Back to film. TMY and TX in XTOL. should I try HC-110

[stefano giovannini]

Hi,
after 10+ years of digital photography and pressing deadlines I bought some analog 35mm cameras (Minolta Maxxum 5 and 70, Nikonos II / III and looking for a P&S).



Doing my own film processing with Paterson tank. I used to use TX and HC-110 in the late 1990s, but after trying TX and getting grainy results I think I will go with T Max 400. I purchased XTOL, I liked the price, the 1+1 single use, environmental concerns.

I always thought turning a digital photo in BW was a bit like cheating, now I turn BW negs into digital photos instead with a repro stand / light box.

I am including some samples of recent photos on TX and TMY-2. and also the negative repro as imported in Lightroom.

I bought a bottle of HC-110 that is still unopened. I have 1.5 l of XTOL still to finish. I am conflicted whether opening it (will not be able to return it) if the results would not be to my liking.

I would like some deeper blacks keeping skin tones a bit light.
Any advice (the portrait of the young woman smiling were in subdued light and probably 1 stop underexposed).

There is a photo of the Chrysler building, one shot with TX and other with TMY.
I processed TMY and TX together in XTOL 1:1 as according to Massive dev chart it is 9' 15" and 9' develop time at 20 C / 68 F (probably developed at 22 C and adjusted the time according to the chart)
thank you!

stefano
http://stefanogiovannini.com

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

TMY-2 is gorgeous in Xtol 1+1.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Love your photographs, by the way.

 

[stefano giovannini]

Thanks!

I included some photos of TMY-2 and TX in XTOL. I wonder if with HC-110 I would get deeper blacks. DO you think I need to develop longer? I included some samples, and a reproduction of the negative without any adjustments.

 

[MattKing]

TMY-2 is gorgeous in Xtol 1+1.

Welcome to APUG.

TMY-2 is also gorgeous in HC-110 1+49 (replenished)

If you are viewing the results on a computer screen, the qualities of your highlights and shadows will be as much or more to do with how you convert the results to digital form as they will have to do with the film and developer combination.

This photograph prints really well in the darkroom. Just as Andrew's photographs print really well when he uses the alternative processes he favours.

 

[Terry Christian]

Deeper blacks are a function of contrast, not of what developer you use, and contrast is usually adjusted in post (i.e., darkroom printing, or scanning). The job of the negative is to record all the tonal values of the scene properly, and it looks like your negatives are properly exposed and doing very well. Using HC-110 instead of XTOL may give you a bit more contrasty negative, but you're better off adjusting the contrast as you're printing or scanning. Keep in mind Ansel Adams' saying that the negative is the score, and the print (or scan) is the performance. Keep your "score" the same and just play with the "performance."

 

[stefano giovannini]

Thanks for the replies.
I really like the fern / leaves image.
I feel that image has deeper blacks than the Nigerian woman portrait i posted.

I photograph my negs with a macro lens on a Sony mirrorless and invert the curve in Lightroom ( i made a S shaped curve as linear is too flat)
the sliders become inverted and small adjustments change the aspect a lot.
I am considering after inverting and adjusting basic exposure exporting as a hi res JPG and make fine adjustments there.
Anyway i just started. I live in NYC and I have no room nor time to make wet prints. Maybe some day.

Anyway I am wondering if I should return the HC-110 and I can get similar results with XTOL (maybe extending the dev times a bit)

I searched a lot of groups and threads but did not find a comparison between similar images in similar lighting developed in XTOL and HC-110.

I wish I could buy 100 ml of HC-110 instead of 1 liter.
No easy way to sample.

thanks again
stefano

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Your pics have much contrast so cut the development time 10%. The best quality from 35 mm is Delta 100 or TMax 100 or 400 speed versions of either, Delta 400 and TMax 400 look good in Xtol or DDX. Do not try anything else.

 

[stefano giovannini]

I like contrast, I added it in the computer with an S shaped curve and sliders in LR. maybe a couple I would tone down.
I used to print on Multigrade 3 or 3.5.

Any samples of Hc-110 1+49? how do the times differ compared to 1+47?

thanks!

 

[MattKing]

Any samples of Hc-110 1+49? how do the times differ compared to 1+47?

There is no functional difference between dilution E (1 + 47) and Jason Brunner's "HC-110 made simple" (1 + 49).
Here is a link to an article about the latter - be sure to read both the Overview and the Discussion: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Mostly, it isn't the film and developer that will make the difference when it comes to how the result appears - it is how you print/display the results.
Essentially, all I use is HC-110 1+49 in a replenishment regime.
If I want dark shadows, I either print them that way, or I post-process them that way (for the few negatives that end up being reduced to a digital format). Here is another example:

This prints in a way that really shows a lot of detail in those shadows. If I put it through all the manipulations necessary to get it displayed here, I lose a fair bit.

 

[markbarendt]

I like contrast, I added it in the computer with an S shaped curve and sliders in LR. maybe a couple I would tone down.
I used to print on Multigrade 3 or 3.5.

