PDA

View Full Version : 320TXP and HC110B Replacement?



Wayne Lambert
14-Dec-2011, 14:30
By the 1960's Ansel Adams was promoting Tri-X and HC110B as an excellent film/developer combination. I have always liked the combination, but now it seems as if it's time to look beyond Kodak. Any suggestions for a combination that would be similar? Is Ilford's Ilfotec HC developer similar to HC110? (I like to use a liquid developer.) I am wondering about HP5 Plus and Ilfotec HC. I would appreciate your insights.

BradS
14-Dec-2011, 15:32
HP5+ is absolutely NOTHING like TXP320....To my taste, I think Ilford FP4+ is actually closer to 320TXP but even FP4+ is a far cry from 320TXP. I really don't think there is anything quite like 320TXP.

With regards to HC-110. it really depends on how you are using HC-110. For example, I find that HC-110 and D-76 give very similar results when inversion processing roll films in small tanks. But the behavior of these two developers when processing sheet films in a Jobo Tank with continuous rotary agitation is different enough that I gave up on HC-110.

Jordan
14-Dec-2011, 19:21
Wayne I am curious about the exact same thing! I need a close replacement for the tri-x/ HC110 combo. I really don't care for Xtol so hopefully no one suggests that. I have never made a negative even with tri-x using Xtol that I thought was any good. I really have reservations in regards to HP5 but would like to switch now and get it out of the way.

Ken Lee
14-Dec-2011, 19:30
"similar" - meaning a film/developer combination that gives similar film speed/grain/acutance/sharpness/reciprocity/spectral response ?

A combination whose developer is one-shot, quickly and easily mixed, and has extremely long shelf-life ?

According to Anchell, Kodak has modified the formula for HC-110 several times over the years, without any formal announcement. So at the risk of nit-picking, we could rightly ask, which HC-110B ? Tri-X has also changed since Ansel's days. :)

Many will give anecdotal recommendations. Few will show comparison images. Fewer still will show sensitometric studies to support their assertions.

Kirk Gittings
14-Dec-2011, 19:36
After using Tri-X Professional in HC110 for 25 years, I decided I wanted a finer grade film and finally settled on FP4+. I don't believe I have found the developer for it yet though.

Has anyone tried this HC110 substitute available from Freestyle?
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/10190-LegacyPro-L110-BandW-Liquid-Film-Developer-to-Make-2-Gallons

a thread on it here:
http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00XET5

Gem Singer
14-Dec-2011, 19:41
Wayne and Jordan,

If you are planning on using Ilford HP-5+ film, consider developing it in Pyrocat-HD developer. A combination that's hard to beat.


Wayne,

Ilfotec-HD is not exactly like Kodak HC110. It has different developing agents and was formulated for machine development in commercial labs.

Try Ilfotec DD-X, instead. It is a liquid developer, formulated for one-shot home development, and has a long shelf life.


(this statement is based on anecdotal information).

Wayne Lambert
14-Dec-2011, 19:54
Good point, Ken. Here's what I want. I want a combination exactly like this year's 320TXP and HC110. Seriously, I have always like the way this combination treated the whites. And of course, sensitometry isn't the last word on such matters. As we all know, it can be pretty subjective. But I also like the one-shot convenience of HC-110B: I tray develop ten sheets of 8 x 10 (two batches of five) in one gallon of HC-110B and then discard the developer. Pretty easy.
Those of you who have used FP4---what developers do you like or not like?
Thanks,
Wayne

false_Aesthetic
14-Dec-2011, 20:10
I disliked FP4 in HC110 any dilution.

I really liked FP4 in Xtol 1:1 but I had no patience for 1:3. 6 sheets of 5x7 shuffled.

I can't comment on how close it is to your preferred combo.

Ken Lee
15-Dec-2011, 05:39
Seriously, I have always like the way this combination treated the whites. And of course, sensitometry isn't the last word on such matters. As we all know, it can be pretty subjective.

You probably won't see any photos here that show how a film/developer "treats the whites" (a rather subjective statement), and you won't see any kind of testing which shows the influence of time/temperature/dilution/film speed on contrast, density, etc.

