HC-110 (H) & agitation query

[Ashfaque]

Query 1
I'm thinking of using HC-110 to develop a 35mm roll of Rollei RPX 400 (>= 25 exposures), shot at box speed. The suggested time with Dilution B is 5 minutes. So far, some of the photos I've seen on the net with Dil. B is not very convincing - especially the grains.

So I'm leaning towards dilution H (1 dev.+ 62 DW). I will be using Jobo 1510 Tank that holds 250 ml. Hence, the amount of dev. concentrate is approx. 4 ml. However, according to http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/, I should use at least 6 ml to develop a 36 exp. 35mm roll?

So should I use 4ml or 6ml of developer concentrate with this >= 24 exposure roll?

Query 2
So far, developing step I'm thinking of is 12-13 minutes, continuous agitation for the 1st minute, and then 2 moderate inversion every 3 minutes.
Alternatively, should I follow HC-110's recommended agitatin/inversion technique - one inversion every 30 seconds.

Which ones (Q1, Q2) would give me better shadow details and less grains? If there is any other dilution you'd like to recommend (, preferably with examples), please do so.

Bests,
Ashfaque

 

[Doc W]

I am not familiar with this tank. Are you using it as an inversion tank or with a Jobo processor?

 

[Ashfaque]

I'm using Jobo 1510 tank manually, for which it takes about 250ml solution (- 140ml if used with a Jobo processor).

 

[frank]

I have no problem with using HC110 in dilutions and volumes that result in only 3ml of developer per roll of film.

I believe that HC110 is like Rodinal in that higher dilution and less frequent agitation results in finer grain.

 

[MattKing]

The Kodak capacity recommendation does extrapolate out to 6 ml per 36 exposure roll. There is little doubt that that includes a safety factor - necessary when one considers that the capacity will vary with the types of scenes being photographed. If your roll is full of bright, high key images that result in dense negatives you will need more developer capacity than if your images are full of shadows.

I prefer to be cautious when I approach the issue, so I follow that recommendation. I note, however, that your 24 exposure roll might make sufficient difference.

I've standardized on dilution E - 1+47. That may be a sufficient compromise to solve your concerns.

By the way, dilution H is actually 1+63 or, if you prefer, 1:64.

With respect to agitation, I doubt you will see much difference in shadow density between the two options, and you would be more likely to have problems with uneven development if you use the second option.

 

[DWThomas]

I find it interesting that when I first encountered the Covington page on HC110, I downloaded the page to a Word file here, as he indicated he was no longer maintaining it -- (I still have that copy) -- and at that time he listed the minimum amount of syrup for a 36 exp 35mm roll as 3 mL. The page now shows 6 (he did do some maintenance!), but that suggests to me somewhere along the way perhaps the big K was being very conservative. I've no idea where he got the original number -- I believe he was into astrophotography, which would not typically expose a bunch of silver, so perhaps it was an empirical determination that he could get away with under his use conditions.

I assume the maximum developer would be required for exposures of a mostly white wall; e.g., a heavily exposed black negative, which doesn't happen all that often. I don't do much 35mm, but I have gone with the approximately 4 mL to use in my single roll tank without seeing anything alarming. The larger tank batch I use for 120 film uses 6.7, so I'm good even by Kodak standards for that.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I've standardized on dilution E - 1+47. That may be a sufficient compromise to solve your concerns.

This is essentially what I use and I have never had any problems. I'm a bit more metric in that I use 1+49.

 

[Doc W]

I use HC-110 at various dilutions but I don't shoot 35mm so I can't give you an exact answer. In my opinion, it is better to have too much developer in the solution rather than too little. That can cause a problem when you want to use a specific dilution and you are limited by the capacity of the tank. In my Jobo, I sometimes use dilution F (1:79) but I have to reduce the number of sheets because I wind up with a lot of solution. My normal dilution is dilution D (1:39) or dilution E (1:47).

Your tank holds 250 ml so if you use a minimum of 6 ml of developer and you dilute 1:62, you run into a problem:

6 + (6 x 62) = 378 ml

Even if you go to dilution E, you still have more solution than your tank can handle:

6 + (6 x 47) = 288 ml

Dilution D would seem to be the answer, if you want to use 6 ml per roll:

6 + (6 x 39) = 240 ml

Several people here (including me) have used less than 6 ml and had no problems. The recommendations may well be high in order to give safe limits. So with regard to dilution and agitation, the best thing to do is use what has been said as a starting point and do a few tests yourself.

 

[Fixcinater]

I've used 3ml to develop a full 36 exposure roll before, same for 120 with no ill effects noticed. Doesn't mean they aren't there but for my way of working, I had no issues of using those negs.

