Adox HR-50 bulk arrived......which developer?

[retina_restoration]

I shot HR-50 and developed in my two bath developers and was very happy with the results. This was the PC version:



This was in the original PQ version



The PQ developer I called 2B-1 was a more successful developer and is here: https://imager.ie/a-phenidone-hydroquinone-two-bath-developer/

Karl,
I'd say you've achieved excellent "pictorial" contrast and tonality with your 2B-1 divided developer. Very nice indeed.
Question for you: in what way did you find Thornton 2-Bath to be inferior to your 2B-1 developer? Have you modified that recipe in any way since, to improve upon it?
I've used Thornton in a variety of ways and never found it disappointing, but if there's an option that's clearly superior, I'm all for trying it! Thanks for sharing your experience with HR-50

 

[Sergey Ko]

Good luck. Scala 50 / HR-50 is what I use when I want to get near-medium-format results from a 35mm camera, and the fact that it can do infrared is icing on the cake. Pan F+ is great too, but must be developed quickly so not as suitable for long excursions.

Here is the Flickr contact I got the Rodinal recipe from, he has done several experiments at different dilutions, agitations, temperatures, and measured with a densitometer.

Adox HR-50 @ISO 50 dev. in Rodinal 1+25

Explore this photo album by Ruediger Hartung on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Adox HR-50 @ ISO 50 dev. in Rodinal 1+25

Explore this photo album by Ruediger Hartung on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

It seems the 1:25 is lower contrast, then 1:100. May be different light condition... On the bridge was really sharp light.
As for me, I found this film more demanding than CMS20 with recommended developer.

 

[John Wiegerink]

It seems the 1:25 is lower contrast, then 1:100. May be different light condition... On the bridge was really sharp light.
As for me, I found this film more demanding than CMS20 with recommended developer.

Yes, that's the problem of looking at pictures on sites like this and assuming that the picture is actual fact or part fiction. What I'm trying to say is the same thing you are getting at. Was the negative processed slightly different, the developer weaker or stronger, developing temp different, scene lighting different and so on. It's very hard for me to believe that Rodinal 1+25 would tame contrast better than Rodinal 1+100 or even 1+50 for that mater, with all other things equal, but I have been fooled before.

 

[250swb]

It seems the 1:25 is lower contrast, then 1:100. May be different light condition... On the bridge was really sharp light.
As for me, I found this film more demanding than CMS20 with recommended developer.

It depends on what you are eyeballing as the recommended developer. Adox have a few options one of which is 'HR-Dev' which would have people believe this is the recommended developer. But I go along with Alex Luyckx

http://www.alexluyckx.com/blog/2021/08/09/film-review-blog-no-74-adox-hr-50/

and think for pictorial use and a wide tonal range FX-39 is a far more interesting and capable option. Again refer to the datasheet for agitation advice because inversion or the twiddle stick for ten seconds on the minute do not work.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Yes, that's the problem of looking at pictures on sites like this and assuming that the picture is actual fact or part fiction. What I'm trying to say is the same thing you are getting at. Was the negative processed slightly different, the developer weaker or stronger, developing temp different, scene lighting different and so on. It's very hard for me to believe that Rodinal 1+25 would tame contrast better than Rodinal 1+100 or even 1+50 for that mater, with all other things equal, but I have been fooled before.

It is hard to believe Rodinal 1+25 would tame contrast better. Mr Hartung does not say if it was done in scanning or post processing. Silverfast has an option called gradation that can apply a correction and there are many other ways of doing it in post processing.

 

[John Wiegerink]

It is hard to believe Rodinal 1+25 would tame contrast better. Mr Hartung does not say if it was done in scanning or post processing. Silverfast has an option called gradation that can apply a correction and there are many other ways of doing it in post processing.

Alan,
That's exactly what I was getting at. If it's the same everything and only the dilution different then it must be something in post processing that allows the 1+25 to look less contrasty than 1+100.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

My backordered bulk roll of HR-50 arrived from Freestyle, but Adox special developer for HR-50 in on backorder. I'm wondering if I can treat this film pretty much like Panf+ when it comes to developers. I like Panf+ in Perceptol 1+3 or Rodinal highly dilute. I only shoot Panf+ in 120 so I'm not sure those two developer would work well with HR-50 in 35mm. I do have those two developers on hand along with Adox XT-3 replenished and Pyrocat HDC. Anyone have much experience with those developers and HR-50. I can also mix up my own POTA or pretty much anything else since I have the chemicals. I just want a good place to start with this film and will go from there.

Try FX-21, the formula is here in another thread.

