HC110, what's your feelings? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

View Full Version : HC110, what's your feelings?

sully75

3-Mar-2012, 22:54

I'd kind of written off HC110 having read some negative stuff about it somewhere along the line (basically that it didn't max out the capibilities of a lot of films. Seems like it would be super convenient though, mixing it up as needed.

I'm guessing people here are not using it much, is that right? Why or why not? I'm just reading "The Zone VI Workshop" and Fred Picker was raving about it, but that is quite a while ago.

Currently my film of choice is Arista.edu/Foma 400. Mostly shoot portraits and landscapes and I'm looking for very even exposure, not too contrasty. I do shoot a bit of MF and even more occasionally 35mm.

Thanks!
Paul

Vaughn

4-Mar-2012, 01:11

I used it when I was printing silver gelatin prints. Diluted 1:60 from the concentrate for 4x5 TMax-100. Constant agitation in Trays -- have forgotten the times. I made 16x20 prints (Ilford Gallerie, usually Grade 3, sometimes Grade 2) and I was and still m very happy with my prints.

Vaughn

jcoldslabs

4-Mar-2012, 02:15

It's all I use and have used for about ten years. No complaints. I usually use it very diluted (dilutions F and H mainly). I process Efke PL100, T-Max 100 and 400, Tri-X, etc. in it without issue. Maybe I'm not getting all I can from my negatives, but my untrained eye can't tell the difference.

Jonathan

Ken Lee

4-Mar-2012, 05:10

"I'm just reading "The Zone VI Workshop" and Fred Picker was raving about it..."

Fred learned of it from Ansel, and Ansel used many films and developers over the years. At the time (late 1960's) it was very attractive because it gives wonderful results with Tri-X for contact prints and cold-light enlargements - and because it was very convenient to mix, with basically unlimited shelf-life of the syrup. True today as it was then.

Were Ansel and Fred still working today, they would be testing and exploring as we speak. Their students do. Some still prefer Tri-X and HC-110. It's hard to beat for most Large Format applications.

Note that Kodak has changed the formula for HC-110 several times over the years, without ever notifying the public. HC-110 even contained some form of Pyro for a while. Some changes improve the product, while others increase profitability or simplify manufacturing.

Every film/developer combination gives its own results, which vary depending on camera/lens/development/enlargement/scanning/ etc. In today's "digital" world, we find an equivalent proliferation of cameras, sensors, lenses, profiles, software, printers, papers, inks, etc. It's still a lot like cooking food.

The best way to find out if you like something, is to either try it yourself, or find someone whose work you admire, and simply copy their methods.

"Mostly shoot portraits and landscapes and I'm looking for very even exposure, not too contrasty. I do shoot a bit of MF and even more occasionally 35mm."

What we need for 35mm may be different than Large Format, or even Medium Format. Hand-held portraits are different than landscapes with a tripod: film speed versus grain versus acutance etc. HC-110 is not a "magic bullet" for optimal results across all of those situations. I doubt any film/developer combination is. Fred used other films and developers when shooting with smaller formats, and so did Ansel.

John Jarosz

4-Mar-2012, 06:37

Ari

4-Mar-2012, 07:03

I've used it for 15 years, and I think it's a superb developer.
Used at dilution H, I get beautiful, contrasty negs that print very well and easily.

Jim Noel

4-Mar-2012, 09:16

HC 110 is a very adaptable developer. Although I use one of the pyro fomulas most of the time, I keep HC 110 for those times when I need to get a negative in a hurry, or want to manipulate the film more than I like to do with pyro based developers.
I recommend it to students just starting up their home darkrooms. It keeps well, works at a wide variety of temperatures, and produces a crisp negative.

Jim

cdholden

4-Mar-2012, 13:53

I love it, at least Dilution B. I'm biased though. It's what I learned with. Regardless of what other options are around, I always come back to it. Ease of use, price, long shelf life, availability (for now anyway)... if you can find darkroom chemicals, HC-110 always delivers for me. Everyone has their own preferences. This one is mine, but as I try other printing methods this may change.

ajmiller

4-Mar-2012, 14:06

I use it with HP5+ in 4x5 sheet and like it for the practical reasons already given - shelf-life, price etc.
As I've only recently started using LF seriously I'm still testing it out to obtain negatives to my liking.
Be interested to hear what film others use HC110 with and dilutions etc.

cheers, Tony

Mark Barendt

4-Mar-2012, 14:17

I use it, but........

