HC-110: Keeping properties its only virtue? No good for 35mm?

The graph below suggests that HC-110 produces a middle-of-the-road negative alongside the other Kodak developers. Its main virtues seem to be that it's easy to mix and lasts forever (the chart further below). If it were as volatile as, say, XTOL, would it be around at all?

Also, I hear things like it's not suited for smaller formats like 35mm. I tend to believe it. For 4x5 and larger, the grain and sharpness "problems" becomes more negligible, and you can get the desired amount of shadow detail by controlled metering and developing.

Am I missing something?



HC-110's features and benefits (from Kodak).

I have found Xtol to be my goto soup for 35mm film. I used D76 for a very long time but when Xtol came out that was it for D76. I tried my fav PyroCat-HD with 35mm and it is very good with Ilford films and really awful with older thick emulsion 35mm films. Rodinal at 1:100 is good for 35mm if using stand development. HC110 I found could get away on you with 35mm. As a wise man once said YMMV.

There are many photographers around who are very happy and rather fond of the results they get with it. It seems that it is easy to work with and store and it achieves the look the photographer aims for.

If you aren't getting the results you are aiming for, then it is time to start experimenting and narrowing down why you aren't getting what you're looking for. Switching to a different developer is often a good place to start, depending on what issues you're seeing with your results.


If there was one single 'best' option that worked for everyone in all cases, then there wouldn't really be much choice on the market, would there?

Luckless said:

If there was one single 'best' option that worked for everyone in all cases, then there wouldn't really be much choice on the market, would there?

Click to expand...

No there wouldn't. Hence my question.

I have not personally worked with HC-110, but what I've seen of it is that it provides a reasonable sharpness that doesn't stray into that 'over cooked' feeling as I've seen some describe it, while also providing what some would describe as a 'pleasing and interesting' grain effect as compared to other options in the market. Poke around online and you'll find people describing the grain results as 'fine grain' regardless of what the chart says.

So I guess the answer of "What is HC-110's virtue" would have to be "It works for a lot of photographers who enjoy using it"? The fact that it has a good shelf-life would be a bonus to some, while for other photographers the short shelf life of other options would be a big enough of a negative point to drown out the 'better' performance in grain, sharpness, contrast, etc they could have gotten.

Another virtue of HC-110 in the eyes of some is that it isn't the other options with 'better' stats on the box. "Better" is relative. -A brand new million dollar 'super car' is 'better' than a beat up old Toyota pickup truck from the 80's... That is, until you want to move a couch or a fridge. The it becomes a rather sorry and very useless bit of machinery taking up space in the driveway.

Thank you. Your first paragraph seems to get to the heart of the matter for me.

""The graph below suggests that HC-110 produces a middle-of-the-road negative alongside the other Kodak developers." I really don't know how you arrived at the interpretation you did. Look again the figures do not suggest anything as middle of the road.

According to the 2001 Kodak Professional Photographic Catalog which contains a comparison chart.

Compared to D-76, this chart indicates that HC-110 (dilution B) produces:

• Slightly less shadow detail or true film speed;
• Slightly finer grain;
• Slightly lower acutance.

Notice the use of the word slightly in each of the statements. In all respects it compares very favorably with D-76. It certainly works very well with 35mm films.

If you are anal about grain the 135 is not for you anyway. To me film is the grain and I have no issues with HC-110, except recent hijacking of price for it in Canada.
Famous lady in Burlington Camera store once told me what she switched to HC-110 for all bw films. I tend to trust her since she is in developing, printing for long enough time to know what she is talking about.
I used D-76 and XTOL prior to switching to HC-110.

bvy, what makes makes you think that Xtol is volatile? It has been my developer for both 35mm and 120 for several years now without any problems.

Decanting the 5L working solution into winebags for storage got me over 2 years of use.

pentaxuser

HC-110 and 35mm works for me, and has done so for years.



Remember, HC-110 is really flexible. It does almost everything very well, and it is extremely flexible, in that varying the dilution is both easy and effective.

Excuse me

bvy said:

If it were as volatile as, say, XTOL, would it be around at all?

Click to expand...

No, in such case then, it would lose its aggressive power, would be another developer with another chemical formulation

bvy said:

Am I missing something?

Click to expand...

Not you, but the developer itself, by being "in the middle"

Gerald C Koch said:

""The graph below suggests that HC-110 produces a middle-of-the-road negative alongside the other Kodak developers." I really don't know how you arrived at the interpretation you did. Look again the figures do not suggest anything as middle of the road.

Click to expand...

Purely by quantifying the graph. All the other developers are weighted to the most/finest/highest side in two or more categories; HC-110 in just one category, sharpness. And in that one category, all the other developers perform as well or better. The proof is in the pudding, of course, and I don't read this graph as gospel. I'm just explaining how I arrived at my interpretation.

pentaxuser said:

bvy, what makes makes you think that Xtol is volatile? It has been my developer for both 35mm and 120 for several years now without any problems.

