HC110 B with HP5+ @ 100

[RodinalDuchamp]

Hello everyone. I can't find a development time for HP5 shot at 100 in HC110 dilution B. I am seeking first hand experience with this combination and film speed. Any help is appreciated. I am switching from Pyrocat mostly because HC110 promises excellent results with a much reduced development time at least in my case.

Going off of available materials it seems that HP5 shot at 400 in HC110 B requires a 5 minute development at 68*
That means that going by the old rule of thumb -20% per stop I am ending up with a development time of about 192 seconds or 3.2 minutes for ASA 100.

That seems awfully short but maybe that's normal for this developer.

[Pere Casals]

Neal Chaves recomended 5 min at EI100 dil B, which is the standard time for EI400, but I find it good for EI100.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150466-HP5-in-Xtol-and-HC-110-can-you-see-a-difference&p=1482309&viewfull=1#post1482309

[Tracy Storer]

Hello everyone. I can't find a development time for HP5 shot at 100 in HC110 dilution B. I am seeking first hand experience with this combination and film speed. Any help is appreciated. I am switching from Pyrocat mostly because HC110 promises excellent results with a much reduced development time at least in my case.

Going off of available materials it seems that HP5 shot at 400 in HC110 B requires a 5 minute development at 68*
That means that going by the old rule of thumb -20% per stop I am ending up with a development time of about 192 seconds or 3.2 minutes for ASA 100.

That seems awfully short but maybe that's normal for this developer.

For "too short" development times with Dil B, I make up Dil E. (which is the weakest solution that is replenishable if you happen to still have a stock of the long discontinued replenisher.)

[Luis-F-S]

You're going to have to figure this one out on your own. No one else's time will prove accurate for your specific situation.

[jim_jm]

I usually shoot HP5 at 200 and develop normally, at 100 I would reduce development time by 10-15%, but that's just me. You'll have to determine your own adjustment based on the results you like.
Less than 5 min development times are not recommended as any variation in timing could have a more noticeable effect on your film. For HC110, I commonly use dilution H, which is mixed at 1:14 (from stock, not concentrate) and double the development time of dilution B.

[Jerry Bodine]

Time and dilution are only two of the significant variables involved. The agitation method/technique is also important. Only you can know exactly how you agitate, so you're own testing will provide your answer.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Time and dilution are only two of the significant variables involved. The agitation method/technique is also important. Only you can know exactly how you agitate, so you're own testing will provide your answer.


sometimes I think this forum is too smart for its own sake, obviously taking into consideration all other variables being the same. i'm looking for a baseline and ideally an aggregate across multiple people.

[RodinalDuchamp]

You have given me the most informative answer yet. I appreciate it. I'll look at dil H and times. Cheers!!

[Neal Chaves]

Neal Chaves recomended 5 min at EI100 dil B, which is the standard time for EI400, but I find it good for EI100.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150466-HP5-in-Xtol-and-HC-110-can-you-see-a-difference&p=1482309&viewfull=1#post1482309

Thank you Pere, I know you have made an intensive study of sensitometry .

Years ago I learned an excellent method to find the correct developing time and EI for any film. The source was an article by William Mortensen. Mortensen wrote some excellent books and articles about basic sensitometry. The last time I did this test was when I abandoned Tri-X in HC100 and switched to HP5+ in Ilfotec HC due to cost about five years ago. I proceed as follows.

I set up my trays with my favorite developer HC110B (1:31), now Ilfotec HC (1:31). I pull out a sheet from the package in the dark. and then when the package is sealed again I turn on the room lights. This part of the test is done under the lights. I cut the sheet into five strips and mark them 1-5 by punching holes with a paper punch. Lets say the recommended time is 5:00. I want to see 3:00, 4:00, 5:00, 6:00 and 7:00, so I throw all the strips into the developer and agitate as usual until 3:00 when I move the No.1 strip over to the stop bath. Then I pull No.2 at 4:00, No.3 at 5:00, etc. I fix, wash and dry the strips as usual. What we are looking for is the best usable film DMax value. Obviously the film has been fully exposed! When strips dry lay down a page of news print on a table in good light. Find the strip through which the news print is barely visible. That's your developing time. Now to find the film speed.