Any samples of Hc-110 1+49? how do the times differ compared to 1+47?

thanks!

What Matt was getting at above is that the negative is just a place to start.

Your creative and selective shaping of the curve is the rest of the story.

In traditional printing the adjustment of the paper grade and use of burn & dodge does the same thing.

Changing the film developer or development time just changes the starting point, in the grand scheme of things the choice of which developer or dilution is nearly meaningless with regard to print contrast.

In contrast (pun intended) the result: the print, the positive; is fully and wholly at the mercy of the person making the choices when printing.

Where the choice of developer can make some difference in a print's look is in perceived sharpness and graininess.

 

[stefano giovannini]

Matt
thanks you. I think I already read that thread a few days ago, but I will give it another look. What would be then the advantage of using HC-110 1+49 compared to XTOL 1+1? XTOL has the advantage of being more eco friendly and less harmful. And once the powder is mixed it is really easy to use, while HC-110 being so sticky needs quite a lot of shaking / stirring each time. Longevity of HC-110 is really a plus. the images TMY + XTOL are pretty flat without any contrast / highlights / shadows adjustments.

here are adjusted images and how they look just with an inverted curve and as a negative

 

[stefano giovannini]

Thanks Matt and Mark.
Then I see little advantage in using HC-110, apart from shelf life.

At the same time I read that HC-110 produces an upswept curve while XTOL S shaped with a shoulder, so I thought with HC-110 i could get deeper blacks without making the midtones darker. ]
My Hamletic dilemma now is to open or not to open the HC-100? use it or return it and stick to XTOL?
too bad Eastman Kodak does not provide a sample sized bottle of HC-110 to test.

 

[markbarendt]

the images TMY + XTOL are pretty flat without any contrast / highlights / shadows adjustments.

You can extend your film development time a bit with the Xtol and take care of part of that problem but to do a really nice print, with either developer, you will need to do print adjustments.

Film contrast choices (time, dilution, agitation) are simply the first later of the print adjustments.

 

[jimjm]

Some really nice shots there, Stefano! I can't speak much to the digital side of your process, but I've always found I get the best final prints if I slightly overexpose to retain detail in the shadows. For really high-contrast scenes, you have to decide at the time of shooting if you want to sacrifice shadow detail to ensure you don't lose the highlights, but TriX and TMax (and Ilford HP5) are very forgiving. If you start printing in the darkroom, you'll be surprised at how much latitude B/W film really has. This is where learning the skill of wet printing can make a huge difference in your final result.

That being said, I just try to get a negative that gives me all the important detail, and the print evolves from there. I don't think too much about final contrast when I'm developing the film, unless I'm push-processing (shot TriX at 1200 or 1600) and might under-develop to keep the contrast reasonable. HC-110 (dil B or H) is my go-to standard now for most films. It keeps a long time and is a lot more convenient to mix than the bags of D76.

Here's one that was a fairly low-contrast straight print, but burning, dodging and split-grade printing gave me the result I was hoping for. This is TMax100 in HC-110:

TMax400 in HC-110:

 

[stefano giovannini]

Jim,
thanks - your images do not show in the message. I used to print back in the 1990s, but i do not think I can do it in NYC where I would not have enough room (although there may still be rental darkrooms). I digitize through Lightroom.

It seems that XTOL keeps a lot of detail in the highlights (skyscraper shots, where one side was in direct sun and reflective).

Would be great to see your HC-110 samples (and if you have a 100% crop that would be great too.

I saw in another forum someone who tried many developers defining XTOL results as "muddy".

anyway i like these tones from your very nice Flickr page
https://www.flickr.com/photos/photo_jim/1933007115/in/datetaken/

 

[bvy]

while HC-110 being so sticky needs quite a lot of shaking / stirring each time.

This statement confuses me. My experience with HC-110 is that it mixes very easily from concentrate. I would never shake any developer. Also, I wouldn't think twice about buying one liter of concentrate, but given that you're in New York City, it seems like someone here would offer some up for you to try. I would, but you'll have to drive to Pittsburgh!

Anyway, I've been paralyzed by the HC-110 vs. XTOL dilemma for several months. XTOL is a pain to mix and store, but works beautifully under constant agitation. I've also had it fail on me. HC-110 has never let me down. Consistent and rock solid. XTOL negatives look better to my eyes though.

 

[markbarendt]

It seems that XTOL keeps a lot of detail in the highlights (skyscraper shots, where one side was in direct sun and reflective).

The highlight detail that gets caught on the film isn't greatly affected by the developer choice, there is more difference at the shadow end but, if a shot received enough camera exposure that isn't an issue either.

Would be great to see your HC-110 samples (and if you have a 100% crop that would be great too.

Believe it or not this doesn't questions about how well a film or developer is doing it's job. It answers questions like how skilled is the person doing the processing (because the processing choices are variables) and did the negative get enough camera exposure?

I saw in another forum someone who tried many developers defining XTOL results as "muddy".