 

[John Wiegerink]

It depends on what you are eyeballing as the recommended developer. Adox have a few options one of which is 'HR-Dev' which would have people believe this is the recommended developer. But I go along with Alex Luyckx

http://www.alexluyckx.com/blog/2021/08/09/film-review-blog-no-74-adox-hr-50/

and think for pictorial use and a wide tonal range FX-39 is a far more interesting and capable option. Again refer to the datasheet for agitation advice because inversion or the twiddle stick for ten seconds on the minute do not work.

Looking at that comparison I would pick FX-39II over even Adox HR-DEV.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Try FX-21, the formula is here in another thread.

Yes, I see Andy O is giving it a try so I'll wait to see what he thinks. Sure sounds like an interesting developer.

 

[relistan]

Karl,
I'd say you've achieved excellent "pictorial" contrast and tonality with your 2B-1 divided developer. Very nice indeed.
Question for you: in what way did you find Thornton 2-Bath to be inferior to your 2B-1 developer? Have you modified that recipe in any way since, to improve upon it?
I've used Thornton in a variety of ways and never found it disappointing, but if there's an option that's clearly superior, I'm all for trying it! Thanks for sharing your experience with HR-50

Thank you! I really appreciate that.
Thornton's two bath is a good developer. I used it a fair bit. I would say that I prefer 2B-1 for higher accutance, higher speed on some films (1 full stop on Adox Silvermax, for example). Of course there is no silver bullet and a lot of this is all about preference. I made 7 two bath/divided developers that I tested a lot. 2B-1 (PQ) and 2B-4 (PC) were the best. I slightly preferred 2B-4. However, I am now in pretty firm belief that it's not reasonable to make a re-usable two bath in this style when the first bath is a PC bath. The ascorbic acid is too good of a preservative and the second bath rapidly becomes a developer. This is true for Thornton's two bath as well (we tested it here in another thread), and for 2B-1, just to a lesser extent. To make a two bath with a PC first bath, the second needs to be throwaway—so probably no sulfite in B for cost reasons. So I switched back to 2B-1, which works very well. I have so far used it for a couple more rolls of HR-50/Scala-50. I loved how it worked with Fomapan 400, a film I don't usually like.

2B-4 evolved into PC-512 Borax, my single bath developer that I use for most stuff. You can use it as a two bath by simply moving from the borax first bath to a carbonate second bath after a few minutes. This trick, of course, works with any developer.

 

[koraks]

Thank you! I really appreciate that.

Hopefully you also appreciate it if I add nothing else to the party than remark that I find the tonality of the photos you posted absolutely excellent and very pleasing, and I'm surprised that you got something like this out of a film that I imagine (never having actually used it myself) to be much more 'harsh' in character. Well done!

 

[loccdor]

Alan,
That's exactly what I was getting at. If it's the same everything and only the dilution different then it must be something in post processing that allows the 1+25 to look less contrasty than 1+100.

Everything isn't the same - agitation is different. Temperature slightly different, too. 10 minutes is quite a long development time for 1+25, the normal would be about half that - that's why the agitation is only one inversion away from full stand development.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Huh, after 140+ years of Rodinal a new property is discovered at 1+25. Er no.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Huh, after 140+ years of Rodinal a new property is discovered at 1+25. Er no.

Allen and locodor,
I truly want to apologize for being so stupid in assuming that the Rodinal 1+25 and 1+100 shots were processed exactly the same. I never clicked on any of the photos shown so never saw the photos information listed on fFickr. Sorry, now I know why my forehead is flatter than most everybody else. "SMACK". sound! Palm hitting forehead.

 

[Alan Johnson]

My comment aimed at Mr Hartung's lack of explanation, not you guys.

 

[John Wiegerink]

My comment aimed at Mr Hartung's lack of explanation, not you guys.

Yes, but common sense tells me I should have explored this a little better before jumping to conclusions. My father always said, "if it sounds too good to be true it probably is".

 

[relistan]

Hopefully you also appreciate it if I add nothing else to the party than remark that I find the tonality of the photos you posted absolutely excellent and very pleasing, and I'm surprised that you got something like this out of a film that I imagine (never having actually used it myself) to be much more 'harsh' in character. Well done!

Hey, thanks a lot for that! Really, much appreciated. I was very positively surprised when, on the second try, I got results like that. I think that whatever magic ADOX does to the aero film (pre-flash? Gas exposure?) reduces the contrast just enough that with the right compensating developer you can get a very nice result at box speed. Whenever it comes back into bulk stock at Fotoimpex, I will order 100ft.

