HC110 Agitation

ColColt · Aug 19, 2015

Well, you can't beat success.

It is far easier to add contrast than fight a negative that is too contrasty.

I agree 100%...been there a few times. I'm going back to where I use to work(downtown) and do some street shooting next week. I'll see how things develop.

John Bragg · Aug 19, 2015

ColColt said:
Well, you can't beat success.

I agree 100%...been there a few times. I'm going back to where I use to work(downtown) and do some street shooting next week. I'll see how things develop.

Good luck with that. I hope you will post some shots. I liked your vintage ones and it will be interesting to see the changes in the area ! I bet you cant buy breakfast there for $1 with free coffee anymore ?

ColColt · Aug 19, 2015

That old place was gone many years ago. He had two places around downtown area and I loved it. Nope, breakfast anywhere down there now-last time I had it a few years back, was closer to $8-9 and no free anything.

bvy · Aug 19, 2015

Fixcinater said:
What does the midrange contrast look like? Lots of grays overall or is it overall fairly contrasty?

In my experience, I've noted that reducing agitation mainly affects midtones and pulls down highlights, what other people might call "snap" or overall/global contrast. Useful for bright sunny days like we get a lot of here in San Diego but less helpful if the scenes are lower contrast.

This is all very subjective, but I'd say the shadows and midtones have good contrast, but there are no real highlights. A lot of what I shot that day was in open or covered shade (on a sunny day). I also shot a few frames with strobes which have slightly better developed highlights. Trying to decide if I should increase agitation or development time, or try a different dilution -- or a different developer altogether.

Fixcinater · Aug 19, 2015

I'd vote for maintaining as many variables as you can, and just changing agitation.

Then, if that works for you, do another roll with same agitation schedule but more dev time to see how that affects it.

I'm still working through it myself but I've stuck with JBrunner's 1+49 "HC110 made simple" recipe and that, along with changing the other aspects one at a time, allows for actual learning vs. guessing what is doing what.

bvy · Aug 23, 2015

I guess I was trying to understand how responsive HC-110 is to increased agitation. I inverted continuously for the first minute -- then for a few seconds at minutes 2, 4 and 6 of the nine minute development time. If I instead agitate every minute (adding four more inversions) will that likely have a considerable effect in bringing up the highlights?

Fixcinater · Aug 23, 2015

When I went from D76 1:1 to HC110, I noticed my highlights were going white (I'm not always wet printing so I need versatile negs) faster than I liked, so I dropped agitation gradually and it seems that it was mainly the highlights/upper tones that were affected. I started with first 30 seconds continuous/inversions every 30 sec and dropped down to first 30/inversion every minute.

Now I lose less detail in the highlights which are common shooting in the sun here in California, still have an overall solid negative that is easy to work with wherever I go with it. For the past ~20 rolls, semi-stand has worked for me. I may be giving up some "snap" that I can't get back just by adding contrast later in the process but I'm OK with that.

I have a relatively low contrast lens (Summarit 1.5) and if I were shooting with that regularly, I would agitate more to give that some more snap/pop. So, just depends on your workflow and setup.

EDIT: To directly address your question, I don't have numbers to put to it but I have found HC110 to respond quite a bit more than D76 to agitation changes.

ColColt · Aug 23, 2015

Read this....

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Gerald C Koch · Aug 23, 2015

Development is a diffusion controlled process as described mathematically by Fick's Laws. For a particular concentration of developing agent(s) and a particular temperature development is essentially a constant. Therefore development is not as influenced by agitation as most people believe. Optimal agitation appears to be that recommended by Kodak. That is 4 gentle inversions at the beginning of each minute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion

Development consists of 3 sequential reactions.

A -> B -> C

where

A is the presentation of developer to the film surface
B is the diffusion into the emulsion
C is the actual chemical reduction of the silver halide

The overall rate for a series of reactions is the rate of the slowest reaction. In development this is reaction B. Therefore increasing the rate of A is not going to have any effect. Only by decreasing the rate of A so it is slower than that of B can one effect the overall rate.

bvy · Aug 23, 2015

So if I understand, nothing can happen faster than B. And Kodak is saying that agitating more than once per minute is basically ineffective (or possibly even detrimental?) if B is on the critical path. In my case, though, it sounds like I still stand to realize gains by increasing agitation to once per minute.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gerald C Koch · Aug 23, 2015

You will see changes but they are not as large as people believe. Development is a very complex series of reactions. Agitation besides bringing fresh developer to the emulsion surface also removes restrainers like bromide and iodide. These are released during development. The removal of bromide and iodide may actually be more important than fresh developer. I limited my previous post to discussing only one effect for simplicity.

Another point not discussed is the difference in concentration of developing agents at the emulsion surface and in the bulk portion of developer in the tank. This difference is small so the effect of bringing fresh developer to the emulsion is also small.

Besides agitation there are also thermal currents in the tank which also contribute. For the case of no agitation (stand development) these currents become important. As said previously a complicated system exists.

ColColt · Aug 23, 2015

The best thing to do is experiment. That's what I do. Shoot a roll, keep notes as to what you did and how.

snikulin · Aug 23, 2015

Peterpan said:
I have decided to start using HC 110 the goo type for its keeping property.

I bought a bottle at Keeble & Shuchat Photography two months ago, my very first one (I'm a D-76 junkie).
It's definitely not of the goo type.
I would say it's even more thin than maple sirup, something more like half-and-half or even thinner.
It does develop film though (I did two HP5+ so far).

Is it OK? What's the proper viscosity of the stuff?

