• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

HC-110??

Don you are correct...I guess everything was not equal because as you said the development times were different. rather than increase the agitation I will increase the time some for the Fuji and see how that works. I am also working on my wet printing skills. It seems "fairly" easy to get much closer to what my mind's eye see when I work a scanned negative in Photoshop, but I want to learn to create wet prints. I just enjoy the whole analogue process more than the digital.

I am also beginning to think that it is hard to completely judge a negative until you print it in the darkroom???? Does that make sense?
 
The Kodak thumbnail provided by LeeL makes the choice of Xtol look like a no brainer amongst the Kodak developers. It does seem to stand out overall using the 3 criteria.

I have always been an Ilford developer person but I am tempted by Xtol based on this

pentaxuser
 
Totally Yes. Scanning does not allow for a few tricks, especially with a dense full contrasty neg. I've printed way over exposed negs with 5 min exposures.
 
[I am also beginning to think that it is hard to completely judge a negative until you print it in the darkroom???? Does that make sense?[/QUOTE]
*********
Yes.
 
I feel like this thread has helped me quite a bit so let me ask a different question in the same though process. At this point in my learning curve "I" can't tell a lot of difference in D-76 and XTOL...??? I have been happy with both as a "standard" and have had consistent results with both. I have not used HC-110 yet.
D-76 and HC-110 are both available at my local photo shop and XTOL is not available locally I have to order it. So my question is this HC-110 seems to be a more convenient way to mix up and store developer so would the choice of D-76 vs. HC-110 vs. XTOL just be a coin toss or is there a real reason to select one over the other as a "standard"?
 
stradibarrius said:
So my question is this HC-110 seems to be a more convenient way to mix up and store developer so would the choice of D-76 vs. HC-110 vs. XTOL just be a coin toss or is there a real reason to select one over the other as a "standard"?
Click to expand...
This is pretty much a "spruce or cedar" question. Perhaps buy some HC-110 and see how it compares for your purposes, then go with your own balance of preference/convenience. The HC-110 will last many years in syrup form, so you can use it slowly and not be throwing money away.

Lee
 
stradibarrius said:
Lee that was what I was thinking. HC-110 appears to be the easiest to store and mix for someone like me who is processing only 6-8 rolls per month.
Click to expand...
HC-110 and Rodinal and other liquid concentrates are great for low volume users.
 
You can get overlapping results with D-76 and HC-110. There are NO absolute answers in photography, there are no standards ( I love to hear the gnashing of teeth when anybody says that ! ). Salvation doesn't come from owning the right stuff, it comes from being able to use whatcha got. For 6-8 rolls a month, HC-110 and a syringe will make life really easy. You might splurge, and get a couple gallons of distilled water and a really good thermometer.
 
DF, right again...Learning to use your tools is a seperate skill set than why you use them to start with...LOL! Everyone's input on such a simple thread has helped me gain some basic understanding of processing. Because of some of the responses I went back and read sections in my B&W books and I feel like I have taken one more small step p the long trail. Thanks everybody!
 
"Thanks everybody!"

Cool. Now, what are your secrets for putting a good edge on an iron ?
 

1. For general purposes in standard situations at standard enlargements, they are effectively the same and no one can tell the difference, even if they say they can.

2. Many advantages. Mainly, it is extremely consistent, easy to use, and versatile. (Most highly concentrated developers share these three characteristics.) Only potentially notable disadvantages are relative cost (more money per roll than D-76 used to full capacity or pretty much any home mixed developer), and less sharpness (visible in big enlargements only). It's a bit more grainy than X-tol, but definitely less so than D-76 (especially 1:1). The softer grain also makes it appear less sharp than D-76 in big enlargements.

To me, X-Tol sounds like a miracle developer on paper, and in a purely technical way. However, I find HC-110 more aesthetically pleasing, and also, for any practical purpose in what I do, I see no technical advantages over HC-110 or D-76 that are large enough to warrant mail ordering or special ordering it. HC-110 is, quite simply "good enough" for anything I do, on a technical level.

When HC isn't "good enough" for what I want to do, I make a batch of D-19 instead.
 
Well, Yes HC-110 certainly is a great 'Good Enough' developer to standardize and really learn on. I recall it being very popular with the news photo-labs in the 70's and 80's, the latter is when I went thru an HC-110 'phase', learned a few tricks from those news guys. Extremely flexible, and very useful to a wide variety of users.
 
The only real gripe I have with HC-110 is that it works fast - too fast sometimes. With some films, processing times can run to less than 5 minutes and that's too short to insure even development when using a small tank. Dilution can be adjusted to slow development; but reliable documentation for "unofficial" dilutions and development times are difficult to find leaving the user pretty much on his/her own to work out the details. Personally, I'd rather not waste time, film, and developer working these things out so I avoid it.
 
This is exactly why I decided against HC-110.

 
"and development times are difficult to find leaving the user pretty much on his/her own to work out the details"


Guys !

Make 2 identical exposures of a Zone V subject.

Develop the first in HC-110 1+63 (twice dilution B),
using twice the dil. B time from Kodak.

Develop the second for 20% longer.

Read the negs in a densitometer, or contact print them.
You're going to be right on, or need to pick a time in between.
That's all it takes. Sometimes it IS easy.
 
Only potentially notable disadvantages are relative cost (more money per roll than D-76 used to full capacity or pretty much any home mixed developer)
Click to expand...

Actually I did the calculations on all the developers I used at the time, and HC-110 at 50:1 came out cheapest of them all, including home-mixed D23. Now, I typically replenish my D23 and if I replenish it fully, then maybe the per-roll cost drops to HC-110 territory, but that's not a fair comparison because HC-110 can be replenished too. I think HC-110 is about the cheapest way to one-shot develop that there is.
 
I have never had a time under 5 minutes with HC-110 in normal development, but when pulling it can be an issue. The HP5 time is five minutes in dilution B. I use dilution H for HP5 pulled, and for normal I do the same, and uprate the film to 500. The 3:45 Tri-X time is apparently a misprint for dilution A that Kodak apparently refuses to acknowledge or correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register