 

[Ashfaque]

Thanks a lot everyone for your helpful tips. Here is what I have decided so far:

1. Dilution E: 1 dev. con + 47 DW => 250/48 => ~5.50ml DC + 244.50ml DW. Since it is a >=24 exp. roll, I'm guessing, based on your posts, it is a safe option to use 5.5ml.
2. Agitation: 1st minute cont. agitation, and 2 moderately gentle inversion every 3 minutes thereafter. Let me know if I should something different.

Assuming I follow the aforementioned method, how long long should I develop the roll for normal contrast? 8, 9, or 10 minutes?

Bests,
Ashfaque

 

[Jeff Bradford]

The "6mL per roll" guideline provides for enough active agent to maintain a consistent concentration in the solution throughout development so you don't have to do reciprocity calculations. 6mL per roll should be enough for an entire roll of high-key exposures without any worries.

I use HC-110 at 1+49 for my 250mL tanks. Development time is about 50% longer than Dilution B. This results in only 5mL of HC-110 in the tank with a 36 exposure roll, which has always worked well. 5mL of HC-110 sets that safety margin to 30 exposures. I bulk-load to get 24-30 exposures per roll, so I'm generally within that safety margin anyway.

1+40 would give you 6mL in 240mL of H2O, totaling 246mL of solution. This is close enough to Dilution D to figure times of 25% longer than Dilution B.

Or, just mix 7mL HC-110 with 273mL of H2O (actual Dilution D) and pour out the extra 30mL if you want to be precise to the datasheet.

You're going to make adjustments based on the outcome from your first test roll, so it doesn't matter so much where you start.

 

[Ashfaque]

Thanks a lot, Jeff. Could you please share a few examples of 1+49 dilution, if possible? Also, a bit on your agitation method would be a great help.

Bests,
Ashfaque

 

[MattKing]

If you haven't already seen it, here is J Brunner's "resource" on using 1+49 - be sure to read the discussion as well as the Overview: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Dilution E (1+47) is effectively the same, so anything "official" you see about that dilution from Kodak will apply to 1+49.

I use dilution E in a replenishment regime, but I don't use the Rollei film.

I'm also fairly lousy at scanning, but if you like I could post a shot or two - either Plus-X or TMY-2.

 

[RobC]

I would suggest that if you don't like grain I would not be using HC110 as your developer for 35mm. It just isn't a super fine grain developer and barely normal grain in 35mm. It works great with LF which isn't enlarged so much.
There are other developers such as Tetenal Ultrafin T-Plus. So maybe not as cheap but if you want very fine grain on 35mm you need to use the right developer.
And then you have Perceptol but that is a powdered dev and not syrup and is not so sharp edged until you dilute it to 1+2 or 1+3. But that increases grain too (with Perceptol, not all developers).

 

[Ashfaque]

If you haven't already seen it, here is J Brunner's "resource" on using 1+49 - be sure to read the discussion as well as the Overview: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Dilution E (1+47) is effectively the same, so anything "official" you see about that dilution from Kodak will apply to 1+49.

I use dilution E in a replenishment regime, but I don't use the Rollei film.

I'm also fairly lousy at scanning, but if you like I could post a shot or two - either Plus-X or TMY-2.

Matt: I read JB's HC-110 article long time ago. Time to read it again. I'd like to see a few scans of TMY-2. They should be helpful for future reference.
Rob: I don't have any of the ones you mentioned.

BTW, I have developed the roll for 9 minutes as per post#11. It had only 9 frames (from my 1st bulk roll). It was exposed on 22 May, 2015! They are looking quite ok, albeit wet. Thank you all very much.

Bests,
Ashfaque

 

[MattKing]

Matt: I read JB's HC-110 article long time ago. Time to read it again. I'd like to see a few scans of TMY-2. They should be helpful for future reference.

Here is one from a 6x7 negative.

This one is from a 6x6 negative.

And this one is from a 35mm negative.

The 35mm one suffers a bit from the download process.

 

[peter k.]

Oh Matt, lovely.. never tried Tmy-2 that's 400 Tmax correct.. going to have to order some.

 

[MattKing]

Oh Matt, lovely.. never tried Tmy-2 that's 400 Tmax correct.. going to have to order some.

Thanks.

And in response to your question, yes, although the current version (TMY-2) has a slightly different name than the first version (TMY) - it is now known as "KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 400 Film".

 

[bvy]

I'm also fairly lousy at scanning...

Yeah, you suck at it. Those are beautiful.

 

[Ashfaque]

Matt: You're an excellent photographer as well as a very good instructor.

Yeah, you suck at it. Those are beautiful.

+1

Bests,
Ashfaque

 

[MattKing]

Yeah, you suck at it. Those are beautiful.

I cherry picked my choices.

If you would like me to upload some of the failures ......

I would note though that some of my earlier struggles might have been related less to my scanning challenges and more to my struggles with the old APUG uploader. The uploader in this new software seems to be behaving better for me.

And thanks bvy and Ashfaque, you are too kind.