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-...Make-2-Gallons

a thread on it here:
http://photo.net/black-and-white-pho...g-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

Originally Posted by Wayne Lambert

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 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

Originally Posted by Wayne Lambert

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).