6x7 and HC-110

[ColColt]

I've been experimenting with HP-5 and Dil H of HC-110 in Big Bertha(6x7) lately and am well pleased with the results I got today. These are a few shots with the 90 f2.8 lens and developing in Dil H for 11 minutes. It was about 2:00 in the afternoon so the sun was casting some pretty sharp shadows. The negatives were a bit thin so maybe next time give it 12 minutes.

Ladyanddog01 by David Fincher, on Flickr
Dunkin01 by David Fincher, on Flickr
BB&T02 by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[John Bragg]

Nice results David. I like the tonality and feel of this combination. It is my favorite film and developer combination bar none.

 

[ColColt]

I thought you may like it. I think I've found a good combination for that camera. I had recently ordered a five pack of HP-5 from B&H and can see more in the immediate future. I'm already using it in 35mm with similar results. It's a better film now than it was back in the 80's when I was using it.

 

[nworth]

HC-110 is neither the sharpest nor the finest grained developer around, but it is very long lasting and very convenient. 6X7 is big enough to overcome its shortfalls, so it makes sense. Big negatives are very nice to work with.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Nice shots!

HP5+ is my second favorite film after TMAX400, but HC-110 became my top favorite developer i like to use, not sure if i prefer to go with Ilford developers with Ilford films but i a happy with HC-110 and TMAX developers so far, and i only used Ilfosol 3 from Ilford and it was another nice developer, but it is like i always prefer ready out of bottles liquid developers than powdered and i have to mix to prepare it, so i will keep going with liquid ready developer for more and longer time.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Nice job! When I experiment with a new film or developer, I make sure there's decent shadow detail and my highlights aren't blocked up. If you print your negs, you should try to develop your negs printable on grade 2 paper.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I believe HC-110 and HP-5 just work very well together...a great combo
Best, peter

 

[John Bragg]

I like the shadow detail in these David. What speed did you rate them at ? They look really well balanced between the highlights and shadows.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I like the shadow detail in these David. What speed did you rate them at ? They look really well balanced between the highlights and shadows.

Yes, I was wondering the same. Excellent shadows and highlights held good too. Of course there is scanning involved here. John W

 

[ColColt]

I used ASA 250 as has been my usual with Tri-X and I just carried that train of thought over to HP-5. I've begun using it whether it was a day like those pictures were taken under or a somewhat overcast day. That little extra shadow detail is desirable to me.

Back in the day I would use ASA 400 on cloudy/overcast days and ASA250 on more contrasty days but have changed my thoughts these days about that. I hate blown highlights.

 

[RattyMouse]

I believe HC-110 and HP-5 just work very well together...a great combo
Best, peter

I've developed hundreds of rolls of HP5 in HC-110 and agree completely.

 

[Mark_S]

I've developed hundreds of rolls of HP5 in HC-110 and agree completely.

Another happy user of HP-5 and HC-110. I shoot MF and 4x5 so grain is not an issue.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Col., I remember seeing the now gone images & they certainly looked good. You recommended I try HC110 & its certainly well loved, but the Kodak comparison sheet shows XTOL giving better shadow detail & sharpness. I notice that quite a few shooters don't like having to mix dry chemicals. Is this the reason for the HC110 preference? Have you noticed any falloff in the shadows w/ 110? Do you use any compensating methods for 110? I appreciate your sharing your thoughts on it.

 

[ColColt]

I've never tried Xtol so, I don't know much about it. I usually stick with what I feel works for me and how the negatives look and the resultant prints/scans. I've been well pleased with HC-110 and HP-5 and even Tri-X as for overall tonal quality, sharpness and shadow detail without blocking the highlights.

I have no problem with mixing powder formulas as I've used ID-11 since the 80's. Back then they called it ID-11 Plus. It's a good developer for the mentioned 400 speed films and I've had good results with FP-4 as well but, I found for my taste with FP-4, little I've tried pleases me with the results like Rodinal and that film.

The way I use HP-5 and HC-110 can be attributed to John who put me onto his methods of using Dilution H-something I hadn't tried before. I don't let the film stand in the chemistry quite as long as he does but, it's an individual thing. I'll typically rate the film at ASA 250 and develop for 10-12 minutes depending on the temperature that's easier to work with. That's usually 70-75 degrees and cut or increase the time accordingly. It's difficult to get 68 degrees from the tap for washing purposes here unless it's Winter.Then, I agitate the first 15 seconds and invert the tank three times every two minutes until time is up. That's the way I developed those 120 negatives.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Col., thank You! I appreciate your kind help.

'Been pouring here for about a week. 'Going stir crazy, but snuck out for some shots between deluges. I'm nearing the end of my D76, so the HC will be started w/in a week or two.

'Hope you & yours have a superb weekend.

 

[ColColt]

We've actually had five days without rain...a real blessing. D76 is a good developer and a staple like ID-11 but, both are chocked full of sulfite, which I don't like. give HC-110 a try-you may like it.

