Switching HP5+ from Rodinal to HC-110: what to expect?

[Philippe Gauthier]

I never experimented much with films and developpers in search of a "magic bullet" and, in 35 mm, I finally setttled on FP4+ and Rodinal for purely practical reasons: FP4+ was cheap nd so was Rodinal; also, Rodinal had a long shelf life, which is important because I'm an irregular B&W shooter (I've been doing mostly slides in the last two years). The results of this combo satisfied me.

After buying my LF gear, at the end of summer, I had to change film for HP5+, which was more widely available in 4x5 format, still cheap and offered some desireable extra speed. I continued using Rodinal (at 1+25 rather than 1+50 to cut processing time a bit), but initially got rather thin negatives. Exposing for EI 200-250 improved this, but the low speed sort of defeats the pupose and I'm not too confident that the grain structure would withstand much enlargement.

Based on several recomendations (Scott Eaton, on Photo.net, is specially vocal about this ) I decided to give a trial run to HC-110, said to give true 400 speed for HP5+, to have less grain and more mid tones, while still being cheap, having a good shelf life, and being relatively forgiving of small time/temperature variations.

Now my questions. Is there a real difference between dilution B and H (1+63)? The relatively short 5 minutes processing time at dilution B looks attractive, because I currently can tray process only two sheets at a time, but are there some traps and pitfalls I should be aware of? Some people swear by the compensating effect of dilution H, but does it produce a consistently noticeable effect on most negatives? Is it really worth the extra time?

What difference should I expect with my current 1+25 Rodinal negatives? Also, I make cyanotypes from many of my negs - the same I use for silver printing; will the new, HC-110 negatives be better suited for alt processes or just the same?

There is no point suggesting other film - for price/availability reasons I intend to keep shooting with HP5+ in the foreseeable future - or other developper - I already bought some HC-110 and I intend to give it a serious trial before I move to somthing else - IF I feel the urge to move to something else later. Thank you all in advance for the answers.

[Philippe Gauthier]

Forgot to ask: what about agitation? I found very little data on agitation and tray processing.

[Bruce Watson]

HC-110 H is sometimes called "half B" because that's what it is - half B. Dilution B is 1:7 with stock, and H is 1:15 with stock. The time differnce between the two is not 2x like you would think, but H is B*sqrt2. That is, if your time in B is 5 minutes, your time in H should be about 7 minutes.

Basically, what I think you'll see is that using H lowers your EI about a third of a stop. You might think the grain is a little nicer, but you won't really see it until you get to about a 12x enlargement (48x60 inch prints). HC-110 is not usually thought of as an acutance developer either, so you'll probably have to look pretty hard to find evidence of edge effects.

HC-110 not being an acutance developer, it is also not a speed enhancing developer. You most likely won't get an EI of 400 out of your HP5+ and HC-110. Don't be surprised if you end up with 200 or 250. Do the EI tests and find out.

Even though you don't want to hear it, I can tell you that I switched from HC-110H to XTOL 1:3 (4x5 Tri-X, not HP5+), and the XTOL does give me an EI of 400, where HC-110H gave me an EI of 200. But... the whole point of doing the EI test is that YMMV.

BTW, I don't want you to think I'm down in HC-110. It's a hell of a developer and has well stood the test of time. It delivers outstanding tonality and has a "look" that many, many people love. Also, I used it for 20 years, and would probably still be using it except that I changed my processing from trays to a Jobo CPP-2. With the Jobo's continuous agitation, I couldn't control it. In trays however, you should be fine.

[David R Munson]

I had the best results with HP5+/HC-110 rating it at an EI of 200. I don't remember what the developing time was for sure, but I think it was around six minutes.

[Eric Rose]

I use both HC110 dil B and Rodinal 1:50. Each has it's own flavour to be used for certain looks. The HC110 certainly in my setup gives better mid tones than the Rodinal.

As mentioned before do some testing and see where it takes you. If you can get your hands on some APX 100 or Tri-X 320 rather than HP5. HP5 is great as a low contrast film but IMHO does not have the snap of the other two.

ciao,

Eric

[Andrew O'Neill]

"HP5 is great as a low contrast film but IMHO does not have the snap of the other two".

In the words of the late Fred Picker, "Snap is for turtles". I can obtain "snap" with HP5+ depending on how I expose and what developer I use. Even "snap" is subjective.

[tim atherton]

You might want to try HP5 in Ilford DD-X

[Jon_2416]

I use HP5+ in HC110 at 1:45 in my unicolor drum--gorgeous negs. Let me know if you want more specifics.

[Bruce Schultz]

Jon, I'd like specifics. I'm about to start fotografing again after a 2-year hiatus and I need some base of information.