Click to expand...

Just that it requires careful keeping. It's well documented here and elsewhere. I had one bad experience from a quantity that oxidized faster than any other developer I've used.

HC-110 dil. B seems to result in finer grain than 3 of the 5 developers listed in the chart..what is wrong with that?!

I don't shoot 35mm film, but Mf and LF, and from Kodak my main 2 developers are HC-110 and TMAX, and both produced amazing nice results for me, so i wouldn't worry much about other developers, actually i did use D-76 for several films and the results are just good but not as great as TMAX and HC-110, i started with Ilfosol 3 and TMAX then D-76 in short time, and within that short time i immediately preferred liquid developers over powdered one hence why i didn't like that D-76 regardless of its popularity, i need to test XTOL in the future i hope then see how it compares to other Kodak developers i already used, and hope it will be a different powdered developer that i will love, but for now, HC-110 and TMAX will be my first choice.

I just developed one film about 1-2 hours ago with HC-110 Dil B, later i will check out the results, but i don't think my results is anything someone will be interested in to know anyway.

I went to HC110 instead of D76 for simplicity and long keeping properties, and for the fact that I read in multiple places that HC110 was supposed to be a liquid D76 in many ways. I figured I had enough to work on without adding multiple developers into the mix.

After a few bags of D76, I went to HC110 and found those statements to be largely true but I do feel that HC110 gives less film speed, less acutance and finer grain than D76...at least as I was using them both. I think after two large bottles of HC110 (which I am nearly finished with, using it almost exclusively at 1:100), trying Rodinal will be next up for a hundred rolls or so to see how I get on with it.

If you want to squeeze the most out of 35mm, use Xtol, and then use T-Max in the appropriate speed you need.

I've experimented with improving it via chemical additions, I've been able to raise the sharpness/resolving power put down on many films in Xtol further, which also applied to other developers such as Rodinal, I've been able to raise the grain level in Rodinal to Xtol levels as well, without reducing the sharpness increase from the other addition. This should apply to HC-110 as well.

bvy said:

Purely by quantifying the graph.

Click to expand...

The illustration is really not very helpful and a bit confusing. It is not intended as being quantified and quite frankly I don't know how you would do that. If it were then the slide bars would have metrics associated with them. In the post I quoted the keyword is "slightly" and I think it best to stay with Kodak's verbal description. I don't wish to offend but I am trying to prevent an baseless rumor from starting on the net.

bvy said:

The graph below suggests that HC-110 produces a middle-of-the-road negative alongside the other Kodak developers. Its main virtues seem to be that it's easy to mix and lasts forever (the chart further below). If it were as volatile as, say, XTOL, would it be around at all?

Also, I hear things like it's not suited for smaller formats like 35mm. I tend to believe it.

Click to expand...

Gee....I've developed over 500 rolls of 35mm film using HC-110. Never noticed any problems at all.

Fixcinater said:

I went to HC110 instead of D76 for simplicity and long keeping properties, and for the fact that I read in multiple places that HC110 was supposed to be a liquid D76 in many ways. I figured I had enough to work on without adding multiple developers into the mix.

After a few bags of D76, I went to HC110 and found those statements to be largely true but I do feel that HC110 gives less film speed, less acutance and finer grain than D76...at least as I was using them both. I think after two large bottles of HC110 (which I am nearly finished with, using it almost exclusively at 1:100), trying Rodinal will be next up for a hundred rolls or so to see how I get on with it.

Click to expand...

I have tried Rodinal in between HC-110. It is also easy to prepare and store developer, but, personally, I find it to give less consistent results vs HC-110 and inferior to HC-110 for pushing of 400 films or just at 400. I like Rodinal for slow films and one hour still developing and have unopened bottle to enjoy for next long daylight season.

I use HC-110 because I got sick of throwing out outdated D76 stock. In this day and age of no local stores with chemistry, I hate to start up a session to find that I am out of developer. HC-110 lasts for a long time. I mix from syrup and shoot MF to LF.

Really HC-110 could be my top favorite after a while, still i like 3 developers, but i used dil H before and it worked, yesterday or did use dil B for one film and it worked but didn't check out the frames yet, will try to develop one more film awaiting with dil B, so i will be having 2 dilutions confirmed, then i will just stick with HC-110, i love TMAX developer and it came with larger volume bottles, but it takes less more dilution volume compared to HC-110, so it is not much economical for long run.

I was thinking about getting Pyrocat - HD as i see there is dilution 1+100, that will be a great economic developer to use, i can't get Rodinal at all and really not looking for it, but Pyrocat HD i may able to get it easier.