Go outside in unchanging light conditions and expose five sheets and expose one at the manufacturers rating and then the other four at one half a stop and one stop less and one half a stop and one stop more. In the dark, develop them all together for your newly derived time. Contact print them together exposing and developing the paper for maximum usable paper DMax value through the film base plus fog negative rebate area. Pick out the best-looking contact print and you have your film speed.

Because my 7:00 negative looked the best on the first test, I did the test again with 7:00 as the central developing time and found that 8:00 was indeed too dense. This HP5+ time was the same as the as the developing time I had been using for Tri-X and film speed was also the same, EI400. I have also switched to Ilfotec HC developer due to cost and availability and find it to be a clone of HC110.

Many of the last generation of B&W gurus favored a development time of 5:00 for Tri-X and suggested an EI of 64-100. You can do the above test backwards, developing for 5:00 minutes and finding the film speed. I like 100. The difference between negatives exposed at 100 and developed for 5:00 and those exposed at 400 and developed for 7:00 is quite subtle. Both could be considered "normal" or N negatives. The 100 negative has slightly greater shadow and highlight detail that only a careful, knowledgeable viewer could detect. This slight improvement might not be worthwhile trading for two stops in the field. I do routinely rate HP5+ at 100 under powerful strobe light in the studio and it produces beautiful skin tones.

From here, if you are still with me, you can derive expansion and contraction schemes for both the 100 and 400 "normal negs". I do this by changing dilution rather than time. Make sure you have at least 1 oz. of the concentrated sauce for each 8X10 sheet or equivalent. For contractions I found that 3/4 oz. concentrate to 31 1/4 ozs. H20 yields an N-1 neg at a one stop loss in film speed and 1/2 oz. concentrate to 31 1/2 ozs. H20 yields an N-2 neg at a two stop loss in film speed. For expansions, 1 1/4 oz. of concentrate to 30 3/4 ozs. H20 yields an N+1 neg at a one stop gain in speed and 1 1/2 ozs. concentrate to 30 1/2 ozs. H20 produces an N+2 negative with a two stop gain in speed.

If you look at the chart of Tri-X film speed in Phil Davis' BTZS book you can easily pick out the film speed in HC110B 5:00 as EI 64.

Don't apply reciprocity exposure and development corrections for long exposures (1/2 sec. +) based on published data. Test for yourself and you may be surprised. I wasted a lot of time and effort producing long exposure negatives that were thick and flat. When I finally tested, I found no compensation was required for TXP or now HP5+ out to one minute.

[esearing]

I'm always curious why people want to take a 400 speed film and over expose it 2-stops rather than just use a 100-125 speed film. Maybe instead change your metering technique and/or developer and use the film at box speed which gives you better overall control and decision making. HC110 actually worked more consistently for me at higher dilution because fill and dump time were less critical to the overall development time.

[Pere Casals]

I'm always curious why people want to take a 400 speed film and over expose it 2-stops rather than just use a 100-125 speed film.


For example Overexposure + compressive development extends film dynamic range, shooting a lower ISO film it doesn't.

Beyond that, a true master may do that for other resons, tonal curve, volume depiction, shouldering highlights... and in MF governing grain structure...

[Pere Casals]

William Mortensen.

:) :) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/photographer-who-ansel-adams-called-anti-christ-180953525/
https://web.archive.org/web/20170205034134/https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/photographer-who-ansel-adams-called-anti-christ-180953525/


Of course a practical approach like that is sound, you set a development for suitable DMax and later you bracket to find best practical result.

We may have to calibrate a lot to find the same, and this is before knowing if the result is the one we like the more.

Me, I try to combine both ways, plots help me to understand what I'm doing. I'm following your recommendations to learn to make studio portraits that are easy to print optically.

I find LF portraiture is technically way more difficult than landscape, many landscapes are great even if they look unnatural, but a great portrait requires many things to be well done.

[Luis-F-S]

I find it extremely hard to believe that no one on this forum has tried this combo and doesn't have information to relay back / share with everyone if they choose to. I thought this was a forum of freely interchanged ideas but it seems like its more esoteric or mystical than I remember a few years back.

No, we don’t have your camera, meters etc not to mention whether as to how you’re developing, agitating etc.

