Troubleshooting HC110 at 1:50

[mike goldberg]

Hi all...
Am finally beginning to get some satisfactory results, but I'm not quite there yet, after several tests. Here's how it stacks up with film developed this morning:

Tmax 400 [old] rated at 200; dated film about 2 years past date, refrigerated.

HC-110 diluted 1:50 [easy to mix and remember] as compensating developer; most of the exposures were in bright light.

Temp was 70f; Time was 17 min; Agitation, after 30 seconds of initial inversions, was
2 turns of a stainless tank, per minute.

RESULTS: The exposures in the entire roll were fairly even; a Bessa R was used with my J8, modified to the Leica standard. There are no surprises here; this is a combo that I know well. The negs were a bit underdeveloped.

MY CONCLUSIONS: Substantially dated film; could have rated it at 100. Is more Agitation needed? Perhaps hard, local water was a factor, tho' Brita filtered water is used in my developing, and an under-the-sink commercial kitchen filter is used for the washing.

NEXT TIME: Try fresh Tmax and add 10% to development time.

COMMENTS... very welcome.
Mike

 

[alexz]

Mike, albeit shootnig and being set on Tri-X in HC-110, I did a few rolls of Tmax 400 to get the feeling of that film in HC-110. T my surprise it turned to be so easy to work with, the Massive Dev.Chart recommended times for HC-110 worked right away, no adjustment were necessary from their starting point. (with others that I tried such as Plus-X, Neopan and Tri-X of course it took a few rolls to stabilize the times and agitation around the starting point).
I always do dill. H of HC-110 (1:19 for European syrop) and Tmax at 400 turns out great for 10 minutes at 20 deg.C (5 minutes for dill. B according to Dev. Chart). I'd imagine shooting at 200 it would probably need another 15% time reduction (I'd try 8.5 minutes).
Your dillution is about 2.5 times weaker then H, so assuming a bearable linearity (just my guess), I'd increase dev. times twice as longer as for H, i.e. 20 minutes for ISO 400. However, bearing in mind you figured they turned out underdeveloped at 17 minutes, my bet would be for 18.5 minutes for your next roll shot at 200.

 

[mike goldberg]

Thanks for your input, Alex. Yes... I'm aware of the different mixing options with the European syrup, and Time+Temp adjustments.

There's another possible factor in this mornings appearance of slight underdevelopment, and this is: My HC-100 syrup is near the end of the bottle, and it is a bit darker than the pale yellow color, when fresh. Perhaps the HC-110 was "tired?"

Rating Tmax 400 at 200, very much appeals to me because of the bright light here in Israel. Further, it will be "kef" to test the new improved Tmax 400, when it gets here.

Cheers, Mike

 

[tetrisattack]

If your negs are a little thin, it might be because you're underagitating. 2 inversions per minute is a delicate treatment, to be sure. If you're trying to compensate for a contrasty scene, pull development time back or increase dilution further, but don't do it by underagitating; of all the variables you can control, this is the one that carries, potentially, the worst consequences.

As a point of reference, regardless of developer (DD-X, Sprint, HC-110, Rodinal) I do either 10 seconds per minute, 5 seconds per thirty, or continuous agitation in a machine (at 75 degrees, even).

 

[alexz]

Thanks for your input, Alex. Yes... I'm aware of the different mixing options with the European syrup, and Time+Temp adjustments.

There's another possible factor in this mornings appearance of slight underdevelopment, and this is: My HC-100 syrup is near the end of the bottle, and it is a bit darker than the pale yellow color, when fresh. Perhaps the HC-110 was "tired?"

Rating Tmax 400 at 200, very much appeals to me because of the bright light here in Israel. Further, it will be "kef" to test the new improved Tmax 400, when it gets here.

Cheers, Mike

Yes Mike indeed, our local conditions warrant rating at 200. This is exactly the reason I'm leaning to round out my film choice to Tri-X 400 all around (occasionally may be replaced by Tmax or probably Neopan). When slower ISO is desired I'd also just rate it 200 (as I did already with Tri-X quite successfully) and go ahead. That is great versatility of having to stock up just on single film (or maximum two: 400 and 1600), no need to fuss about several film choices. Just load the roll, go out evaluate the conditions for the current roll and set the rating accordingly (of course, do not forget to sign on the canister the actual used ISO).
Having said that, my less then very rich yet street experience in our country taught me that even at our harsh sunny weather the street shooting often involves quite shaded scenes where ISO 400 is welcome...

 

[like2fiddle]

Mike,
I tend to lean toward what Conor wrote. I have found that it is far more likely to under-agitate HC-110 than over-agitate. As far as the end of the bottle, that is probably not the issue, and color of the syrup (getting darker as it ages) is normal to my knowledge.

 

[FrankS]

HI MikeG! When you are first attempting to establish a developing procedure with a new developer, it's important not to include random variables like expired film in your case.

HC-110 is a great developer because it allows a lot of control. General film density is effected by developing time and temp. (more time or higher temp = more negative density) Contrast is effected by agitation. (more agitation = more contrast)

 

[titrisol]

Well TMAX negatives looked underdeveloped sometimes but printed well.
Did you try scanning/prinitng?

Othe rthan that a 10% time increase seems reasonable for the SAME film you used this time.
If you are going to use new Tmax it may turn out differently.

Hi all...
Am finally beginning to get some satisfactory results, but I'm not quite there yet, after several tests. Here's how it stacks up with film developed this morning:

Tmax 400 [old] rated at 200; dated film about 2 years past date, refrigerated.

HC-110 diluted 1:50 [easy to mix and remember] as compensating developer; most of the exposures were in bright light.

Temp was 70f; Time was 17 min; Agitation, after 30 seconds of initial inversions, was
2 turns of a stainless tank, per minute.

RESULTS: The exposures in the entire roll were fairly even; a Bessa R was used with my J8, modified to the Leica standard. There are no surprises here; this is a combo that I know well. The negs were a bit underdeveloped.

MY CONCLUSIONS: Substantially dated film; could have rated it at 100. Is more Agitation needed? Perhaps hard, local water was a factor, tho' Brita filtered water is used in my developing, and an under-the-sink commercial kitchen filter is used for the washing.

NEXT TIME: Try fresh Tmax and add 10% to development time.

COMMENTS... very welcome.
Mike

 

[Roger Hicks]

HI MikeG! When you are first attempting to establish a developing procedure with a new developer, it's important not to include random variables like expired film in your case.

Seconded. Outdated film; the dregs of a bottle of developer (perhaps partially oxidized); forget about repeatability. Putting this much effort into anything, when starting with unknown variables, is closer to a waste of time than I would care to go.

Cheers,

R.

 

[charjohncarter]

Mike, this is of no value to you, but I always seem to have to develop longer than what every source says (when using HC-110h). Maybe it's the water?? But when I find my time/temp/agitation it seems to be consistently correct with every roll. In other words; no surprises.


By the way Mike, I have returned from Turkey. I saw a wonderfully 'restored' Byzantine Synagogue in Sarts, Sartes, or Sartis. I will send a B&W photo of it to you when I finally develop all my film.