 

[markbarendt]

The negatives were a bit thin so maybe next time give it 12 minutes.

I'm going to suggest that judgement about the thickness and your decision to adjust your time may be misguided.

I like the shadow detail in these David. What speed did you rate them at ? They look really well balanced between the highlights and shadows.

Yes, I was wondering the same. Excellent shadows and highlights held good too. Of course there is scanning involved here. John W

You and John and John have all said essentially that the result is just fine. No problem with the print/scan was identified.

What I'm getting at is that negatives aren't supposed to look good, they are just supposed to carry the info from the camera to the enlarger or scanner in a way that works well.

Seems to me that, that is exactly what happened.

So, ColColt, if the negatives are already doing exactly what you want: why would you make a change?

I used ASA 250 as has been my usual with Tri-X and I just carried that train of thought over to HP-5. I've begun using it whether it was a day like those pictures were taken under or a somewhat overcast day. That little extra shadow detail is desirable to me.

Back in the day I would use ASA 400 on cloudy/overcast days and ASA250 on more contrasty days but have changed my thoughts these days about that. I hate blown highlights.

The way that you are shooting, it is unlikely that you will "blow" the highlights on the negative, HP5 has plenty of exposure latitude.

When you print via an enlarger to a fixed grade of paper adjusting film development matters. Extra film development changes the steepness of the film curve and can make highlights "blow out" on the paper but the detail is still there on the negative fully available for printing. If you choose a higher contrast rate, extra film development, all you need to do to get that detail to print is "burn it in" a bit.

So if you are using enlarger and paper you would be making the possibility of blown highlights in a straight print more likely by adding more film development time as you suggest in the OP.

That doesn't seem to me to be your goal.

 

[ColColt]

So, ColColt, if the negatives are already doing exactly what you want: why would you make a change?

These negatives being scans it's hard to tell how they'd print on a condenser enlarger such as the 23CII I have stowed away. I'm having to increase the contrast a bit more during PP of the scanned negative, hence my feeling about perhaps they need to be a bit more dense. I doubt one minute more of developing time would make a great deal of difference.

A negative should be thin enough as to be able to read text through the dense highlights. These you can read a little too good and just look thin to me. However, you may be right and they could be good to go but, I haven't made prints to find out. I like to develop, when I use to print several times a week, where the exposure at the enlarger would be around 8-12 seconds. That would give me time to do any dodging/burning I needed to do and would print well on a #3 grade of paper or a 2 1/2 or 3 filter.

On the other hand, maybe it's the dilution of HC-110 I'm using. I haven't developed enough rolls of film with Dilution H to ascertain that judgment call yet. I do know developing the same film with Dilution B and a slighter higher temperature I was using this past summer gave more dense negatives-not a great deal but noticeable in comparison.

 

[markbarendt]

Time to break out the enlarger.

Maybe a contact sheet?

 

[John Bragg]

Hi David, it has been my experience that negatives made with dilution H can look thinner in that the high values are held in check by the extra dilution. The mid tones and shadows are less affected. Proof is in the scans or prints and HP5+ will hold a lot of highlight detail in the long straight line. What we are looking at is a compensated development which should require less messing about either with dodging or burning or post processing. I may have shared this with you before, but this guy makes perfect sense. Link to Greg Mironchuk's thoughts on HC-110 below.

http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html

Regards,

John

 

[ColColt]

Time to break out the enlarger.

Maybe a contact sheet?

Yep-been fighting it a long time.

John, you're spot on. I just was looking over some HP-5 negatives I developed about two months back in 35mm with Dil B at 75 degrees...marked difference than the 120 negatives I recently did with Dilution H. I'd be anxious to see how these last ones would actually print. I wish I had access to a darkroom without taking days cleaning out the old dark room and setting up again. I need a PX. Back many years ago when I was in Germany we had a dark room over the PX that guys would take their negatives and develop them. Unfortunately, there's no PX around here.

 

[ColColt]

BTW-This is also a good article and has been posted before.

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

 

[HiHoSilver]

This has been a helpful thread for me. Gratze.

 

[ColColt]

Silver-To me it boils down to this. Nothing can beat your own experimentation. People agitate differently, their water may be more hard or acidic than others or have more chlorine, etc. Your own equipment may be a bit different such as the meter or shutter times being a tad off or spot on or slight differences in lens apertures. Lots of variables so, it just pays to run tests yourself. You may or may not be able to emulate someone elses methods.

 

[HiHoSilver]

'Nice to have a starting point & not have to replicate everything that doesn't work. I noticed you added the minute & it looked superb. Massive Dev chart used straight 11 min. 'Tells me that somewhere in that range it should work fine. Should you ever experiment w/ more dilute solutions & longer dev times, I hope you'll write about that too. 'Preciate the education.