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

Since you switched to TMY for finer grain, I would cast my vote for full strength xtol or replenished xtol with that combination.

Athiril said:

Since you switched to TMY for finer grain, I would cast my vote for full strength xtol or replenished xtol with that combination.

Click to expand...

I've used XTOL replenished and I like it. My experience is that my negs gets slightly under developed over time so I suspect the recommended amount is too little. Since you're using a working solution of developer to replenish, I'd use a bit more. You can shoot box speed with XTOL but with HC-110 you need to give a hair more exposure.

SO I uncorked the HC-110 and made a comparison.
2 Minolta Maxxum 5 SLRs, 24-85 mm (I have 2 of each), 2 rolls of TMY-2 Tmax exposed at 400. Some photos with yellow filter.
Shot the same photo with each camera handheld

developed
XTOL 1:1 21.5 C for 8' 45" (probably the developer was 20.5 C when I poured it in thePaterson plastic tank, but temp increased when I checked half way).

HC-110 dil E (1+47) 22.3 C for 8' 15"
Agitation every 30" (maybe skipped one halfway to check the temp).

Digitized the negs with Polaroid slide duplicator attached to 50mm macro lens and Sony A6000 (ISO 160 f 9.0)
and LED video light.
negs developed with XTOL were 1/3 of a stop lighter (HC110 negs got an average of 1/80 sec exposure, XTOL 1/60 for digitization)

here are some samples adjusted in LR. very basic (apart with barrack between the dunes that I used some burning and dodging, more or less teh same in both versions).

My observation: HC 110 negs are grainier but they look sharper. with XTOL the sky is smoother and less grainy, but hard to get deeper blacks (some graffiti tags look punchier / darker with HC110 neg).

Do not see a lot of difference in highlights / shadows detail.
Best would be something in between.
I feel HC-110 may produce more pleasing negs out of the box, while XTOL negs are a little easier to manipulate with gradients / burning and dodging, with a smoother transition.

Maybe I could have developed the XTOL negs for 45 seconds more and got a little more punch. I like the environmental qualities of it, and once mixed it is faster to dilute 1+1 rather than diluting HC-110 12.5 ml for about 600ml of water.

One thing I noticed in the Kodak datasheet there must me an error as TMX 100 ISO times are longer than 200 ISO push processing (I think for XTOL) also Kodak does not make it very clear to distinguish between new and old TMax that have very different times.


XTOL above


HC110 above

comparison at 100%


comparison











XTOL above, HC110 below

Very interesting comparison, Stefano.
Negative developed with XTOL seems more pleasant in my monitor; however the final print in wet darkroom could bring to a different result (my FP4 (120 mm) negatives developed in Rodinal look very grainy when I digitalize them, but the final prints in RC Ilford Multigrade are much smoother than the digitalized copy).

Cheers from Italy!

2 quick observations based around the TMY-II datasheet:

Unless I'm making a massive error, that HC-110 time looks like it translates out to about 15%+ overdevelopment - no surprise it's a lot grainier & denser.

The Xtol is much closer to the correct time, but still possibly on the high side depending on the contrast of the scene, your metering habits, choice of EI etc.

I read that the new tmax requires 15 percent extra time than what posted by Kodak. That was on Covington's site. I added contrast to my liking in Lightroom. Increased blacks and whites. Starting point was more flat. But I like some punch in my bw. I could decrease a little. But I prefer a denser neg than risking a thin one. Anyway no blocked highlights. No need to burn them in. Increasing contrast and whites in Lightroom increases the appearance of grain. I like deep blacks somewhere in my photos. Is hc 110 at dil E less grainy than at dil B?

If you're tweaking them in any way in Photoshop, it's hard to make any reasonable conclusions about what's shown here. Except maybe grain.

stefano giovannini said:

I read that the new tmax requires 15 percent extra time than what posted by Kodak. That was on Covington's site.

Click to expand...

Actually, and with respect to developing T-Max films in HC-110, Michael Covington states a preference for a shorter development time, because of his desire to avoid over-development: "When developing T-Max films in HC-110, be sure not to overdevelop. My own working time for HC-110 (B) is about 85% of Kodak's published time."
At the relevant time, he was printing optically in a darkroom.

stefano giovannini said:

Is hc 110 at dil E less grainy than at dil B?

Click to expand...

If you are scanning, there really isn't any way to tell, because the grain is as likely to be a result of scanning as it is the film.
But with most commonly available developers, increasing the dilution will slightly increase the appearance of grain, because you are diluting the sulfite, and the sulfite decreases the sharp appearance of the edge of the grain..
Don't forget that you need to give slightly more exposure (1/3 stop) to TMY-2 developed in HC-110 in order for it to be a close equivalent to HC-110 developed in X-Tol 1+1.

