HC110 1:63 mushy flat negatives dilution H

[RodinalDuchamp]

I just pulled my first test negatives out uaing HC110. Reporting low contrast. The low values are not as dense as I had hoped. I believe they are least 2 stops thinner than with my D76 or Pyro process. I haven't had a chance to print these and I suspect they would print but not as easily as preferred.

The overall density is lower than ideal. Flat and I suspect would print gray and mushy.

I went off the massive dev charts times.

ei 200
HC110 dilution H 1:63
21c
8 minutes

I am thinking about increasing the development time to 10 minutes but also would like to see if anyone else has encountered this and tried a higher concentration while keeping the development time down.

I agitated 1 minute then 10 seconds every consecutive minute. Does HC110 perform better with constant agitation?

I shot a few more test sheets today and want to process tonight. Let me hear what works for you guys.

[koraks]

What film?

[Jim Noel]

If you are going to increase the time, do so. But not from 8 to 10 minutes, go at least to 12 minutes. (11.2 minutes would be a one stop increase)

[RodinalDuchamp]

What film?

Right that's kind of important: HP5+

[RodinalDuchamp]

If you are going to increase the time, do so. But not from 8 to 10 minutes, go at least to 12 minutes. (11.2 minutes would be a one stop increase)

Thanks for the oversight. I think time is the easiest variable to adjust at this point.

[Tracy Storer]

It would also be good to know whether you're in a tank, trays, or what, how many sheets at once and what the total volume of developer is. You may not have enough concentrate to get the job done with a small volume at 1:63.

[Jeroen]

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j24.pdf doesn't mention dilution H. Is that since the 'new' formula I saw in recent posts on this forum? I don't know. But do check page 7 on that PDF about developer capacity, that could be your problem.

[Jim Noel]

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j24.pdf doesn't mention dilution H. Is that since the 'new' formula I saw in recent posts on this forum? I don't know. But do check page 7 on that PDF about developer capacity, that could be your problem.

Dilution H is not one suggested by Kodak. Thus it is not mentioned in their literature. It is one that someone, possibly unknown, thought to publish many years ago.

[Tracy Storer]

Dilution H is not one suggested by Kodak. Thus it is not mentioned in their literature. It is one that someone, possibly unknown, thought to publish many years ago.

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

Lots of (not Kodak official) info on HC-110 here.

[John Layton]

Its been awhile since I've used HC-110 on a regular basis...having, by and large, gone over to pyro and pyrocat (staining) developers. But I've recently begun to reconsider a return to HC-110 - at least for certain types of images. My hope is that this "new" formula of HC-110 can compare favorably to the old one, assuming also that there will likely be some "tweaks" necessary to achieve this.

[RodinalDuchamp]

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j24.pdf doesn't mention dilution H. Is that since the 'new' formula I saw in recent posts on this forum? I don't know. But do check page 7 on that PDF about developer capacity, that could be your problem.

I was using 22ml HC110 to 1380ml water. Developing 6 sheets at a time. That's 3.6ml per sheet.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Its been awhile since I've used HC-110 on a regular basis...having, by and large, gone over to pyro and pyrocat (staining) developers. But I've recently begun to reconsider a return to HC-110 - at least for certain types of images. My hope is that this "new" formula of HC-110 can compare favorably to the old one, assuming also that there will likely be some "tweaks" necessary to achieve this.

Pyro is my preferred developer I wouldn't switch if I didn't have to for the moment

[Neal Chaves]

I must sound like a broken record by now, but if you don't do your own basic testing you will get nothing worth printing.



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 reciprosity 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.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Update: SUCCESS

I upped my total developer volume to 2000ml using 30ml of HC110. I also brought development time to 12 minutes and the results are unreal night and day difference. Thanks for everyone's input I am now able to confidently proceed.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

Update: SUCCESS

I upped my total developer volume to 2000ml using 30ml of HC110. I also brought development time to 12 minutes and the results are unreal night and day difference. Thanks for everyone's input I am now able to confidently proceed.


the massive dev charts time

The massive dev charts times are often wrong, IMHO.

E.g. Ilford FP4+@50 needs 9'00'' at 20°C and 30/30-5. https://grossformatfotografie.de/thread/16174-ilford-fp4-125-50-kodak-hc-110-h-1-63-20%C2%B0c-30-30-5-planfilm-im-h%C3%A4nger-ikea-tank/

devchart says Ilford FP4+ in HC-110H @100ASA needs 9'00 at 21°C - in a Jobo rotary tube processor! https://digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=%25Ilford+FP4%25&Developer=%25HC-110%25&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C&TimeUnits=D

[Tin Can]

I know you solved your problem, congratulations!

There is a limit to how little actual developer is necessary no matter the dilution

Some years ago SergeiR tested extensively and published here that some X-Ray film requires 10 ml or more of RODINAL to develop specifically 80 sq inches of double sided X-Ray film


He did test down to 3 ml

Of course HC110 may be different



I was using 22ml HC110 to 1380ml water. Developing 6 sheets at a time. That's 3.6ml per sheet.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Update: Part 2

Current working process, for posterity and my own notes.

For tray processing with a slosher 6 sheets at once
2000ml H2O
30ml HC110
70* F
10 minutes (adjusted down from 12 minutes to compensate contrast [too much for my taste], 10 minutes yielded more favorable negative contrast - may attempt 8 minute process after printing these)
Agitation 1 minute followed by 10 seconds every minute