Developing Times for D-76 vs HC110

[skyrick]

Sorry if this has been covered before; I did a search and couldn't find anything specific re: developing times. Mostly discussions of the virtues of one over the other.

I have some old (circa 1950) Plus-XX sheet film and a copy of the Kodak Reference Handbook (pub 1947) which recommends developing Plus-XX for 17 minutes in D-76. I'll be using HC110, and Kodak publication J-24 (for HC110) doesn't mention Plus-XX (natch).

How would the development times for the two solutions compare? e.g. would 17 min of D-76 be comparable to 8 min of HC110, or some such?

Thanks in advance,

Rick

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

Go to the massive dev chart (google that) and compare the two developer with more modern films, figure your difference ratio and go with that difference between D76 and the HC110. And add about 10 percent or so (at least test some film) due to the film's age.

 

[Anscojohn]

Sorry if this has been covered before; I did a search and couldn't find anything specific re: developing times. Mostly discussions of the virtues of one over the other.

I have some old (circa 1950) Plus-XX sheet film and a copy of the Kodak Reference Handbook (pub 1947) which recommends developing Plus-XX for 17 minutes in D-76. I'll be using HC110, and Kodak publication J-24 (for HC110) doesn't mention Plus-XX (natch).

How would the development times for the two solutions compare? e.g. would 17 min of D-76 be comparable to 8 min of HC110, or some such?

Thanks in advance,

Rick

******
Are you talking about Super XX? I know those developing times were there for a reason, but they always seem excessively long to my eye. Can the emulsions have changed THAT much?

 

[skyrick]

******
Are you talking about Super XX? I know those developing times were there for a reason, but they always seem excessively long to my eye. Can the emulsions have changed THAT much?

I'm sorry, you're right. Super-XX.

Rick

 

[Jim Noel]

Yes, films have changed that much.

 

[DWThomas]

To my slight amazement, I have a Kodak Master Darkroom DataGuide, 3rd Edition 1965.

For Super-XX Panchromatic, the little two-step number-into-the-development-time-computer thingy comes up with:

Average contrast:
D-76 13 minutes
HC-110 Dilution A: 5.5 minutes
HC-110 Dilution B: 9 minutes

The markers for "lower contrast" are about 30% less time
The markers for "higher contrast" are about 40% higher

That suggests a general window for experimentation.

(You now know everything I know ....)

DaveT

 

[skyrick]

To my slight amazement, I have a Kodak Master Darkroom DataGuide, 3rd Edition 1965.

For Super-XX Panchromatic, the little two-step number-into-the-development-time-computer thingy comes up with:

Average contrast:
D-76 13 minutes
HC-110 Dilution A: 5.5 minutes
HC-110 Dilution B: 9 minutes

The markers for "lower contrast" are about 30% less time
The markers for "higher contrast" are about 40% higher

That suggests a general window for experimentation.

(You now know everything I know ....)

DaveT

Thanks Dave, I actually found that same info on a Kodak insert from 1963 that the previous owner of my Kodak Guide (1940's edition) had slipped into the book in a different section.

Alas, too late. I had already processed my 4 sheets at Dilution B for 18 minutes by the time I read your post or found my HC110 addendum.

All four sheets came out black. I can read "Kodak Super-XX" on the border by the notches, so I don't know if:
A. The film is just too darn old. (1950)
B. I overdeveloped it.
C. It got completely fogged because of a bad light seal between the film holder and the ground glass.

Thanks to everyone for all the responses.

Rick

 

[DWThomas]

All four sheets came out black. I can read "Kodak Super-XX" on the border by the notches, so I don't know if:
A. The film is just too darn old. (1950)
B. I overdeveloped it.
C. It got completely fogged because of a bad light seal between the film holder and the ground glass.

I think the film name on that is stamped in, not applied photographically, so that survives "no matter what." 59 years is a long time (trust me, I've lived through all of them! ) Last year I found a roll of 120 Plus-X in a camera here that had shots taken on it in 1981 (deduced later from the subject matter). I developed it and got images that are usable, but there was a relatively high level of overall grey to the negatives. Now that's an ISO 125 film after 27 years, so I'd say 59 years with faster film might not do too well, especially if the storage conditions have been adverse along the way.

Even over-developed (18 minutes vs 13 is not desireable, but shouldn't be fatal) or light struck, I'd expect to see some variations in density (but I occasionally exhibit unwarranted optimism). Are the edges that were in the filmholder channels clear -- or at least less dense?

Did you tray develop -- could your room be "short of dark?" (Clear edges would rule that out.)