That seems pretty subjective too.

People can answer anything they like of course - and they will. I "really like" outdated X-Ray film souped in coffee. But for ultimate convenience, let the coffee be instant Nescafe or Folgers. The combination "looks just like" Super-XX souped in the old D-25... whatever that means :)

Kidding aside, I respect your work and your dedication, and would like you to get an answer that is worthy of your time and effort to investigate.

You might find this article (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/PCat4/pcat4.html) interesting. The link takes you to page 4, where it shows how several different films behave in one developer. It may be subjective, but it's worthy of your attention.

Bruce Watson
15-Dec-2011, 09:13
By the 1960's Ansel Adams was promoting Tri-X and HC110B ... but now it seems as if it's time to look beyond Kodak.

You're taking the wrong message away from this. It's not time to look beyond Kodak -- but it's way past time to look beyond the 1960s! Film and developers are so much better now.

I switched from Tri-X and HC110 to TMY-2 and XTOL years ago. And I've been kicking myself ever since for wasting so much time on Tri-X. TMY-2 is just an amazing film. There's not another LF film that even comes close IMHO. I'll use it as long as I can get it, or until someone releases something even better (but I'm not holding my breath on that one).

Neal Chaves
15-Dec-2011, 16:07
Try HP5+ this way. I did extensive tests and it looks just like the 320 TXP, of which I have done a great deal, to me. Don't underexpose. Meter a mid-tone or use an incident disc. Use the 400 speed only on flatly lighted subject matter. Consider the 200 speed for normal contrast on subject matter with a full range of tones and use the 100 speed in high contrast situations. These times are based on HC110 Dilution B (1:31 from concentrate) at 68F with tray development and agitation constant for the first 30 seconds and five seconds every 30 seconds thereafter for a single sheet in the tray.

EI 400 7 min. 30 secs.
EI 200 6 min. 15 secs.
EI 100 5 minutes

These times worked out to be the same as my previous times for 320 TXP

I do mostly 8X10, one negative at a time in a tray now, but I have done up to 10 4X5s and 6 8X10s at a time by pre-soaking the stack in a water bath and then bringing the stack over to the developer tray, shuffling through the stack once quickly at first and then bringing one sheet up from the bottom and agitating about every five seconds. All sheets have the notches in the upper right corner except for the top sheet which is reversed. I add 30 seconds to the development time when I pre-soak. I try to time it so the the first sheet comes back to the top just as the time is up, then I move the whole stack to the stop bath and shuffle quickly through them at first.

You must use at least one half ounce of the concentrate for every two 8X10 sheets or equivalent. If you want to vary the contrast by changing dilution rather than development time, Use EI 200 as your normal at 6 min. 15 secs. at 1:31, then try these other dilutions.

All times 6:15 at 68F


800 1 1/2:29 1/2 "N+2"
400 1 1/4:30 3/4 "N+1"
200 1:31 "N"
100 3/4:31 1/4 "N-1"
50 1/2:31 1/2 "N-2"

In practice, I meter with a Spectra flat disc incident meter at EI 200, then I "proof" with a B&W Fuji electronic viewfinder camera at 200 EI in manual exposure mode. I eyeball the exposed scene in the viewfinder and then decide, just as if I were printing a negative for the first time on a normal contrast grade paper, if and how I should should vary the contrast of the negative I am going to expose.

The Fuji S9100 camera I have is about a $100 used item now, and it is the best aid to exposure and proofing I could want.

Allen in Montreal
15-Dec-2011, 16:14
Bruce,

I guess it also depends on what you shoot.
I shoot mostly people, so I liked the old TXP in HC-110 or Acufine when I shoot a man, PXP when I shoot a woman, and T-400 when shooting buildings etc.

Today I have a mix of Tri-x, HP-5, FP-4, T-400 and Acros in my freezer.
I keep Acufine, T-max, T-max RS, D-76, HC-110, X-tol and Pyro.
HP-5 in Pyro is really nice.

I can understand people who use only one emulsion, (Jim Kitchen and his mastering of T-400 in X-tol comes to mind) but for my tastes, it really depends on what I am after and I like the variety.







