HC-110 Dilution A - Making the elusive dilution work (35mm)

[Mike Feit]

I've been experimenting with HC-110 Dilution A recently for the sole purpose of achieving really fine grain with a developer that has a very long shelf life. I simply wanted to see if it worked. Recently, I read that HC-110 acts as a solvent developer when used in higher concentrations, so I did some research on Dilution A, but to my surprise, I couldn't find any information on Dilution A, until I stumbled across a video by KingJvpes, who uses Dilution A as his concentration of choice. Besides that, I couldn't seek out anybody else who has made experiences using Dilution A. So I tried it out myself.

It worked wonderfully. No uneven development (at least I couldn't make out any.), nicely balanced contrast, and most importantly (for me at least) beautifully fine grain.

I used a roll of AGFA APX 400 (New), shot at box speed. I developed the roll at 20C for 2:30 minutes.
I poured the developer as fast as possible without spilling everything and then I agitated with the agitating stick (Paterson) for the first 30 seconds. I then put on the lid, and inverted the tank for 10 seconds at the 1:00 minute mark. I then let it sit for the remainder of the time, pouring the developer out quickly as soon as the timer hit zero. After that was done, I stopped and fixed as normal.

I then experimented further with agitation methods, just out of curiosity. (Mind you, all of this experimentation with Dilution A stems from pure curiosity.) I found that the "Figure 8 swirling" agitation method left me with terribly unevenly developed negatives. So that's of the table entirely.

Since then, I have developed HP5 Plus in Dilution A with the first method and have gotten beautiful results.

Now let's adress the elephant in the room. Consistency.

Analogue shooters and film developing enthusiasts have shunned any form of developing agent that requires a development time shorter than 5 minutes, some being even more strict, citing the lack of consistency as their main reason.

I simply can't imagine that consistency will suffer in any way with this method, if you really take care to execute everything as precisely as possible every time. And even it might sound like it, it's not difficult or a hassle at all.

I would very much appreciate any opinions on this topic.

Thank you.

Here are some sample photos, The pictures of the plants are from a roll of APX 400 (New) at box speed, the picture of the three guys is from a roll of HP5 Plus also at box speed.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

You might be able to extend the developing time of dilution A by following this method. @alanrockwood posted some data based on his experiments that compare the slowed down dilution A with the standard dilution H here.

 

[Mike Feit]

You might be able to extend the developing time of dilution A by following this method. @alanrockwood posted some data based on his experiments that compare the slowed down dilution A with the standard dilution H here.

Thank you very much for the input, I'll look into it.

 

[Bazza D]

Looks really nice. I may have to try it. I usually pick my HC-110 dilution to get as close to 5 minutes as a can. I've haven't used much dilution A because all the conventional wisdom says not go below 5 minutes. I have some Ilford FP4 which is 4.5 minutes at Dilution A, so might good a good starting point. I use Dilution B last time I developed FP4. The downside is that I like the economy of HC-110. Using Dilution A will use it up faster. I've only used Dilution A when pushing film. Dilution A does feel weird. Very much like I am using way too much developer as I am measuring it out.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Have you done a direct comparision to Dil B to see if you are really gaining anything? B has a nice fine grain look beating out most common developers. Microdol X is finer and very nice, but with a speed loss. I happened to do a lot of comparison a couple months ago since I have an awful lot of 400 film when lately I really would be better off with something finer grain, even if slower.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, dilution A was essentially intended for graphic arts materials rather than "normal" photographic materials.
And if you use dilution A, HC-110 can end up being fairly pricey .
Personally, I wouldn't try using HC-110 with such short development times unless I used continuous agitation (like in a roller transport machine at a lab) because it would be very vulnerable to uneven development. But I am still interested in your experiments.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

FWIW, dilution A was essentially intended for graphic arts materials rather than "normal" photographic materials.

It's also used in @Donald Qualls' monobath.

 

[MattKing]

It's also used in @Donald Qualls' monobath.

An application that Eastman Kodak never intended!

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

An application that Eastman Kodak never intended!

True, but an application that can make extended development time a non-issue with dilution A. No idea if Qualls monobath produces the same fine grain as dilution A. If it does, then it solves OP's problem and Kodak should be pleased.

 

[wiltw]

I pulled out my very old Kodak Master Darkroom Dataguide, about 1964, and for small tank development (5sec. agitation at 30sec intervals)

• HC-110 Dil. A for Tri-X 135 = 28.5min
• HC-110 Dil B for Tri-X 135 = 33min

The description for HC-110 described it as having sharpness, graininess, and shadow detail similar to those of D-76, for photographic uses. The difference of DilA vs. DilB is merely for shorter developing times with DilA. No mention of 'for graphic arts'

That is VERY different from the 2017 datasheet!

Above times more like found in my 1988 Dataguide.

 

[reddesert]

I pulled out my very old Kodak Master Darkroom Dataguide, about 1964, and for small tank development (5sec. agitation at 30sec intervals)

• HC-110 Dil. A for Tri-X 135 = 28.5min
• HC-110 Dil B for Tri-X 135 = 33min

Wilt, those numbers of 28.5 and 33 are indexes for the Developing Dial, the time-temperature calculator in the Dataguide, not minutes.