Any values we give you won’t apply to your situation. Besides I don’t expose HP5 at 100 but at 180 which is what works for me determined through testing.

[Doremus Scudder]

I find the notion that one must reduce development time for film rated slower than box speed erroneous. Developing time affects the contrast gradient of the film equally, regardless of the E.I. Yes, it is often good to underrate your film in order to get the desired shadow detail and, yes, it is often good to reduce development time from the manufacturer's recommendation to deal with the contrast in the scene you have. However, these are unrelated issues.

We "Zonies" have a lot of different development times so we can tailor each sheet's contrast gradient to match the range of luminances in the scenes we photograph. When shooting roll film, I abandon this and aim for a mean contrast gradient that allows me to accommodate scenes with luminance ranges at either extreme. This is often a shorter time than my Zone-System "Normal" would be. And, I often like to overexpose by a stop or even more to get important shadows up into the straight-line portion of the film's curve. The reduction in development and the overexposure are unrelated, however. Often I'll overexpose and then increase development because the scene needs to have expanded contrast. Really, it depends on what you point your camera at.

As for HC-110: I have found that you can deal with too-short times for dil. B by simply doubling the dilution (1+63 instead of 1+31) and double the development time (e.g., 3.5 minutes would become 7 minutes). This might not be perfect, but will be a good starting point that you can tweak later.

Arriving at an initial development time for any film/developer combination requires you to do your personal testing. All you can get from others that use the same combination is a more-accurate starting point for your own testing.

Best,

Doremus

[Neal Chaves]

I'm always curious why people want to take a 400 speed film and over expose it 2-stops rather than just use a 100-125 speed film. Maybe instead change your metering technique and/or developer and use the film at box speed which gives you better overall control and decision making. HC110 actually worked more consistently for me at higher dilution because fill and dump time were less critical to the overall development time.

When Plus X 125 was available, and I had plenty of it doing defense work, I did the test described above and came up with a speed 32. This produced some very fine negatives, but the speed was too slow for use in the field or with the strobes I had available at that time.

[RodinalDuchamp]

When Plus X 125 was available, and I had plenty of it doing defense work, I did the test described above and came up with a speed 32. This produced some very fine negatives, but the speed was too slow for use in the field or with the strobes I had available at that time.

Exactly. Why would anyone want to use the maximum latitude of the film exposing for an expanded low value range while developing for high value control - right? Why would that be useful of all things.

[RodinalDuchamp]

You pointed something very simple I overlooked which is why I posted here. Of course - double the time and increase dilution. Thank you. After all I am looking for a very basic base line tonstart with. My times with pyro often exceed 25 minutes which is why I'd like to try hc110 and see if the contrast can come close to pyro. My next 2 options are xtol and presycol (sp)

[Drew Wiley]

Both a 100 rating for HP5 in HC110 B and 25 min in pyro sound ludicrous to me. Are you trying to make a transparent negative or a cast iron frying pan? I don't get it. Is this for silver printing or some UV alt process?

[RodinalDuchamp]

Both a 100 rating for HP5 in HC110 B and 25 min in pyro sound ludicrous to me. Are you trying to make a transparent negative or a cast iron frying pan? I don't get it. Is this for silver printing or some UV alt process?

Well I can't really blame you. However, there is a method to my madness. I use an extremely dilute pyro process which provides a noticeably open dynamic range. I have been shooting HP5 and Tri-x at 100 for over 7 years now but always in D76 or pyrocat. I thought I could come back on the forum and see what others have experienced with HC110 at 100 but honestly I had forgotten how even the simplest question gets blown out of proportion on this forum. I am happy to share my pyro process with you if you are interested for you to test for yourself.

Tray processed in a slosher
1:1:200
72*F
28 minutes
3 minutes vigorous agitation
let stand for 5 minutes
1 minutes vigorous agitation
let stand for 5 minutes
1 minute vigorous agitation
let stand for 5 minutes
1 minute vigorous agitation
let stand for remainder

Produces exceptionally fine negatives that print very well and easily. Of course I have tailored this process for the work that I do and I developed this system alongside my mentor for controlling extreme contrast situations - the side effect however, was that it worked very well in almost all instances I have tested it in. I can upload some samples later when I get back home.