You're taking the wrong message away from this. It's not time to look beyond Kodak -- but it's way past time to look beyond the 1960s! Film and developers are so much better now.

I switched from Tri-X and HC110 to TMY-2 and XTOL years ago. And I've been kicking myself ever since for wasting so much time on Tri-X. TMY-2 is just an amazing film. There's not another LF film that even comes close IMHO. I'll use it as long as I can get it, or until someone releases something even better (but I'm not holding my breath on that one).

John NYC
16-Dec-2011, 16:35
I can understand people who use only one emulsion, (Jim Kitchen and his mastering of T-400 in X-tol comes to mind)

Man, what a loss that guy doesn't participate here anymore.

Daniel Stone
16-Dec-2011, 16:36
what happened to Jim Kitchen? He go digital or something on us ;)?

-Dan

Heroique
16-Dec-2011, 16:42
He’s out on the prairies & under the big skies of Alberta.

He’ll be back.

Steve Hamley
16-Dec-2011, 20:19
Bruce,

Where can I get that in 8x10 (TMY now and TMX in a year?).

Cheers, Steve


You're taking the wrong message away from this. It's not time to look beyond Kodak -- but it's way past time to look beyond the 1960s! Film and developers are so much better now.

I switched from Tri-X and HC110 to TMY-2 and XTOL years ago. And I've been kicking myself ever since for wasting so much time on Tri-X. TMY-2 is just an amazing film. There's not another LF film that even comes close IMHO. I'll use it as long as I can get it, or until someone releases something even better (but I'm not holding my breath on that one).

John NYC
16-Dec-2011, 22:17
Hes out on the prairies & under the big skies of Alberta.

Hell be back.

Really? He hasn't posted here in a long, long time.

Vaughn
17-Dec-2011, 00:11
For my FP4+ I like to develop in Ilford Universal PQ Developer. It is easy to use and I vary the dilution from 1:9 to 1:19 depending on the contrast of the scene and what process I will be printing the negative. But generally, I am after a little more contrast than most (for platinum and for carbon printing). I develop 8x10 in the 3005 Expert Drum.

Vaughn

Sal Santamaura
17-Dec-2011, 08:54
For my FP4+ I like to develop in Ilford Universal PQ Developer. It is easy to use and I vary the dilution from 1:9 to 1:19 depending on the contrast of the scene and what process I will be printing the negative...What EIs/CIs and curves shapes result from those dilutions? Times/temperatures and drum rpm used? With or without a presoak? Thanks in advance.

cdholden
17-Dec-2011, 09:15
Bruce,

Where can I get that in 8x10 (TMY now and TMX in a year?).

Cheers, Steve

Write Keith Canham a check for $15K. :)

Vaughn
17-Dec-2011, 09:48
What EIs/CIs and curves shapes result from those dilutions? Times/temperatures and drum rpm used? With or without a presoak? Thanks in advance.

Sorry, I have not done any such testing or plotting of curves. I use a presoak (a good long one -- several minutes) and non-hardening fix. I am using a motor base, non-reversing, but I flip the drum over every minute. Motor only has one speed, so I have not paid a great deal of attention its speed.

Dilution, time and temp varies with the contrast range of the scene and final process to be used with the negative. Scenes with a range of only 4 or 5 stops of light, I would use 1:9 (100ml to 900ml water), perhaps 6 to 8 minutes at 68F, while a scene with 7 to 9 stops might get 1:19 (50ml to 950 ml water) for 4 to 6 minutes. I do not have my developing notes here.

It is about time that I sit down with all recent my prints and negatives; and pour over the data and compare it to print quality and really determine the best times, temp and dilutions. Make a chart or something. Usually I look at my field notes, lick my finger, stick it in the air, notice my finger is wet, and grab a time/temp/dilution out of the air and go for it.:D

Vaughn

Wayne Lambert
17-Dec-2011, 20:40
Thank you all for the information and suggestions. That is one of the great things about this forum---there is a lot of expertise here and it is shared freely.
Again, Thanks.
Wayne