The real question is what will eventually happen to it when Kodak or it's successors decide to stop making it. It's really pretty mysterious in that no one really knows what's in it. Kinda like the formula for Dr Pepper. People say they might have an equivalent formula but I haven't heard any definitive information. Will it simply disappear?

http://ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=32&t=Film+Developers

http://freestylephoto.biz/10191-LegacyPro-L110R-BandW-Liquid-Film-Developer-Replenisher-to-Make-1

Heroique

4-Mar-2012, 15:33

I’m looking for very even exposure, not too contrasty.

I love using HC-110 as a highly dilute compensation developer – when highlights in the field get difficult.

Here (in the Washington Cascade range) I simply went by the book – shot for the shadows, knowing I would develop for the highlights.

The darkest shadows were zone 3; the sunny-snow highlights were zones 7++ to 8++ and higher, but the compensation development “brought them down.” :)

Pretty even w/ texture everywhere! Just wish there were clouds…

Tachi 4x5
Schneider 150mm/9 g-claron
Ilford FP4+ (in HC-110)
Epson 4990/Epson Scan

roresteen

4-Mar-2012, 16:29

I use it, but........

The real question is what will eventually happen to it when Kodak or it's successors decide to stop making it. It's really pretty mysterious in that no one really knows what's in it. Kinda like the formula for Dr Pepper. People say they might have an equivalent formula but I haven't heard any definitive information. Will it simply disappear?

Well John, if it does it does. I doubt it though. But if it did and Kodak folded shop, there are other developers that could probably take it's place without a lot of fan fare, my guess.

roresteen

4-Mar-2012, 16:32

Alan Curtis

4-Mar-2012, 16:41

You hit the issue of the thread on the head. Using HC-110 is knowing what it will do with your film and exposure experience. I've used it with Tri-x for many years, I know what to expect. Is there something better? Maybe, but I'm very happy with the end result. I dilute it 1:60, my Florida darkroom water is pretty warm so the long development time seems to work with the help of the Zone VI compensating timer.

Drew Wiley

4-Mar-2012, 17:21

HC-110 is extremely versatile with respect to contrast, and can be mixed
to produce everything from extremely low contrast to quite high, depending on the specific film involved. I use it for very critical masking
use in the lab, but prefer the highlight control of pyro developers for field
work. With grainy films it can get a bit salt and peppery in high contrast
mode. I would be a very difficult developer for anyone to replicate, though
I know someone who did it, though this require access to a research
grade lab. It involved a lot of toxic intermediates too, though HC-110 itself
seems safe with common sense. It stores well and is convenient. Pretty
much a dependable classic, though if it ever disappears there are quite
a few options out there alreay.

fsibold

4-Mar-2012, 17:27

I use HC110, dilution B, with Arista Edu 100iso 4x5 and Shanghai 100iso 4x5 and 8x10.

Holdenrichards

4-Mar-2012, 17:28

I love HC110 and its pretty much all I use for standard film anymore. I use dilution G 1:119 and its a wonderful compensating developer.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7181/6788721236_a8bcfb5f7b.jpg

cdholden

4-Mar-2012, 18:08

I love HC110 and its pretty much all I use for standard film anymore. I use dilution G 1:119 and its a wonderful compensating developer.

Very nice detail in that photo... great name too!

cjbecker

4-Mar-2012, 18:13

I really love to tonal range that hc-110b gives me. Thats with tri-x 400 and tri-x 320. I also like the faster developing times. 6:30. Although I do want to try d76 because I tend to push to 3200 and hc110 does not like it as much. I also don’t really like xtol.

Peter Gomena

4-Mar-2012, 18:20

I used HC-110 for about 15 years for 35mm, MF and LF. Great stuff, keeps forever, consistent results, good negatives, versatile. I only dropped it when I started working with pyro developers. All of my work is field work these days, and I find PMK or Pyrocat-HD help keep my highlights in check better than HC-110. This is not the developer's fault, more likely my own inconsistent processes over the years in different darkrooms.

Peter Gomena

J D Clark

4-Mar-2012, 23:26

I used two ounces of it this afternoon. I use HC-110 in two dilutions, B (1:31) for normal film development, and dilute (1:127) for compensating (stand) development. TMAX-400 in HC-110, dilution B gives grainless 11x14s with lovely tonality on ADOX MCC-110.

John Clark
www.johndclark.com

turtle

5-Mar-2012, 07:03

Firstly, I do not use HC110so bear that in mind...