[Jon_2416]

Hi Bruce,

You might want to read this:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unicolor/

That is how I'm doing my HP5+. I got my last Unicolor drum and motor for $15 on ePay.

I do a 5 minute prewash with distilled water, mix my HC110 single shot 1:45 from the concentrate. I use that ratio so my N-1 isn't too short as it would be with higher concentrations of HC110. And, I use 450ml in the tank regardless of how many sheets I'm doing--probably overkill, but I was getting streaking when I was using less. My times are as follows:

5:00 N-1
6:15
7:30 N
8:45
10:00 N+1

Here is a great resource:

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/index.html

You will have to figure your own film speed & dev times of course. I have been rating the film at 320.

Let me know if you have any more questions!

[Philippe Gauthier]

Thank you for all the great input. It should provides good starting points for experimentation. I still wish some soup gave me a real 400 speed, though... Oh well.

[CP Goerz]

HC110 never quite gave the supremely crisp edge sharpness of Rodinal, besides that I didn't see too much difference in the print. Maybe give PMK a try, use the + version with a dab of Amidol to boost the speed up for you. PMK is excellent for tray processing but not so nice for sheet film above 5x7 in a Jobo Expert due to splashes and streaks.

CP Goerz

[tim o'brien]

Andrew, tim, etc.

He doesn't want other film/developer combos, he wants 400 E.I. with HC-110. I am neither a HC-110 expert, although I used it in the dim dim past, nor an HP5 expert, I have always found that film a half stop slower than Tri-X in any soup. As far as pointing him towards APX100, Agfa no longer makes that film in 4x5. Too bad, it IS a wonderful emulsion in a certain pyro formula I won't mention because Philippe doesn't want to hear about it. I also won't mention that I have several years supply of APX100 4x5 stored away.

Iffum I were Philippe, I would go back to FP4, live with the inevitable 1/3 stop real film speed loss between that and HP5, and take it back to Rodinal. The 2 and 3 X enlargements he will most likely be making, he'll never see the grain and still have that super sharp effect that combo gives him.

Just my opinion.

[Philippe Gauthier]

Tim: It's not that I don't want to hear about other stuff, just that I decided to try this one in priority - and to give it a serious try. If, in a few months, I see that it doesn't do at all what I expect, I'll be ready to hear about other propositions. There was a Pyro demonstration in my photo club last year and I wasn't immediately convinced; those who gave it a more serious try all dropped it in the end, I think. True, they shoot only 35 mm for the most part, but still, no one found it to be a magic bullet.

The FP4+ and Rodinal proposal is not unreasonable, but my local store mostly stocks HP5+ in 4x5 and 8x10; FP4+ is only offered on an irregular basis. Plus, in convinced there must be a way to get something close to true 400 speed with HP5+.

[tim atherton]

Philippe,

I suggested DD-X as an alternative because I have found HC110 and HP5 just don't seem to be a sutiable partnership in my own experience. I've used HC110 with Tri-X and TMax in varying combinations and always found it does a good job. But have never found the same with HP5 (and to a limited extent with FP4 as well).

I've always quite like Xtol as a general purpose developer - but for some reason it doesn't seem to get on with HP5 in larger sheet form (lovely in certain circumstances with FP4).

I went through a bunch of different developers that I have used succesfully with other films - good old D76 (which is actually my favourite for TMax if I have to use it) D23 (very nice for Tri-X - thanks geoffrey), TMax Dev, Rodinal - none of which I was entirely happy with (and I'm not really a pysro lab rat).

When I tried DD-X I found it gave me just what I wanted ( + it didn't give me the the changes in edge density and banding I was getting with some of the other developers with the Jobo for rotary processing)

To me this look s very close to the look of old TriX, similar at the top and bottom end, but with "cleaner" more lumnious midtones and none of the softness/low contrast that has been suggested on here for HP5

I'm finding rating at 320 works for me, though ymmv and others may find 200 a closer fit. I use the DD-X 1:9 (though Ilford recomends 1:4 - I'm still experimenting with this a bit) That said, I shoot more colour than black and white these days (though more B&W in winter all that snow!) - so you may just want to listen to the real B&W experts... :-)

[Philippe Gauthier]

I'll see if it works for me. I found an old roll of HP5+ forgotten in my Rollei 35 body this afternoon; I just souped it in HC-110. It's drying right now; I'll scan it later tonight and tomorrow; that should provide a first indication about grain. HP5+ in Rodinal has always given me very mushy scans even in the dedicated film scanner.

I'll try to go out and shoot some LF film this week end if the weather improves a bit (my courage was lacking the last two ones, at -20 C).

[tim atherton]

I should have added, that at a normal 20c with 1:9 around 15 minutes works. At the recomended 1:4, the Ilfrod suggested 9 minutes seems petty close