Shutter on LF camera left open for GG viewing when dark slide was pulled out? (I've done that at least once ...)


Well, that's my 2 pfennig,

DaveT

 

[voceumana]

HC-110 wasn't introduced until mid to late 1960's.

My Darkroom Dataguide from 1958 shows DK-50 full strength time of 6 minutes, and at 1:1 time of 9 minutes at 68ºF. This is based on large tank development with agitation at one minute intervals. (I chose DK-50 as it usually has the closest times to HC-110).

My 1988 Dataguide gives these times, for diffusion enlargers, large tank (intermittent agitation at 1 minute intervals):

HC-110 Dilution A: 4 minutes
HC-110 Dilution B: 7 minutes
DK-50 undiluted: 5-1/2 minutes
DK-50 1:1: 9 minutes

I concur with DaveT: even if grossly overdeveloped, there should still be some variation in density, not completely black. Seems like the film got fogged, either from background radiation (which is present everywhere) or in camera/darkroom.

Personally, I would not spend my time on film this old. You just cannot expect consistent results from film this old, and why loose a potentially important image on it?

But, if you really want to try, first develop a sheet without exposure in total darkness--you'll then get some sense of any age/storage related based fog.

Good luck!
Charlie Strack

 

[skyrick]

Even over-developed (18 minutes vs 13 is not desireable, but shouldn't be fatal) or light struck, I'd expect to see some variations in density (but I occasionally exhibit unwarranted optimism). Are the edges that were in the filmholder channels clear -- or at least less dense?

Did you tray develop -- could your room be "short of dark?" (Clear edges would rule that out.)

Shutter on LF camera left open for GG viewing when dark slide was pulled out? (I've done that at least once ...)


Well, that's my 2 pfennig,

DaveT

Hi Dave,
The edges that were in the channels are solid black. Help up to a light bulb I can see what looks like paint spatters in the images. I was taking pictures of trees in the front yard so maybe that's a faint image there.

Rick

 

[skyrick]

HC-110 wasn't introduced until mid to late 1960's.
<snip>

Personally, I would not spend my time on film this old. You just cannot expect consistent results from film this old, and why loose a potentially important image on it?

But, if you really want to try, first develop a sheet without exposure in total darkness--you'll then get some sense of any age/storage related based fog.

Good luck!
Charlie Strack

1963 according to the data sheet I found in my Kodak Guide.

As for the age of the film: I got it for less than a song so this is mainly a trial run to practice loading and unloading the film holders and loading the Combi-Plan in the dark, no important shots. I'll save those for the 120 film backs.

Good advice about developing one unexposed sheet. Would that develop solid black if fogged?

Rick

 

[DWThomas]

Good advice about developing one unexposed sheet. Would that develop solid black if fogged?

I second that as a good idea, unexposed film should come out nearly clear and even -- no blobs, splotches, whatever in density. Anything other than that is elevated base fog or some handling problem. Assuming the handling in loading, unloading and developing hasn't allowed some light where it shouldn't be, I'd say the film is beyond usefulness.

Have you successfully run any recent vintage film through the same handling? -- that's how you could confirm your "work flow" is OK.

I agree that other than the practice of mechanical handling, attempting to do anything with film that old is not likely to yield any reliable results.

DaveT

 

[skyrick]

I second that as a good idea, unexposed film should come out nearly clear and even -- no blobs, splotches, whatever in density. Anything other than that is elevated base fog or some handling problem. Assuming the handling in loading, unloading and developing hasn't allowed some light where it shouldn't be, I'd say the film is beyond usefulness.

Have you successfully run any recent vintage film through the same handling? -- that's how you could confirm your "work flow" is OK.

I agree that other than the practice of mechanical handling, attempting to do anything with film that old is not likely to yield any reliable results.

DaveT

No, as I said this is my absolute first time attempting any kind of chemistry. The film was cheap, giving me a medium with which to practice my skills loading and unloading film holders and tanks. Any resulting image would be icing on a very retro cake. I'm not sure about my lightless conditions though. I used a laundry room with one door and no windows, towel stuffed under the door crack. Since I found it pretty easy to handle sheets, Combi and holders by touch, I think I'll buy a changing bag thereby eliminating a contaminated environment from the equation. I've got a pack of Efke 25 sheets that I'll shoot with eventually (AFAIK, they're the only ones that make 2.75x3.75 sheets anymore). If the single sheet 60 yr old film shows to be ausgedicht even with the changing bag I'll test one of the Efkes to test light leakage from the holders.

Rick