That person may simply be saying "when I straight print my Xtol shots look flat". What they may really be saying is that "with Xtol I see more usable shadow and highlight detail and the only way to fit it on the paper in a straight print is to keep contrast low."

What I'm getting at is that Xtol isn't the issue, it is the subjective judgement of the person printing. It may simply be a person's willingness to dodge or burn that's in question.

 

[bdial]

Any differences will be very subtle, this is true of any two developers you wish to compare. In general, the Xtol will deliver slightly more film speed, which would imply that you'll get a little more detail in shadows. That may be opposite what you want if you're looking for dark moody detail-less shadows. Tweaking the development time + various post processing steps using whatever technology will get you what you want from any negative.

If you like the Xtol because of environment, and other concerns, keep using it, it's an excellent developer and has a good reputation here. There are no magic bullets though, both Xtol and HC110 are up to the task of giving great results.

Either way, the best way to figure out a particular film and dev combo is to use it a lot and make prints until you really understand it.

 

[RattyMouse]

This statement confuses me. My experience with HC-110 is that it mixes very easily from concentrate. I would never shake any developer. Also, I wouldn't think twice about buying one liter of concentrate, but given that you're in New York City, it seems like someone here would offer some up for you to try. I would, but you'll have to drive to Pittsburgh!

Anyway, I've been paralyzed by the HC-110 vs. XTOL dilemma for several months. XTOL is a pain to mix and store, but works beautifully under constant agitation. I've also had it fail on me. HC-110 has never let me down. Consistent and rock solid. XTOL negatives look better to my eyes though.

I have the same experience. HC-110 mixes into water with almost no effort at all. And best of all, it's one shot so NO replenishment. Ever.

 

[markbarendt]

I have the same experience. HC-110 mixes into water with almost no effort at all. And best of all, it's one shot so NO replenishment. Ever.

Stefano, Ratty and lots of other people like HC-110 because (like Xtol, D76, and many other developers) it produces good results.

IMO most people settle on one developer or another more because it fits their lifestyle, their working preferences, rather than real differences in the negatives produced. I think that is in part what Ratty's post shows.

Also IMO most of the differences people claim are simply caused by the luck of the draw. The develop a couple rolls in Xtol and a couple in HC-110 and think that those four rolls are representative in general. Run a hundred rolls of each, refine your process, and you'll have a very different take on the world.

 

[darkroommike]

This statement confuses me. My experience with HC-110 is that it mixes very easily from concentrate. I would never shake any developer. Also, I wouldn't think twice about buying one liter of concentrate, but given that you're in New York City, it seems like someone here would offer some up for you to try. I would, but you'll have to drive to Pittsburgh!

Anyway, I've been paralyzed by the HC-110 vs. XTOL dilemma for several months. XTOL is a pain to mix and store, but works beautifully under constant agitation. I've also had it fail on me. HC-110 has never let me down. Consistent and rock solid. XTOL negatives look better to my eyes though.

When everyone (well OK, everyone but Mike Covington) followed Kodak's instructions and first diluted a full pint bottle of HC-110 to make a one half gallon of stock solution, Kodak suggested mixing the stock in a one gallon jug and shaking it until uniform, then decanting the stock solution into smaller bottles. I did it that way for years. I liked the convenience of HC-110. Alas the new liter bottles are just too big for me to use, I'll probably have to switch to another developer unless I can find someone local to share my stock solution with, perhaps I'll just mix smaller quantities of stock and then decant the balance of concentrate to smaller bottles (never liked using the syringe method for making it up). Attractive alternatives I'm looking into include Rodinal (bigger bottlers than the old days again, sigh!). D-76, D-23, and DK-50 (especially the BJP dilutions). Time will tell.

 

[bvy]

When everyone (well OK, everyone but Mike Covington) followed Kodak's instructions and first diluted a full pint bottle of HC-110 to make a one half gallon of stock solution, Kodak suggested mixing the stock in a one gallon jug and shaking it until uniform, then decanting the stock solution into smaller bottles.

Interesting. They would know their own product. In general, though, I think shaking is a bad idea.

 

[flavio81]

Deeper blacks are a function of contrast, not of what developer you use, and contrast is usually adjusted in post (i.e., darkroom printing, or scanning). The job of the negative is to record all the tonal values of the scene properly, and it looks like your negatives are properly exposed and doing very well. Using HC-110 instead of XTOL may give you a bit more contrasty negative, but you're better off adjusting the contrast as you're printing or scanning. Keep in mind Ansel Adams' saying that the negative is the score, and the print (or scan) is the performance. Keep your "score" the same and just play with the "performance."

+1

Well said.

In fact for some of the pictures the contrast is a big high to what i'd like.

 

[DREW WILEY]

HC-110 keeps remarkably well in original concentrate. I'm one of those people who mixes it straight from concentrate into working solution. But this takes a bit of practice to do correctly. And it is a good match for TMax films, even though I switched long ago to PMK pyro for general use. I always
use developers one-shot, even fixer.