 

[retina_restoration]

Thank you! I really appreciate that.
Thornton's two bath is a good developer. I used it a fair bit. I would say that I prefer 2B-1 for higher accutance, higher speed on some films (1 full stop on Adox Silvermax, for example). Of course there is no silver bullet and a lot of this is all about preference. I made 7 two bath/divided developers that I tested a lot. 2B-1 (PQ) and 2B-4 (PC) were the best. I slightly preferred 2B-4. However, I am now in pretty firm belief that it's not reasonable to make a re-usable two bath in this style when the first bath is a PC bath. The ascorbic acid is too good of a preservative and the second bath rapidly becomes a developer. This is true for Thornton's two bath as well (we tested it here in another thread), and for 2B-1, just to a lesser extent. To make a two bath with a PC first bath, the second needs to be throwaway—so probably no sulfite in B for cost reasons. So I switched back to 2B-1, which works very well. I have so far used it for a couple more rolls of HR-50/Scala-50. I loved how it worked with Fomapan 400, a film I don't usually like.

2B-4 evolved into PC-512 Borax, my single bath developer that I use for most stuff. You can use it as a two bath by simply moving from the borax first bath to a carbonate second bath after a few minutes. This trick, of course, works with any developer.

Thank you, Karl, for that detailed explanation, much appreciated.
I have all the ingredients in my darkroom to make your 2B-1 so I will give it a try, thanks! I have used Thornton 2-Bath on many films and I'm especially pleased with the results I get when pairing it with sheet film Fomapan 400. It delivers a remarkable range of tones and yet retains Fomapan's overall impression of contrast. I also like the results I got when using Thornton with Ferrania Orto.

I look forward to trying your 2B-1 with Fomapan, and others.

 

[Sergey Ko]

I am very lazy & I am the owner of JOBO ATL-1500, that's why I always try to adopt film for 24 deg rotating developing.
With HR-50 I used HR-DEV 1:49 6,5min 24C shot as ISO40
The pictures are technical example only

 

[John Wiegerink]

I am very lazy & I am the owner of JOBO ATL-1500, that's why I always try to adopt film for 24 deg rotating developing.
With HR-50 I used HR-DEV 1:49 6,5min 24C shot as ISO40
The pictures are technical example only

Sergey,
Those pictures look to have very good shadow detail for an EI(ISO) of 40. I just shot three short rolls at EI25, ISO50 and EI at 100 to see where my shadows fall with the developers I'm going to try. I just might have to buy some HR-DEV when it comes back in stock.

 

[relistan]

Thank you, Karl, for that detailed explanation, much appreciated.
I have all the ingredients in my darkroom to make your 2B-1 so I will give it a try, thanks! I have used Thornton 2-Bath on many films and I'm especially pleased with the results I get when pairing it with sheet film Fomapan 400. It delivers a remarkable range of tones and yet retains Fomapan's overall impression of contrast. I also like the results I got when using Thornton with Ferrania Orto.

I look forward to trying your 2B-1 with Fomapan, and others.

Great! Sent you a direct mesage. Let me know if I can help.

 

[Sergey Ko]

Sergey,
Those pictures look to have very good shadow detail for an EI(ISO) of 40. I just shot three short rolls at EI25, ISO50 and EI at 100 to see where my shadows fall with the developers I'm going to try. I just might have to buy some HR-DEV when it comes back in stock.

I said already, that ADOX HR-50 is much worse than CMS20, while the ISO range is close enough. Also the color reproduction is also is bad. You can see on my example with grand-grand-father that the tubes of the garden chair a very dark, but they are light green color! And the vertical shot of the green garden is rather light only because of use Green x2 filter (it is in the name of file). So I tried this film (10 cassetes) and I'll return to CMS20 or Kodak 5222
Also the shot with a black car in the shadow & bright front house is the only frame of 5 bracketing frames -others are bad in lights or shadows.
As for my -it is not acceptable result, a possibility of a lot of mistackes ((
So the only plus is the price...

 

[John Wiegerink]

Sergey,
I thought the scene with the car looked pretty good shadow wise, and of course I didn't know what the colors of everything in the scene were. I expect the foliage to be a little lighter due to the film's spectral sensitivity, but it's nice to know what other people's opinions are. I'm going to run my own test and see for myself.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

I said already, that ADOX HR-50 is much worse than CMS20, while the ISO range is close enough. Also the color reproduction is also is bad. You can see on my example with grand-grand-father that the tubes of the garden chair a very dark, but they are light green color! And the vertical shot of the green garden is rather light only because of use Green x2 filter (it is in the name of file). So I tried this film (10 cassetes) and I'll return to CMS20 or Kodak 5222
Also the shot with a black car in the shadow & bright front house is the only frame of 5 bracketing frames -others are bad in lights or shadows.
As for my -it is not acceptable result, a possibility of a lot of mistackes ((
So the only plus is the price...

Ok, so aren't Hr-50 and Scala 50 worthwile to buy and use?

 

[John Wiegerink]

Ok, so aren't Hr-50 and Scala 50 worthwile to buy and use?

The reason I'm interested is that it looks like a pretty decent film for things like landscapes and urban/city buildings and such. Plus, it has the ability to give pretty decent infrared rendering. Kind of like two films in one.