HP5+ in Xtol and HC-110: can you see a difference?

[rdeloe]

Does this chart from Kodak line up with your experience developing HP5+ (in sheets) in HC-110 and/or Xtol?

187368

I'd like to standardize on one of these two developers when I'm processing HP5+ in 4x5 sheets. I'm actually quite pleased with how they are both doing. The thing I find strange is I'm not seeing much of a difference in shadow detail and grain. The chart suggests I should be seeing some (with Xtol having better shadow detail and finer grain).

Importantly, I'm not comparing optical enlargements. Rather, I'm comparing 2,666 ppi camera scans of negatives developed in each developer. I'm guessing that Kodak's chart assumes optical enlargement. That could be the reason right there, in other words, the characteristics of the digital sensor used in the camera scanning process overwhelm any differences in shadow detail, grain and sharpness that might be evident with optical enlargement.

This is not a bad thing by the way! I'm not going to complain that two developers give me excellent results... But it's a small mystery and I'd appreciate your thoughts.

[Pere Casals]

HC-110 is an speed loss developer, in general it delivers more an S shape the curve, it's convenient because of liquid concentrate. It's popular for rotary processing because contrast is adjusted by concentration.

Xtol is very low toxicity, it's full speed, even having 1/3 stop more in the shadows than D-76. Fine grain if you standarize also for lower formats, and kodak says it's sharper (better perhaps for small formats).

With xtol you have to mix 5L, better with distilled water for long shelf life.

Me, I use Xtol 1:1, I would use HC-110 only if wanting a more pronounced toe/shoulder.

[rdeloe]

Both are reliable and consistent developers -- no question. Both are economical. In CAD, it's about $0.66/tank (an SP 445) for HC-110 and $0.79/tank for Xtol. Can't beat that (easily anyway!)

I made some test prints from the two negatives sized as for 16"x20" on my Epson 3880. Both are excellent to my eye, and both look about the same in terms of shadow detail, grain and sharpness. It's like where camera scanning erases most of the difference, inkjet printing on matte paper erases the rest. This is only a bad thing if you're trying to carry some distinctive characteristic you can see in your negative through to your digital scan and your print; I'm not actually sure that's possible though (with this film anyway).

I should mention too that I compared Dilution B for HC-110 and used Xtol 1:1. And I rated the film at ISO 320 for HC-110 and ISO 400 for Xtol.

So my provisional take-away is with HP5+ in 4x5, the developer (comparing HC-110 and Xtol -- not referring to any other developer) makes minimal difference if you're camera scanning and inkjet printing. Use whichever one you prefer. Does that match your experiences?

[interneg]

HC-110 is an speed loss developer, in general it delivers more an S shape the curve, it's convenient because of liquid concentrate. It's popular for rotary processing because contrast is adjusted by concentration.

Xtol is very low toxicity, it's full speed, even having 1/3 stop more in the shadows than D-76. Fine grain if you standarize also for lower formats, and kodak says it's sharper (better perhaps for small formats).

With xtol you have to mix 5L, better with distilled water for long shelf life.

Me, I use Xtol 1:1, I would use HC-110 only if wanting a more pronounced toe/shoulder.

Um, have you seen or plotted a curve from HC-110? Upswept, not s-shaped curve is generally the name of the game.

[Pere Casals]

One thing is simply upswept, and another thing upswet+shoulder

[interneg]

One thing is simply upswept, and another thing upswet+shoulder

At a high CI, maybe. Otherwise often very little/ much later to no shouldering. Lots of available data & curves that show this. Xtol's design & solvency are what give it that balance of speed, fine grain & sharpness via its interaction with the placement of iodide in modern emulsion designs. HC-110 was designed to do the sort of things DK-50/ DK-60a etc did in larger format or lab uses with maximum packaging efficiency etc. One was designed for 1965 needs, the other for 1995.

[Pere Casals]

At a high CI, maybe.

You are right, this at crazy high Contrast Index...

187378

So the HC-110 upswet shape is the important one...

[Neal Chaves]

I had unusable Tmax negs in HC110 that I later found had an upswept curve and a "shad belly". It was the film not the developer. TriX and HC110 are both history as far as I am concerned now due to cost and availability. I have discovereed that Ilford HP5+ and Ilfotec HC are virtual clones of TriX and HC110. My speeds for normal negs are EI 100 developed 1:31 for 5:00 and EI 400 developed 1:31 for 7:00. Ok, so maybe they are not exact clones of Kodak products, but close enough for me. I am reminded of an old blues tune that proclaimed "Ain't much difference between a real blonde and a fake, or between a Ferrari and a Z28."

[Tobias Key]

I went from developing my HP5+ in HC110 dilution E to using Xtol 1:1. The main difference was a definite increase in film speed (2/3 stop I would guess) and a tonally better negative that was easier to scan. I haven't tested them side by side though so these are feelings rather than provable data.