My 1974 Darkroom Dataguide gives for Tri-X 135, indexes of 29.5 and 36.5 in Dil A and Dil B, which are 4 min and 7.5 min at temp = 68 F/20 C.

The indexes are intended to be modified by small amounts for various things like enlarger type (condenser/diffusion), etc.

 

[wiltw]

Wilt, those numbers of 28.5 and 33 are indexes for the Developing Dial, the time-temperature calculator in the Dataguide, not minutes.

My 1974 Darkroom Dataguide gives for Tri-X 135, indexes of 29.5 and 36.5 in Dil A and Dil B, which are 4 min and 7.5 min at temp = 68 F/20 C.

The indexes are intended to be modified by small amounts for various things like enlarger type (condenser/diffusion), etc.

Oh, doh! 28.5 index for DilA is 3.5min per my 1964 guide.
Thx for making me less stupid (or forgetful in old age!)

 

[Mike Feit]

Have you done a direct comparision to Dil B to see if you are really gaining anything? B has a nice fine grain look beating out most common developers. Microdol X is finer and very nice, but with a speed loss. I happened to do a lot of comparison a couple months ago since I have an awful lot of 400 film when lately I really would be better off with something finer grain, even if slower.

I have compared Dilution A and B and I found that the difference in grain and general look isn't significant at all. All signs point to Dilution B being better overall also due to it being more economical. So no, I'm not really gaining anything at all, but I managed to satisfy my curiosity. That's about it I guess

 

[Mike Feit]

Looks really nice. I may have to try it. I usually pick my HC-110 dilution to get as close to 5 minutes as a can. I've haven't used much dilution A because all the conventional wisdom says not go below 5 minutes. I have some Ilford FP4 which is 4.5 minutes at Dilution A, so might good a good starting point. I use Dilution B last time I developed FP4. The downside is that I like the economy of HC-110. Using Dilution A will use it up faster. I've only used Dilution A when pushing film. Dilution A does feel weird. Very much like I am using way too much developer as I am measuring it out.

I agree, Dilution A does feel odd. As you said, economy is a major factor and I'd say that the large amounts of concentrate you use, outweighs the fine grain properties. Dilution B seems to be much better across the board. But at least we got to satisfy our curiosity, and I guess any input on any topic is beneficial in some way.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've been experimenting with HC-110 Dilution A recently for the sole purpose of achieving really fine grain with a developer that has a very long shelf life. I simply wanted to see if it worked. Recently, I read that HC-110 acts as a solvent developer when used in higher concentrations, so I did some research on Dilution A, but to my surprise, I couldn't find any information on Dilution A, until I stumbled across a video by KingJvpes, who uses Dilution A as his concentration of choice. Besides that, I couldn't seek out anybody else who has made experiences using Dilution A. So I tried it out myself.

It worked wonderfully. No uneven development (at least I couldn't make out any.), nicely balanced contrast, and most importantly (for me at least) beautifully fine grain.

I used a roll of AGFA APX 400 (New), shot at box speed. I developed the roll at 20C for 2:30 minutes.
I poured the developer as fast as possible without spilling everything and then I agitated with the agitating stick (Paterson) for the first 30 seconds. I then put on the lid, and inverted the tank for 10 seconds at the 1:00 minute mark. I then let it sit for the remainder of the time, pouring the developer out quickly as soon as the timer hit zero. After that was done, I stopped and fixed as normal.

I then experimented further with agitation methods, just out of curiosity. (Mind you, all of this experimentation with Dilution A stems from pure curiosity.) I found that the "Figure 8 swirling" agitation method left me with terribly unevenly developed negatives. So that's of the table entirely.

Since then, I have developed HP5 Plus in Dilution A with the first method and have gotten beautiful results.

Now let's adress the elephant in the room. Consistency.

Analogue shooters and film developing enthusiasts have shunned any form of developing agent that requires a development time shorter than 5 minutes, some being even more strict, citing the lack of consistency as their main reason.

I simply can't imagine that consistency will suffer in any way with this method, if you really take care to execute everything as precisely as possible every time. And even it might sound like it, it's not difficult or a hassle at all.

I would very much appreciate any opinions on this topic.

Thank you.

Here are some sample photos, The pictures of the plants are from a roll of APX 400 (New) at box speed, the picture of the three guys is from a roll of HP5 Plus also at box speed. View attachment 279365 View attachment 279362

View attachment 279361

great esults! It's my firm believe that uneven development always comes from uneven agitation.Since using constant rotation with a Jobo, I haven't experienced any uneven development anymore.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Worth noting that Dilutions A and B were originally intended to be used replenished in high volume -- so economy as a one-shot wasn't really a concern (that's what weaker dilutions were for).