My understanding is that HC110 at normal dilutions tends to produce an upswept curve, which would give lots of highlight separation at the expense of mids and shadows. In theory. But hey, it worked for AA, or at least one version or other did and it has lots of fans today.

The upsides of HC110 have been mentioned by others but now for the downs:

It does not offer as much film speed as some developers (like Xtol or DDX) and this may or may not matter to you.
It reportedly produces more grain than Xtol and some other standard developers, so is perhaps not the best choice if enlarging significantly
Nobody else makes it! D76/ID11/Xtol etc can easily be mirrored by using other manufacturer's brews or making your own.

Th shots shown to exemplify its compensating characteristics do so, but they could both easily have been achieved with other standard developers and VC papers without even flashing (which gives huge scope for dealing with difficult highlights with most films that do not block up quickly). Neither example comes close to really stretching modern materials and so are not 'proof of the pudding' so to speak. I have to deal with hellish light shooting in the middle east on 35mm and 6x7. often I have to develop the whole roll 'as standard' and work out the kinks in the darkroom. Sometimes real effort is required in the darkroom, but we are talking highlights well above Z10, with exposure for shadows, and with Xtol or DDX with TriX, FP4+, D100 (and others) there are very rarely problems printing detail into highlights. I am not suggesting this crude approach for fine art work, only that other developers still allow for plenty of head room with most films even developed normally.

I used HC-110 for about 15 years for 35mm, MF and LF. Great stuff, keeps forever, consistent results, good negatives, versatile. I only dropped it when I started working with pyro developers. All of my work is field work these days, and I find PMK or Pyrocat-HD help keep my highlights in check better than HC-110. This is not the developer's fault, more likely my own inconsistent processes over the years in different darkrooms.

Peter Gomena

Peter Gomena

5-Mar-2012, 11:27

Yes, HC-110 does not offer the film speed of Xtol or the others, and it is not terribly fine-grained, but in MF or LF, grain is not a problem. I rarely enlarged 35mm beyond 5x, so it didn't figure there very much.

Your "hellish" contrast ranges could be greatly helped by divided development in Pyrocat-HD, or even something like Photographer's Forumulary's T-FX2, which, although not terribly fine-grained, produces sharp images with good film speed and good highlight control. Unfortunately, these nonstandard developers might be impossible to find in the Middle East. Dilute HC-110 might be used in a reduced agitation or semi-stand development scheme to tame the contrast. Rodinal also is a possible choice, although it is likewise not known for as good a film speed as other developers. Check into the Analog Photography Users Group site for all kinds of information on compensating development, developers and reduced agitation schemes. If you're using 35mm and 6x7, you're talking a slightly different dialect than the folks on this forum.

I will add that using Pyrocat-HD in divided form allows me to make good negatives from rollfilm exposed in an 11-stop range. Lots of shadow detail, good highlights that do not block up. Fuji Acros is my go-to film for this situation.

Peter Gomena

turtle

5-Mar-2012, 11:45

Peter, the problem is heavily mixed contrast on the same roll. I accept that I usually (bit not always) have to develop for an average and fix the rest in printing. I generally use Xtol 1+2 which is very kind to highlights, esp if one reduces agitation. If try too hard to rein in hot negs I end up with dead negs from low contrast scenes that become unprintable so it is all about compromise and using the full scope of VC paper, with flashing if needed.

When I shot more LF I used to use Pyrocat HD but water quality variations here and the need for speed preclude its use (for my needs). Now that I am spooling up for LF again, I will break out the pyrocat. I found it had far better shadow separation, grain and acutance than the HC110 Dil B I compared it to about ten years ago (using identical 5x4 Acros negs). Highlights were also better controlled in harsh lighting. Considering that speeds are similar, I would personally go for pyrocat every time and if I need more speed, Xtol 1+1 / 1+2 is a great conventional fall back.

I suspect HC110's main appeal now is its flexibility, economy and shelf life. While some say grain is not an issue in LF, I disagree. I feel that on a 20x16 from 5x4 FP4+,you can certainly see the differences in grain and smoothness of tone with some of these developers. With 10x8 negs, I am sure these issues would disappear at that size and re-emerge with very large prints. I guess it all depends on application and personal priorities, but there would seem to be better alternatives out there unless working well within the 'comfort zone' of negs in terms of enlargement. With low ratios the grain is probably a benefit, to ensure some acutance in 2 x prints and contacts, compared to finer grained alternatives like Xtol.