Tweaks and adjustments were minor apart from one photo and applied to both films the same to keep the test relevant. Will try a shorter time next time. First use of hc 110.

stefano giovannini said:

Tweaks and adjustments were minor apart from one photo and applied to both films the same to keep the test relevant. Will try a shorter time next time. First use of hc 110.

Click to expand...

But you are still evaluating the scanner and its native software (not Lightroom) more than you are evaluating the negatives.

Not using a scanner. I thought I wrote that I am using a slide duplicator attachment with negative carrier on my Sony A6000 with Minolta macro lens. I get a Sony Raw file, probably 16 megapixels as i can not fill the frame.
I invert the curve in Lightroom (S shaped). So there is no scanner software. I purchased an Epson V550 but it is slower and i do not get sharp grain, although it may save time with straightening and cropping. I can photograph a 36 frame roll and digitize it in about 15 min. Scanner seems to take longer. I bought a neg scanner at BH photo on sale but I need still to use it.

At the end there are not drastic differences between the 2 developers. I like some contrast and blacks in my photos. I like William Klein, Don McCullin, W. Eugene Smith, the available light portraits of Helmut Newton and so on. Use those as reference.

I feel XTOL is slightly muddier in the results, but that can be tweaked. HC-110 images seem slightly sharper.

Sorry, I forgot that you had previously set out your process of digitization.
But your Sony camera has a whole bunch of firmware/software/electronics built into it that makes decisions for you about conversion of the three dimensional analog original into a digital file - RAW or otherwise.
Your results are valid for you, your film, your developer and your digital camera, but could very well change if you changed to a different model of digital camera.

as I shoot RAW there is little difference whether I would shoot with a Sony or a Nikon. RAW files are pretty flat. I can upload later a reproduced neg with everything flat / zeroed and a photo of the neg itself.
I will try the scanner but I think I can not beat the res and the speed of digital camera repro

It really doesn't matter which general purpose developer you use whether it be Xtol, HC-110, D-76, ... They are all going to produce comparable results.

stefano giovannini said:

I will try the scanner but I think I can not beat the res and the speed of digital camera repro

Click to expand...

Both scanners and your camera have the same problem - their sensors and their built in programming introduce uncontrollable variables that make the film comparison suspect for anything outside of your particular workflow.

This entire thread is what I call tail chasing...........Interesting tail chasing though, I think we would all be better off if in the film world if only two developers where made ...Rodinal and HC 110.

Some lovely shots by the way.

Those are some nice photos.

I prefer the Xtol results, if you look at the chimney closeup, it looks sharper on the Xtol side to me. The fine detail of the leaves and branches is more apparent while some disappears entirely on the HC-110 side.

Thanks - the shots were hand held, I shot an entire roll to minimize variations. I just did not feel to shoot just a brick wall on a tripod, but take some shots the way I would take them normally.

Yes probably XTOL is slightly better in some shots, but yet I feel with the graffiti details HC-110 is sharper.
Apart from the grain I think you can get really close results with the way you print or post process your negatives.

Going back probably I would stick to XTOL, but now I have a 1 l bottle of HC-110 to use which is about 150 / 200 rolls of film.
In any case I did not noticed blown up highlights / whites as I feared with HC-110, and I noticed slightly deeper blacks

To get less grain I could use the same dev times using 1+49 rather than 1+47 dilution, about 4% difference (maybe 15" less as well).

I bet that scanned / photographed negatives looked on a computer monitor may show more grain than the same negative wet printed on matte paper.
I could try to get them printed as C-prints on color paper by adorama. I live in NYC, I do not have room for a darkroom (although I wonder if there are still rental facilities I could use).

The ocean photo was taken with a Nikonos III i was testing, film was mistakenly overdeveloped one stop and overexposed 1 or 2 stops. Bookshelf is HC-110 looks fine to me

All the pictures taken in NYC the past week around oct 15 or so

I did similar testing recently and processed some 4x5 in HC-110 (E) and XTOL 1+1, and did side-by-side comparisons. Without going into gruesome details, my conclusions were as follows: More grain from HC-110, more blown highlights. XTOL was perhaps a little less sharp, but had a smoother look overall. I couldn't find much difference in shadow detail, even though XTOL is supposed to win that category (all else equal). I ended up choosing XTOL because it performs well under constant agitation -- i.e. the highlights remain in check unlike with HC-110. That said, I hate everything else about XTOL -- that it's a powder, requires me to make 5 liters, and is prone to sudden "surprises." But the results make it worthwhile. For now...