I recall my own results with the HC-110 monobath (tested with 2000 vintage Tri-X 35mm) were very comparable in grain to Tri-X in Dilution B and a conventional process -- with the caveat that at that time my only way to examine the negatives beyond a loupe was with a scanner limited to 1200 ppi (and widely claimed to be optically less than that). I never tried the monobath again after getting my enlarger, so never attempted to enlarge the negatives (generally had more I wanted to print than time to print them).

 

[Bazza D]

I am finishing a bulk roll Orwo UN54 right now. I am developing in Dilution E, which is 1:47 for 6 mins. I think it is safe to say no Dilution A for that film. But whenever, I get some 400 speed film, or shoot some FP4 that I have in 120; I will definitely use dilution A. FP4 has a time listed as 4.5 mins in dilution A. Might be a nice combo. Dilution A is great for pushing film. I really don't want to spend 20 mins swirling developer. One reason I started using HC-110 was the shorter developing times. So dilution A has some uses and I really want to give it a go with something at box speed and a super short development time. Well mostly because, everyone says not to. And I hate being told what to do. Also, Experimenting is part if the fun of photography. And developing Black and White film is an easy place to do it. Life would be so boring if we all did exactly the same thing.

 

[Mike Feit]

I am finishing a bulk roll Orwo UN54 right now. I am developing in Dilution E, which is 1:47 for 6 mins. I think it is safe to say no Dilution A for that film. But whenever, I get some 400 speed film, or shoot some FP4 that I have in 120; I will definitely use dilution A. FP4 has a time listed as 4.5 mins in dilution A. Might be a nice combo. Dilution A is great for pushing film. I really don't want to spend 20 mins swirling developer. One reason I started using HC-110 was the shorter developing times. So dilution A has some uses and I really want to give it a go with something at box speed and a super short development time. Well mostly because, everyone says not to. And I hate being told what to do. Also, Experimenting is part if the fun of photography. And developing Black and White film is an easy place to do it. Life would be so boring if we all did exactly the same thing.

Thanks for your input. My sentiments exactly. Experimentation is simply so much fun. Regarding the part about you not liking being told what to do; I feel the same way, I simply felt it would be interesting to use a method everybody says is suboptimal. The results are good at best, Dilution B does the trick as well, but at least I tried it out and now I know it works.

Another user mentioned FP4 and now I'm really interested in trying this combination as well. I suppose this combination will yield virtually grainless results. We'll see.

 

[Mike Feit]

I am finishing a bulk roll Orwo UN54 right now. I am developing in Dilution E, which is 1:47 for 6 mins. I think it is safe to say no Dilution A for that film. But whenever, I get some 400 speed film, or shoot some FP4 that I have in 120; I will definitely use dilution A. FP4 has a time listed as 4.5 mins in dilution A. Might be a nice combo. Dilution A is great for pushing film. I really don't want to spend 20 mins swirling developer. One reason I started using HC-110 was the shorter developing times. So dilution A has some uses and I really want to give it a go with something at box speed and a super short development time. Well mostly because, everyone says not to. And I hate being told what to do. Also, Experimenting is part if the fun of photography. And developing Black and White film is an easy place to do it. Life would be so boring if we all did exactly the same thing.

great esults! It's my firm believe that uneven development always comes from uneven agitation.Since using constant rotation with a Jobo, I haven't experienced any uneven development anymore.

Thanks for the input. Ever since I've seen the rotary system by JOBO I was intrigued by it, but it's much too expensive and I try my best not to spend too much money on developing, which is ironic because I've been experimenting with a very uneconomical concentration.

 

[Mike Feit]

Worth noting that Dilutions A and B were originally intended to be used replenished in high volume -- so economy as a one-shot wasn't really a concern (that's what weaker dilutions were for).

I recall my own results with the HC-110 monobath (tested with 2000 vintage Tri-X 35mm) were very comparable in grain to Tri-X in Dilution B and a conventional process -- with the caveat that at that time my only way to examine the negatives beyond a loupe was with a scanner limited to 1200 ppi (and widely claimed to be optically less than that). I never tried the monobath again after getting my enlarger, so never attempted to enlarge the negatives (generally had more I wanted to print than time to print them).

I see, thanks so much for your input. The whole monobath idea sounds very interesting. I read about your monobath experiments and I think I'll give it a try in the future.

 

[Donald Qualls]

In all honesty, unless you need to produce negatives for scanning only and are forced to work in a space like a kitchen or bathroom (and load your tank in a dark bag, of course), there's little if any advantage to monobaths. I did it just because someone said they didn't think it could be done (with a rapid fixer), and the fact I got negatives on the first try, and pretty good ones on the second, said to me that was a trivially wrong statement. Beyond that, I tried Df96 when I first came back to photography early last year, but I'll probably limit my future use of monobaths to processing film while on vacation at the beach -- changing bag and a jug for the monobath, plus a jug of C-41 Final Rinse (because it keeps) instead of PhotoFlo. Two one liter jugs, Paterson tank and reels, changing bag and negative pages, and I can shoot B&W for a week and not have to bring home undeveloped film. That'll even fit in a Kia along with me, my partner, three or four dogs, and luggage.