Barnbaum's HC-110 Two-Solution Process

[Chuck_P]

Anyone catch Bruce Barnbaum's article in Photo Technique----or ever used his two solution process with HC-110? This is the first I've seen a two-solution process described for this developer, perhaps it's already well known, IDK, but here it is:

-mix the standard "stock" dilution 1:3
-mix a "working" dilution 1:12.5 from "stock"

-1st, develop in "working" dilution (1.5 minutes total), develops Zones I & II quickly:
45 sec initial agitation, followed by
45 sec with no agitation

-2nd, develop in "working" dilution diluted 1:45 (8.5 minutes total):
30 sec initial agitation, followed by
60 sec with no agitation, finish development for the remaining 7
minutes by:

15 sec agitation every minute for a total development time of 10 minutes

____________________________

I look forward to testing this to see what level of compensating development I can achieve with it.

Thought some may find it useful.

Chuck

 

[Carter john]

I'd be interested in your results. I have used a variation of Barry Thorntons Two Bath: HC-110h and then Borax. I liked it, but not enough to fool with it.

 

[Lee L]

Anyone catch Bruce Barnbaum's article in Photo Technique----or ever used his two solution process with HC-110?

Chuck

citation? issue, date, page?

Edit: found it. Jan/Feb 2010 page 35 e.p.

Looks like no more volume:issue numbers with the format and title change.

Lee

 

[DanielStone]

is water bath development something that's possible with HC-110?

i've been using dil. H in jobo drums(rotary), but pulling less than 1 stop with Efke 25 is kinda janky... if you get my drift

-Dan

 

[df cardwell]

Water bath was an earlier technique that was found inferior to high dilutions.

See Ansel Adams on this, outlining the technique with HC-110, in The Negative.

Rotary processing (constant agitation) has its limitations. So does the notion of 'pulling' film.

 

[Lee L]

So for those who like to keep their HC-110 stored in the undiluted syrup form, my calculations for the Barnbaum dilutions with the US market HC-110 syrup are:

syrup:water

1:53 for bath 1
1:183 for bath 2

Lee

 

[mikebarger]

I bet 1 in 50 and 1 in 200 work just as well>

Mike

 

[naeroscatu]

Lee, for what ISO is this calculated and what are the developing times in each sol. Sorry I don't have the last issue of Photo Technique. Thank you

 

[Lee L]

The article is not actually about this method per se. There are just over two column-inches in one paragraph mentioning this method in a several page article+portfolio about photographing slot canyons in the western US. Barnbaum mentions the times and agitations from the OP in this thread, and the film is Tri-X. That's about it. There's no mention of how much compensation/contraction is achieved, nothing on how many Zones of compression or negative density changes, nothing on EI used. It's more of a one paragraph aside in a non-technical article of stories about shooting this portfolio over the years. Small enough mention that I missed it in skimming 'yet another slot canyon' article.

Perhaps he'll get enough questions to write a complete description in a future article.

Lee

Mike, 1:54.7 and 1:182.376 would be even closer.

 

[Chuck_P]

So for those who like to keep their HC-110 stored in the undiluted syrup form, my calculations for the Barnbaum dilutions with the US market HC-110 syrup are:

syrup:water

1:53 for bath 1
1:183 for bath 2

Lee

Lee, what are your calculations for those dilutions?

I had been thinking about this myself because I'm going to try with concentrate. Dil A from concentrate (just slightly more diluted) closely approximates the 1:12.5 from stock stated by Barnbaum, so I thought I would use that for the 1st solution and perhaps increase the time just a bit. I was going to give 1:119 from concentrate, what I regularly use for compensating action with hc110, as the 2nd solution in the process. Perhaps that's way off though .

 

[naeroscatu]

Thanks Lee. TRI-X is good enough info to allow me to do my own tests.

 

[36cm2]

For those of you that have his book, "The Art of Photography," he describes his two-solution compensating development method to lower contrast or produce very soft prints in Chapter 9. The dilutions he describes there are slightly different (1:10 stock to water for bath A and 1:65 for bath B). He notes that to alter contrast levels he "extends or reduces the starting development times (agitation and non-agitation) by a few seconds in either direction" . . . "while maintaining the full development time for both solutions taken together. I highly recommend his book, it's the best technical photography book I've ever read. I've also attended one of his seminars and if you can afford it, it's absolutely worth it.

 

[Chuck_P]

There's no mention of how much compensation/contraction is achieved, nothing on how many Zones of compression or negative density changes, nothing on EI used.

Exposing a step wedge to Zone XII will provide a good indication of the amount of contraction----it's easy enouph to determine the curve shape and EI with one sheet of film.

For me, "normal" development is calibrating Zone VIII at neg density of 1.3. I can already achieve N-3 (albeit at an EI of 50) with hc110 1:119----that's getting the curve to hit Zone XI at a density of 1.3. It'll be interesting to see if N-4 is possible, getting the curve to hit Zone XII close enough to a density of 1.3. It's worth a couple of sheets.

 

[Steve Sherman]

Barnbaum learned the two solution HC 110 technique from Ray McSavaney.

Barbaum taught it to me and I used the technique will good success in various extreme lighting situations for years.

