Another unscientific test (HP5 in D23/HC-110/Rodinal)

[sterioma]

Here's another "unscientific" comparison of 3 developers, this time around with HP5+.

Here are the three print scans (8x10 on resin coated, different print times trying to match the highlights from the step from the gray scale on the left).

(After clicking, if you use the "open in new window" arrow at the top right you can see it at max resolution allowed on this site to fit size restrictions).

D23:

HC-110:

Rodinal (semi-stand):


A detail from the top left:

and one from the bottom:

Things that stand out to me:

• Rodinal semi-stand shows a gradient in the density from bottom to top, could be a side effect of stand development?
  
• Rodinal semi-stand has greater shadow detail
• Rodinal is obviously grainier, while D23 and HC-110 are pretty close, with D23 having a slightly finer grain.
• Based on this comparison, I don't see a reason to switch from my usual HC-110 developer to D23. They are very similar to my eyes on the actual print at this size.

More test details:

• Camera and lens: Nikon F55 (new to me) with 50mm AF 1.8
  
• Film: HP5+
  
• Metering: incident reading with a Sekonic 308
• Lighting: window light from the top on a overcast day + 2 softboxes
• Subject matter: 24 identical frames of variuos objects including and a test target printed with my inkjet printer (!)
• Development: D23 1:1 for 11 minutes, Rodinal 1:100 semi-stand for 60 minutes, HC-110 dil H for 15 minutes. All developed in tanks, 30s initial agitation, then 3 inversions every minute.
• Prints: 8x10 prints on Ilford Multigrade resin coated, exposed to have similar highlights on the first few steps of the gray step at the bottom left. Condenser enlarger.
  
• Scanner: prints have been scanned at 600dpi with a cheap Epson printer/scanner. All prints have been scanned identically and no changes have been made other than cropping.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thank you, sterioma... It's refreshing to see a test without film scans.

 

[foc]

Thanks for the link from the other thread.

Developers are always a personal taste and from your test I would be happy with any of them. I do like your D23 if only because it is such a simple to make developer at home, yet produces great results.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thank you, sterioma... It's refreshing to see a test without film scans.

Thanks Sterioma and, yes, I agree wholeheartedly with Juan on his comment above. Both the D23 and Rodinal seem to give a more contrasty and maybe for that reason, a brighter look which I like but that is just my opinion. Others may prefer the lower contrast of HC110 which gives the greyer look

However I thought that these pictures "rang a bell" in my head and for good reason. Thyey appeared in an earlier thread and there I declared for D23 and in those pics having looked at my comments there I stick by what I said. The Rodinal one especially loses highlight detail.

So presumably other factors are at play which changes things?

pentaxuser

 

[sterioma]

However I thought that these pictures "rang a bell" in my head and for good reason. Thyey appeared in an earlier thread and there I declared for D23 and in those pics having looked at my comments there I stick by what I said. The Rodinal one especially loses highlight detail.

So presumably other factors are at play which changes things?

pentaxuser

Yes, there was a previous thread, but that film was Fomapan 100. It is also a slighly different set of objects, a different camera and lens. Everything else is pretty much the same, other than this time I tried stand development for Rodinal instead of 1:50.

 

[RokkorZ]

Nice comparison! Interesting to see how close the D23 and HC were. How long did you leave the Rodinal to develop, and did you do many inversions? I'm a fan of stand Dev with Rodinal, usually do 60mins with 2 inversions at 30mins and never had any density gradients as far as I can tell. That said, your test seems much more scientific than any I've done. Great contribution.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The unevenness of the Rodinal example is almost certainly an artefact of (non-)agitation - and the more open shadows are likely because it didn't develop to the same overall density - highlight density, curve shape and effective shadow speed all have a set of interactions which may not be as clear-cut as you might assume.

 

[sterioma]

Nice comparison! Interesting to see how close the D23 and HC were. How long did you leave the Rodinal to develop, and did you do many inversions? I'm a fan of stand Dev with Rodinal, usually do 60mins with 2 inversions at 30mins and never had any density gradients as far as I can tell. That said, your test seems much more scientific than any I've done. Great contribution.

I did 60 minutes with 2 inversions at 30m, dilution 1:100. I think here it's easier to see as there are other prints to compare it to. All of the 4/5 negatives of the strip developed with Rodinal had the same pattern.

 

[RokkorZ]

I did 60 minutes with 2 inversions at 30m, dilution 1:100. I think here it's easier to see as there are other prints to compare it to. All of the 4/5 negatives of the strip developed with Rodinal had the same pattern.

Interesting, and good to know. I expect it is happening to me too then and I've just not noticed it!

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes, there was a previous thread, but that film was Fomapan 100. It is also a slighly different set of objects, a different camera and lens. Everything else is pretty much the same, other than this time I tried stand development for Rodinal instead of 1:50.

Thanks. Probably my fault for my checking that the film would be different; otherwise why do it again . HP5+ tends, in my subjective opinion, to give a lower contrast, greyer print with better shadow detail when shot at box speed and developed as Ilford suggests but no doubt others would say that you simply alter film speed, dev time or even print contrast to effectively change the appearance of the "greyer" print to match the others .

pentaxuser