces a pronounced grain, dilution h more-so since you keep the film in the developer for a longer period of time. It also produces the best sharpness of the choices you listed. (I should probably add a disclaimer that NB23 turned me on to dilution h, I was a die-hard dil-b user before that.) Make it by syringing 17mL into a liter of water at 20°C, and mix by inversion.

D76 1:1 probably produces the best tonal curve for a correctly exposed negative. When I shoot with any of my older film cameras, I don't always get those kind, so it is less of an advantage. When I shoot with my F5 or N80, my exposure is dead on, so I soup them in (good old) D76 1:1.

However (here it comes) when I want my negatives (ok, I rarely shoot hp5+, more often trix or delta 400) to have a look that is different than anything else I see, I use my own formulation of caffienol.

What's caffienol you ask? I make it with 32 oz of Starbucks house blend coffee, 32 g Arm & Hammer washing soda (not! baking soda.) Mix, and use within 8 hours. I suggest a development time of 30 minutes at 68°F agitating every 3 minutes for 10 seconds for a normal film speed of 400. To shorten the development time by 2/3rds, and increase the contrast, mix in a crushed 400mg vitamin C tablet.
Click to expand...


Chris!

I'll give Chris-Tol a try soon.... err, Caffienol I meant!
 
I was told by an experienced photographer to use D76 1:1 when I first started shooting. But I read all the photo magazines at the time and every month there was a new magic developer tested and there were graphs and glowing statements of how great every one of them worked. So I had to try them all. It took a lot of years but I finally tried D76 1:1 and that's what I use most often these days. I've tried HC-110 and it didn't turn my crank--Rodinal gives me better results. D76 works as well and it's easier to mix and use than either.
 
titrisol said:
... CHIRS: Caffenol/Folgernol with vitamin C also decreases the fog base, which was the initial reason vitamin C was added in tests some years ago. A bit of extra washing soda is needed to compensate for the added vitamin C, but 400mg in 32 oz is very little 4 g/l makes a world of difference (2 x 400mg tablets in 8 oz)
Click to expand...

My friend uses caffienol with 4 g/L ascorbic acid, but I do not like that much contrast. I have found that even minimal amounts will decrease the development time, but without increasing the contrast by much. The negatives still come out brown. I'm not sure if it reduces the 'fog base' as much as it does the stain (which may amount to the same thing.)

NB23 said:
Chris!

I'll give Chris-Tol a try soon.... err, Caffienol I meant!
Click to expand...
Heh! Have fun with it Ned - I don't use it much, but I developed a good percentage of my Doors and Corridors project of a year ago in coffee. Mostly as a lark, and to get Jen's goat (who said it wouldn't work! I love that I corrupted her favorite student into using it even more than I did! ;o ) I never filtered the coffee, so my negs always had a goodly amount of crap on them from it.
 
I voted for D-76 1+1, which is the combination I use after some wanderings.
I would recommend, however, that you spend a few rolls of film testing
your exposure and developing times, which may differ a lot with the ones
that are good for other people.

Pau
 
D-76

D-76

Most of my BW is now done on HP5+ and FP4+ developed in D-76 1+1. In my early and very active years I´d use ID 11 1+1 as my favourite. Results seem very similar and predictable. No wonder, if what someone told me is true - ID 11 is a D-76 clone, chemically identical. D-76 it is. 1+1;)

leif e
 
I typically use D-76 at 1:1, however last week I ended up using about 3:2 just because there was some extra stock left in my remaining batch. It wouldn't have been enough to soup up for my next roll, so I just used it all up. I quite like the results and will try again soon.
 
I voted for HC-110 dilution H for a beginning or someone coming back to developing because: it is very easy to use, one shot development so consistent (which I think is important at first, this lets you know how your negatives should look), and dilution H allows you to use longer development times so if you make a mistake the percent of error is less.
 
Full circle - back to good ole D76. Actually, I really like 1:3, with longer dev times. Played with Rodinal and Diafine. Diafine sometimes gives me "blah" negs and lost a good portion of a roll of pricey infrared film to bromide drag recently. Love Rodinal's look with slower films - FP4+ in particular, but you're limited to slower films, really. I think I can dip a blank index card in D76 and get a printable neg.

But - B&W film developers are cheap and fun to play with. Experiment. Though in the digital/hybrid age - if you scan, a lot of developer choice and "mojo" is of far less significance when you can increase edge sharpness (something that digital process does nearly as well as optical or development) and screw with curves. Ah, but "tonality"? That's another matter. Can't really add that. It's either in the neg or it's not. Hence D76 1:3. Worth the extra time in the tank, imo, ymmv ; )
|
|
 
df cardwell said:
There is an intentional signature to every developer.

D-76 tends toward a linear tone curve with any film,
and HC-110 tends to give softer shadows and the highlights have more contrast,
regardless of dilution.. a curve like a ski jump.
Click to expand...

Just to fold in the third contender: XTOL gives a S-shaped curve, so the highlights are much softer and not as brilliant as HC-110, but the midtones are simply gorgeous. It's a great all-around developer, but it has something special with portraits. I use it for handheld flash photography (with a diffuser) in order to tame the highlights.
 
They are both good, but hc110 is easier to use.
I've been using hc110 lately.
If I were to begin anew I'd start with hc-110.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom