Barnbaum's HC-110 Two-Solution Process

[Jim Chinn]

I think I read about using this method with HC110 in an article in Camera and Darkroom back in the late 80s. That article also was about using a consistent developing time but greatly adjusting dilutions to control film contrast. If I get time I will try to find the article since I kept all the back issues.

I also recall an article (maybe at unblinkingeye.com) that used rodinal at a very strong dillution to start for a short duration, thorough rinse and then a very dillute, very long stand.

 

[Lee L]

I think I read about using this method with HC110 in an article in Camera and Darkroom back in the late 80s. That article also was about using a consistent developing time but greatly adjusting dilutions to control film contrast.

Was that article on Gassan's method, which he developed and published in his 1970's book?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Lee

 

[Jim Chinn]

Was that article on Gassan's method, which he developed and published in his 1970's book?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Lee

I do believe that is correct. I have not looked for the specific article yet but I do recall that they were using TriX and even though it has been a couple of years since I re-read it the name Gassan sounds familiar. Using a N+ or N- was part of the Camera and Darkrom article as well. IIRC the author of the article was by a photography teacher and concerned trying out the method in one of his advanced photography classes.

 

[ronlamarsh]

2 Solution techique

I have used the same principal only with D-23 instead of HC-110, and it basically works the same way. I use straight D-23 for 1 to 2 min with constant agitation the first minute, then: if using a tank dump it into a graduate and dilute 3:1 in the meantime I do put water in the dev tank to give somewhat of a stop bath and prevent streaking, then dump the water and contiue developing for the rest of my time at 3:1. total development time is around 9-11 minuts. I have done with with 4X5 Tri-x and EDU ultra and it works very well especially for contrillong the highlights without making them flat.

 

[df cardwell]

I'd like to see a test to see what the results really are, compared to normal development and minimal agitation with a dilute solution. I'd bet a six pack of Red Stripe ... well, it is always good to see the curves when we're talkin'.

And that goes for Gassan's technique, too. Bless him.

.

 

[Chuck_P]

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:
.

Wellllllll, good point.

It's something I remember from the text and was too lazy to see what the name of those older emulsions were. But the thin emulsion film referrence part would seem to apply to today's thin emulsion films too, which was my point anyway. Perhaps someone is being successful with waterbath development of today's thin emulsion films, would be cool to know.

 

[2F/2F]

However, was the "older, thicker-emulsion films" comment composed for the '80s re-write/re-edit of the books (in which case I would assume he was disclaiming information about water bath development that he had published in the original editions, by saying that it might not work with the materials of the day), or was it in the original editions (in which case what Mr. Cardwell said)?

 

[Chuck_P]

Not being so lazy this time...........I tend to think it was for the early 80's version-----------he points out that the thin emulsion films "probably.....cannot absorb much developer solution." But then goes on to say that the two-solution process "does appear to have compensating effect with current films."

I wonder just how thick a thick emulstion film really was back in the day.

 

[Mike1234]

Three inches... exactly.

 

[c6h6o3]

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

I always avoided high contrast situations which demanded compensating development until Steve Sherman showed me the minimal agitation technique using Pyrocat HD. Every time I'd used the two solution or highly dilute technique with non-staining developers the best print I could make was pure mud. Steve's technique enables extreme compensation to yield negatives which print beautifully. Take a look. It's so dark in that place that I can't see to focus with my old Dagor on the 8x10. The contrast range there is truly extreme.

 

[whlogan]

Done lots and taught it lots and it works great. Mess around with it some too.... have some fun. I mix it from the bottle.... I never mix up the stock soultion.... soesn't keep too well. Can do the same thing with D-76, D-23 (actually works best of all)
Logan

 

[df cardwell]

was the "older, thicker-emulsion films" comment composed for the '80s re-write/re-edit

The Negative, 1981
Examples, 1983

AA referred to Super-XX as "thick", Tri-X as "thin".

 

[Steve Sherman]

Done lots and taught it lots and it works great. Mess around with it some too.... have some fun. I mix it from the bottle.... I never mix up the stock soultion.... soesn't keep too well. Can do the same thing with D-76, D-23 (actually works best of all)
Logan

FWIW, D 23 and D 76 are high in Sodium Sulfite. SS especially in extended development will promote silver migration causing a noticeable degradation of negative sharpness.

Scores of developers to choose from, however with extended time in solution to compress contrast Pyro based developers have a real advantage.

Cheers

 

[MarkL]

For those who use 2 solution, I assume you've tried SLIMT. Have you had good results with SLIMT?

 

[36cm2]

I've never tried SLIMT, except once when my wife said I was looking fatter than usual, but that's different. After some APUG research I found other subscribers' references to Dave Kachel's paper on it at http://www.davidkachel.com/history.html. Very interesting technique. Looking forward to using it. B.t.w., if you have trouble with Dave's site make sure you're using Microsoft Explorer. It doesn't appear to like other browsers.