Very basically, what you have to do is over exposed the original negative so much in order to still maintain enough negative density because the development will be so weak. The diluted developer never allows the highlights to achieve the density they ordinarily would effectively compressing the original scene contrast dramatically.

Years later I perfected on the Semi-Stand process of film developing and bearing in mind I am the same photographer who regularly seeks out extreme contrast situations as I did using the dilute HC 110 technique. I can say without reservation the Semi-Stand method of contrast compression is superior in every way when compared with the HC 110 technique.

My 2 cents

Cheers

 

[2F/2F]

Funny. I have figured out my own two bath development (for use with HC-110 or any developer), but I usually use the more dilute bath first. I do to first bath as a stand development, and the second as a push development. The first bath is a way to dig the most out of the shadows with out blowing the highlights, and the second is a way to develop the highlights to where you want them, without having to leave the shadows behind.

Often I will do the two steps with two different developers: Usually when I do this, it is HC-110 or D-76 for the stand, and D-19 for the push.

 

[Lee L]

Chuck,

I mainly posted the part you replied to so that people wouldn't go out and buy the magazine expecting to find more information that isn't there. I've been doing ZS densitometry for 30+ years, so I know how to get from A to B, but there's nothing to go on in the article in that regard outside of testing yourself.

I just used standard dilution calculations to get the ratios of syrup to water for the two baths. The numbers needed are all in your first post and in the article.

Steve,

Thanks for the input. Good to have your take on it. I didn't see mention of McSavaney in the article.

Lee

 

[Chuck_P]

Very basically, what you have to do is over exposed the original negative so much in order to still maintain enough negative density because the development will be so weak.

A good two cents, I think.

AA noted that when planning to use highly dilute developer or other rather serious contractions, the shadows need to be exposed one or two zones higher to help support density and contrast in the mid-tones.

 

[Chuck_P]

Chuck,

I mainly posted the part you replied to so that people wouldn't go out and buy the magazine expecting to find more information that isn't there. I've been doing ZS densitometry for 30+ years, so I know how to get from A to B, but there's nothing to go on in the article in that regard outside of testing yourself.

I just used standard dilution calculations to get the ratios of syrup to water for the two baths. The numbers needed are all in your first post and in the article.

Steve,

Thanks for the input. Good to have your take on it. I didn't see mention of McSavaney in the article.

Lee

Lee,

Thanks.

I should have been more specific about what the bulk of the article was about, it wasn't meant to be real technical. I just saw that an zeroed in on it!

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Nice, yet another way to use HC-110. Never caught that HC-110 method from AA.

 

[Steve Sherman]

Chuck,



Steve,

Thanks for the input. Good to have your take on it. I didn't see mention of McSavaney in the article.

Lee

Back in the seventies Barnbaum and McSaveny started the Owens Valley Workshops, some years later added J. Sexton. Barnbaum broke off in the nineties when he moved to Washington State and started his own workshops and soon Owens Valley Workshops died.

From the horses mouth ( BB ) to me, "McSaveny severely over exposed a scene by accident". Rather than throw the neg away he tried his own variation on AA water bath which was historically difficult to predict and usually suffered from mottling in blank grey areas such as sky. McSaveny decided to eliminate the transferring back and forth of the neg from regular strength developer to pure water rather he just severely diluted the developer and used a regime of intermittent agitation in one solution.

Let’s just say knowing him as I do, BB wouldn’t be the type to be patting others on the back.

Trust me on this topic, the majority of my work is compressing extreme amounts of contrast.

Cheers

 

[Lee L]

Let’s just say knowing him as I do, BB wouldn’t be the type to be patting others on the back.

Which is what I was avoiding saying, because I don't know him other than from his articles.

Lee

 

[36cm2]

Posted wirelessly..

"Let’s just say knowing him as I do, BB wouldn’t be the type to be patting others on the back."

Yeah, this is pretty funny. I would agree based on my limited personal experiences with Bruce. I would also add, though,that he's a very special character and someone I'm very pleased to have met and photographed with. And I dare any of you to race him up the side of a mountain with his Linhof in tow. The guy's got goat genes or something! Pretty incredible.

 

[Steve Sherman]

Posted wirelessly..


The guy's got goat genes or something! Pretty incredible.

You know, donkeys have some pretty good footing on those steep switch backs also

 

[Chuck_P]

From the horses mouth ( BB ) to me, "McSaveny severely over exposed a scene by accident". Rather than throw the neg away he tried his own variation on AA water bath which was historically difficult to predict and usually suffered from mottling in blank grey areas such as sky.

Just a side note,

AA, in The Negative, indicated that the waterbath method was much more successful with the older thicker emulsion films, but not so effective with the newer thinner emulsion films.

 

[df cardwell]

Just a side note, AA, in The Negative, indicated that the waterbath method was much more successful with the older thicker emulsion films, but not so effective with the newer thinner emulsion films.



Let's have a little context to go with the reference.

"Older thick emulsion films" were what he found in the '30s and '40s,
like ISOPAN.

"NEWER" referred to new films of the '50s; Super-XX, Tri-X, and Royal-Pan !!! :munch:
.