StoneNYC
Allowing Ads
I used to think dilution S was the best (for Stone) which is 1:25 but now that ok doing rotary, I might try 1:50
Although dilution H has been my most common and my "go-to" dilution for ordinary developments, if I had to pick a favorite then I would have to go with dilution A. That is because I use it only for developing found film, which is just so much fun to do.My process for this involves reduced temperatures (as low as 40F) which explains how the development times still tend to come out in a usable range. I can tell you that the larger volumes required for "A" just seem wrong at first, especially when you are accustomed to much higher dilutions.
It sounds interesting, but what is the purpose of your low temp development with high concentration developer?
The claim is that the lower temperature and higher concentration tend to reduce the fog level - something to which old film is susceptible.
Like Stone I had my special dilution, Dil. V, of course. 1:60 for 10 minutes in a tray for TMax100 if I remember right, which I may not. Whatever it was I liked the negatives and how they printed on Portriga Rapid 111, Grade 3 and Ilford Gallerie Glossy grade 3.
One on each type of paper,
Both from New Zealand
Like Stone I had my special dilution, Dil. V, of course. 1:60 for 10 minutes in a tray for TMax100 if I remember right, which I may not. Whatever it was I liked the negatives and how they printed on Portriga Rapid 111, Grade 3 and Ilford Gallerie Glossy grade 3.
One on each type of paper,
Both from New Zealand
I've always found it interesting how people use such a wide variety of dilutions when it comes to HC-110, as opposed to any other general purpose solvent developer. Choose any other developer, say D-76, and people will say they use it 1+0, or 1+1 for slightly more sharpness, or 1+3 for high sharpness/more grain. But with HC-110, nobody seems to talk about any of that stuff. They just dilute it any number of random ways.
Like stand development.
People praise stand development because they can leave their film for 1 hour and do other things in the mean time. But they don't want to use Dilution A for 3 minutes because it can cause uneven development. If you ask me, a quick 3 minutes and get uneven development, or 1 hour and get uneven development AND shitty contrast, I prefer dilution A and get over it in three quick minutes.
There, you see, I was talking about time more then development properties.
I really agree with your observations. Maybe it's because there is really no difference between dilution B and H. I haven't seen one in real life. I like Dilution A because it seems to give a better contrast but that's subjective as I haven't tested it deeply enough.
D76 1:3 is staggeringly different then 1:0. It shows right away. Just as Ilfosol-3 shows right away if I compare it to D76. But HC-110 B or H or E has never really shown me a difference. I tend to stick to B. Dilution A when I need a faster development (not for better contrast. Dilution B is plenty satisfactory in that regard). Dilution H when I prefer open shadows... But I fear this too is more my imagination then real life results.
Of course, I religiously shake 5 inversion per 30 seconds with all my developers. The idea being that fresh developer constantly has to be in contact with the emulsion. I don't believe in "gentle agitation" or "one slow inversion". That's a load of BS.
Shooting TMAX 100 and having to print it on grade 5, thanks to poor development techniques is not what Kodak aimed when they created that particular film or when they came to conclusions about strongly recomending HC110 Dilution B and VIGOROUS inversions for this or that film.
Yes, there is a concept of BETTER contrast. It's called "Instructions" and they have been formulated by scientists... Not by some dude in pajamas lecturing other folks on internet forums.
What is this new fashion about doing exactly the opposite of what manufacturers recomend on their own products?
Because many of us are not scientists. We are artists, and are inclined to experiment, and love to see what's on the other side of the fence.
I learn a lot more by breaking rules than following them.
My prints aren't some freaking ANSI or ISO standard. They are documents of emotions; pain, happiness, and melancholy. They are pictures that I wish to reveal something that I find important with. They are so much more than a test chart. Perfect grayscale tones with 'text book' tonality do nothing for me, so I often don't do what manufacturers recommend.
But, you have to learn what normal is before you can learn what isn't normal. Standard process is helpful to begin with, and make good, solid average negatives. Then you move beyond.
Imagine Kodak selling packs of Ektar 1000 that expired in 1986 and telling us that the colors are nice and who are we to judge, anyways. That contrast and colors are subjective, therefore the film is "perfect as is".
Would you accept this?
...And to achieve optimal results there's only one way: fresh film and process as recomended. Any deviation becomes a subjective matter. Unless you're an expert and you csn measure scientifically.
Imagine Kodak selling packs of Ektar 1000 that expired in 1986 and telling us that the colors are nice and who are we to judge, anyways. That contrast and colors are subjective, therefore the film is "perfect as is".
Would you accept this? You wouldn't because you know what is good and bad. Good colors look good. Good contrast looks good. And to achieve optimal results there's only one way: fresh film and process as recomended. Any deviation becomes a subjective matter. Unless you're an expert and you csn measure scientifically.
...My prints aren't some freaking ANSI or ISO standard. They are documents of emotions; pain, happiness, and melancholy.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?