The concept is not new and well outlined in Saint Ansel's the negative. It's a tried and proven overexpose/underdevelop. Some guys just want to make things more complicated than they have to be. In my opinion to which no one else is beholden to shooting box speed provides less than optimal results.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm always curious why people want to take a 400 speed film and over expose it 2-stops rather than just use a 100-125 speed film. Maybe instead change your metering technique and/or developer and use the film at box speed which gives you better overall control and decision making. HC110 actually worked more consistently for me at higher dilution because fill and dump time were less critical to the overall development time.

I routinely expose HP5 at EI 200 or less, depending on subject brightness. It's something that most people do. When I use a 100-125 speed film, I'll expose it at 50-64, respectively, and depending on the film (Acros I use EI 64).

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks for the specific explanation Rodinal... but it still sounds like an awfully tedious way to get from Point A to Point B. If it works for you and you're happy with the results, who am I to judge? But I'm not necessarily impressed that Saint Ansel did it sloshing developer around in his stinky ole Stetson cowboy hat. I prefer to be a little more up to date with my own options. HP5 has a somewhat long toe, so I've overexposed just one stop (200 speed) in contrasty situations, or more likely, use it only for moderate contrast scenes. An exception: I once liked overexposing and overdeveloping it in order to significantly increase midtone microtonality and edge effect in PMK, then tamed the result with an unsharp mask when printing. Stunning results, but now I'd rather just use TMY400 to begin with, which has a much steeper toe with better shadow gradation.

[Pere Casals]

but now I'd rather just use TMY400 to begin with, which has a much steeper toe with better shadow gradation.

This is a more flexible approach, but it may require more work in the optical printing.

[esearing]

There seems to be a divide between extreme dilution(EMA/Stand) and normal dilution camps for developers, with no-one in the middle or consideration you may have 2 or 3 sheets to do instead of 4 or 1.

I found that a compromise usung a middle dilution with Pyrocat M dilution 4:3:500 (instead of 5:5:500 Normal or 3:2:500 EMA) lets me use full box speed and process 2 or 3 sheets with 3-4 minute agitation cycles and process times between 11 and 14 minutes (12:30 Normal). It may not have the acutance of an EMA process but it does shorten the process enough to keep me engaged and without the rush of short times where in/out pour times can have an impact.

With HC110 I previously used dilutions of 1:47 commonly or 1:63 and adjust time and agitation linearly to get above 10Minutes always with 4 sheets or a roll.

[RodinalDuchamp]

There seems to be a divide between extreme dilution(EMA/Stand) and normal dilution camps for developers, with no-one in the middle or consideration you may have 2 or 3 sheets to do instead of 4 or 1.

I found that a compromise usung a middle dilution with Pyrocat M dilution 4:3:500 (instead of 5:5:500 Normal or 3:2:500 EMA) lets me use full box speed and process 2 or 3 sheets with 3-4 minute agitation cycles and process times between 11 and 14 minutes (12:30 Normal). It may not have the acutance of an EMA process but it does shorten the process enough to keep me engaged and without the rush of short times where in/out pour times can have an impact.

With HC110 I previously used dilutions of 1:47 commonly or 1:63 and adjust time and agitation linearly to get above 10Minutes always with 4 sheets or a roll.

Thank you. I think for starters I am going to try 1:63 but I have also been looking at some HP5 shot at 200 and that may work for the purposes I am requiring right now.

[Corran]

FWIW, my standard HP5+ EI is 200 and developed in HC-110 dil. H (1:63) for 10 minutes at 71F. This would be for silver printing.

[Andy Eads]

You might want to consider using a developer with inherently lower film speed if you want a printable contrast range. HC110 may work highly diluted but it is a formula noted for delivering rated film speed at a variety of dilutions. Of course, if you can, run a test.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

FWIW, my standard HP5+ EI is 200 and developed in HC-110 dil. H (1:63) for 10 minutes at 71F. This would be for silver printing.

Sounds plausible. Of course there are always differences in the water, in the processing, in the exposure. In the beginning I made the mistake to test with an exposure time of 1s ... the reciprocity effect becomes noticeable in the low zones.

Here are my own results: 205020

Regards