Bvy, great to hear your results.
5 l and powder is a bit of a drag, but in 15 min you can make it and pour it in a couple of empty half gallon bleach bottles and a couple of 1 l seltzer bottles and clean up. I did too not notice shadow detail differences (although HC 110 negs were 1/3 of a stop denser). What would you pick for 35mm processed in a plastic tank? I wonder with a +2 push processing if there were more differences.

For clarity, I do like your photos. And there is nothing wrong with experimenting with film and developer choices to see which ones work well with your digital workflow, if that is the workflow that you choose.

Just be warned that one firmware update for your camera or one update to the RAW converter you are using may force you to re-test.

Be careful with the bleach bottles. They are fairly hard to clean, and if there is any bleach residue it may damage your developer. Club Soda bottles are better.

I'm a big fan of using a replenishment regime for developer. X-Tol is perfect for that, because it serves as its own replenisher. I still have stock of the now discontinued HC-110 replenisher, so I continue to use it. In either case, I would adjust your development times to match highlight density/contrast, and then compare both shadow detail and how the tones "fall". In my almost totally optical workflow, I like the results I get from 35mm film, plastic tanks (usually) and HC-110 replenished, but I could adapt to X-Tol if I wished.

FWIW, from my relatively small stock of scanned images, this is 35mm TMY-2 developed in HC-110 dil E (replenished):

Matt,
That forest scene looks excellent as to the tonal range for the lighting in that shot, but I bet a shot taken on the same roll at a marina with a lot of white boats in it would be a whole different ballgame. That's the problem with roll film over sheet film. Of course you focused on the lower values in the forest scene when metering and for a very brightly lite marina scene you'd cater to the higher values and let the shadows go a little. Either way metering is very important and auto-cameras don't always work well in either extreme. I'm fond of Xtol-R myself, but no matter what you use, the procedure up to the point of development has a bearing on helping your developer look like it's doing good too. Stefano's shots are all very good in my book.

John Wiegerink said:

Matt,
That forest scene looks excellent as to the tonal range for the lighting in that shot, but I bet a shot taken on the same roll at a marina with a lot of white boats in it would be a whole different ballgame. That's the problem with roll film over sheet film. Of course you focused on the lower values in the forest scene when metering and for a very brightly lite marina scene you'd cater to the higher values and let the shadows go a little. Either way metering is very important and auto-cameras don't always work well in either extreme. I'm fond of Xtol-R myself, but no matter what you use, the procedure up to the point of development has a bearing on helping your developer look like it's doing good too. Stefano's shots are all very good in my book.

Click to expand...

John:
Now you've got me looking for my marina shots .
I agree that you need to make your exposure choices based on the film, the developer and the light/subject, but you also have to keep in mind your final destination - which in my case is usually a print. For those relatively rare situations where I'm looking for a digital result, I'm usually trying to adapt something that was originally intended to result in a print. The combination of my relatively low level scanning equipment, my relatively low level of scanning knowledge and experience, and my low level of enthusiasm for the process usually results in something that I have a low amount of satisfaction with.
In any event, here is one marina shot. T-Max 100 and HC-110 dil E (but not replenished). It's from a 6x7 negative though.


The print retains a lot more of the highlight details in the shed walls than the scan does.

MattKing said:

John:
Now you've got me looking for my marina shots .
I agree that you need to make your exposure choices based on the film, the developer and the light/subject, but you also have to keep in mind your final destination - which in my case is usually a print. For those relatively rare situations where I'm looking for a digital result, I'm usually trying to adapt something that was originally intended to result in a print. The combination of my relatively low level scanning equipment, my relatively low level of scanning knowledge and experience, and my low level of enthusiasm for the process usually results in something that I have a low amount of satisfaction with.
In any event, here is one marina shot. T-Max 100 and HC-110 dil E (but not replenished). It's from a 6x7 negative though.
View attachment 165832

The print retains a lot more of the highlight details in the shed walls than the scan does.

Click to expand...

Matt,
Looks good to me! The sky looks good. Was there a no. 8 or 12 filter involved? I agree that judging a negatives printing quality via digital is not exactly easy or perfect. I wet print mainly too and found myself in a little dilemma when I started scanning negatives I had not yet printed wet. I could not tell or at least thought that they didn't look so good after I scanned them. It turns out that they were just find for wet printing, but I had to learn how to look at them differently compared to me looking at them on a light table or a wet print. I have very good scanning equipment, but I just don't get that excited about digi like I do wet work. I just got a new 13x19 Canon printer, but still prefer the old fashion wet side. Some day I might get the hang of it, but I'm not trying very hard. I've been using Xtol-R for most every thing lately and it's really growing on me. I just did some 120 and those FP4+ and HP5+ 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" negatives just blow me away. Next I'm going to try TMY2 and Delta to see how they like Xtol-R. It's a good medium we're in, so enjoy it while you can.