[rdeloe]

So apparently a shadbelly is some kind of riding coat worn by fox hunters. I'm guessing it's not a good thing if you see it in your film's characteristic curve!


I had unusable Tmax negs in HC110 that I later found had an upswept curve and a "shad belly". It was the film not the developer. TriX and HC110 are both history as far as I am concerned now due to cost and availability. I have discovereed that Ilford HP5+ and Ilfotec HC are virtual clones of TriX and HC110. My speeds for normal negs are EI 100 developed 1:31 for 5:00 and EI 400 developed 1:31 for 7:00. Ok, so maybe they are not exact clones of Kodak products, but close enough for me. I am reminded of an old blues tune that proclaimed "Ain't much difference between a real blonde and a fake, or between a Ferrari and a Z28."

[Pere Casals]

My speeds for normal negs are EI 100 developed 1:31 for 5:00

Thanks, I'll try this, for portraits. I would do 35mm bracktings with this process before exposing sheets.

[rdeloe]

The slight increase in film speed with Xtol is a plus. I'm not interested in using a faster film that has to be used slower. I find myself fighting reciprocity failure all the time so the fact that I can shoot HP5+ at box speed if I develop in Xtol is good.

I have done some careful side-by-side comparisons, but I'm hesitant to comment on which one developer produces tonally better negatives. The only thing I'm comfortable saying at this point is that both the Xtol and HC-110 negs camera scanned well, in the sense that I was able to create digital files with excellent resolution and sharpness, good detail in shadows, midtones and highlights, and minimal appearance of grain.


To complicate matters some more, I've been reading about TMAX 400 (TMY-2) and am going to try it out primarily because of the vastly superior reciprocity characteristics. Lots of people think TMY-2 does very well in Xtol. For my purposes, not having to worry about reciprocity failure until exposures of multiple seconds would be a big plus. It's way more expensive than HP5+, unfortunately, but the extra cost might be worth it.




I went from developing my HP5+ in HC110 dilution E to using Xtol 1:1. The main difference was a definite increase in film speed (2/3 stop I would guess) and a tonally better negative that was easier to scan. I haven't tested them side by side though so these are feelings rather than provable data.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've used HP5 extensively and for several years with Xtol. Excellent combination. I agree with the catagories, except the shadows... I always got full, luminous shadows. EI 200 and Bob's your uncle.

[Pere Casals]

It's way more expensive than HP5+, unfortunately, but the extra cost might be worth it.

IMHO not that worth... if you are using HP5+ / Xtol yet then what is worth is learning how to shot HP5+ at night (with LIRF)... not that difficult...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28693688313/in/dateposted-public/

Well, for rolls (35mm and 120) it's similar price Ilford than Kodak, but amazingly for sheets tmy looks extremly difficult to manufacture, perhaps requiring aerospace grade ingredients... so price is doubled from expected.

[rdeloe]

Pere, for me it would be worth it to not have to deal with extremely long exposures due to reciprocity failure. According to Ilford's new recommendations, you apply a factor of t^1.31 starting at 1 second. I'm very often shooting at more than 1 second, so long times rapidly become problematic when there's the possibility of movement. This is better than the old recommendation. Under the old recommendation, a calculated 10 second exposure became 30 seconds. With their new recommendation, it's reduced to 20.4 seconds -- but that's still a long time. In contrast, according to Kodak 10 seconds calculated exposure time using TMY-2 calls for just +1/3 stop addition. For me, that's a useful improvement.





IMHO not that worth... if you are using HP5+ / Xtol yet then what is worth is learning how to shot HP5+ at night (with LIRF)... not that difficult...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28693688313/in/dateposted-public/

Well, for rolls (35mm and 120) it's similar price Ilford than Kodak, but amazingly for sheets tmy looks extremly difficult to manufacture, perhaps requiring aerospace grade ingredients... so price is doubled from expected.

[Pere Casals]

a calculated 10 second exposure to 20.4 seconds

Ok, but what subject requiring 10 seconds exposure won't move in 12 seconds but it will move in 20s?

Anyway situation is way better now, kodak prices for sheet film are closer to ilford than it was for sheets, recently there was a 100% overprice in kodak BW sheets, that situation was simply infame.

I hope they fired that marketing officer. I also hope their new policy would be rewarding for them in the long term.

[rdeloe]

Ok, but what subject requiring 10 seconds exposure won't move in 12 seconds but it will move in 20s?

It's mostly my dog. I've trained her to hold her breath and stay perfectly still for 10 seconds, but she can't for 20! ;)

[Peter Collins]

Nice discussion, but I'm still waiting for an explanation of "shadbelly."

[Pere Casals]

It's mostly my dog. I've trained her to hold her breath and stay perfectly still for 10 seconds, but she can't for 20! ;)

it had to be something like that :)

[rdeloe]

This is my next guess on the shadbelly question:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Dentonshad1904.jpg

It actually has a kind of curvy belly. If that's what your characteristic curve is doing, I can see why you wouldn't be happy about your highlights!