Thanks!

MattKing · Aug 23, 2015

snikulin said:
I bought a bottle at Keeble & Shuchat Photography two months ago, my very first one (I'm a D-76 junkie).
It's definitely not the goo type.
I would say it's even more thin than maple sirup, something more like half-and-half or even thinner.
It does develop film, though (I did two HP5+ so far).

Is it OK? What's the proper viscosity of the stuff?

Thanks!

Older HC-110 is always a little thicker. I expect as well that smaller quantities get thicker faster than larger quantities, so the newer, litre packaging probably means it will stay less viscous, longer.

If you pour a little of it into a small measuring graduate, and make sure it runs down the side of the graduate, you will see some evidence of viscosity.

snikulin · Aug 23, 2015

MattKing said:
Older HC-110 is always a little thicker.

Its expiration date is 08-2016.
I feel I won't use it in one year.
I fill it with glass beads to the brim and keep it in a refrigerator's main compartment (40F?).

How long will it survive?

John Bragg · Aug 23, 2015

snikulin said:
Its expiration date is 08-2016.
I feel I won't use it in one year.
I fill it with glass beads to the brim and keep it in a refrigerator's main compartment (40F?).

How long will it survive?

No special care needed. It will survive very well without keeping in fridge. It is glycol based and as long as you only dilute with water just before use, it will keep well for literally years ! That is part of its charm. Just decant into smaller bottles and measure with a syringe. No need for glass beads or any such precaution as even though it will turn dark orange over time, that does not indicate any loss of potency.

snikulin · Aug 23, 2015

John Bragg said:
It is glycol based

Wow!
Yes, MSDS confirms it.
I better return back to D-76. At least it won't kill me on skin contact.

snikulin · Aug 23, 2015

John Bragg said:
measure with a syringe.

Serological pipettes + pipette pumps.
10ml pipette/pump for "H" dilution and 25ml set for "B".
Yes, kids' syringes are free but pipettes + pumps are much more fun (and cheap too, about $10 per set)!

MattKing · Aug 23, 2015

snikulin said:
Wow!
Yes, MSDS confirms it.
I better return back to D-76. At least it won't kill me on skin contact.

It is a moderately low concentration of diethelyne glycol - skin contact may cause it to be a mild irritant.

If you spill HC110 syrup on yourself, rinse it off.

If you swallow HC110, it isn't good for you.

If you heat it up enough to vapourize it, and then breathe in the vapour, it isn't good for you.

Gerald C Koch · Aug 23, 2015

The viscosity of HC-110 comes not only from glycols but also from the DEA addition products.

I better return back to D-76. At least it won't kill me on skin contact.

D-76 will cause metol poisoning in sensitive individuals. Much worse than any transitory irritation from HC-110. While I am not sensitive to metol I am allergic to many of its related compounds used as color developing agents. I had to give up color printing after developing weeping skin sores on my hands.

snikulin · Aug 24, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
D-76 will cause metol poisoning in sensitive individuals.

Sorry but no, it won't.
D-76 does not contain metol but contains hydroquinone.
And hydroquinone is almost edible
D-76 MSDS is here.

EDIT: I want to strike out that part about metol absence in D-76.
I might be wrong here.

John Bragg · Aug 24, 2015

snikulin said:
Wow!
Yes, MSDS confirms it.
I better return back to D-76. At least it won't kill me on skin contact.

Or use nitrile gloves and relax.

Gerald C Koch · Aug 24, 2015

snikulin said:
Sorry but no, it won't.
D-76 does not contain metol but contains hydroquinone.
And hydroquinone is almost edible
D-76 MSDS is here.

EDIT: I want to strike out that part about metol absence in D-76.
I might be wrong here.

The MSDS uses the chemical name for metol bis(4-hydroxy-N-methylanilinium) sulphate.

One of the frequent contributors to APUG cannot use any developers containing metol. He has remarked about this several times and uses Microphen instead of D-76. Read the MSDS carefully it clearly states "May cause an allergic skin reaction." The common term is "metol poisoning" but it means an allergic dermatitis not systemic poisoning. This may have led to a misunderstanding.

The MSDS for Microdol-X which contains metol and not hydroquinone shows that it is the former that causes the allergic reaction.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/kodak/Microdol_X_Developer.pdf

Hydroquinone is not innocuous either.

snikulin · Aug 24, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
The MSDS uses the chemical name for metol bis(4-hydroxy-N-methylanilinium) sulphate.

Yes, that was my mistake.
More on the topic in the Cookbook:

FORMULA #24
Kodak D-76 (1927)
(J. G. Capstaff)
This developer is good for low contrast and maximum shadow detail. The commercial product, marketed by Kodak, is the worlds best-selling black-and-white developer.

Water at 125F/52C, 750.0 ml
Metol, 2.0 g
Sodium sulfite, 100.0 g Hydroquinone, 5.0 g Borax, 2.0 g
Water to make 1.0 liter

Dilute 1:1.
D-76 may be used undiluted, but there is no advantage in doing so. The negatives while slightly finer grained do not exhibit the same degree of sharpness or tonal scale.

Development times are available from most film manufacturers.

Variations on D-76 : The packaged Kodak FORMULA contains a number of additional chemicals to prevent the metol from deteriorating in the presence of the sodium sulfite and enable it to mix easily in all types of hard and soft water. This allows the FORMULA to be sold as a single package.

Ilford markets the FORMULA in two packages, separating the metol from the sulfite, under the name ID-11. This eliminates some, though not all, of the extra chemicals found in the Kodak version.

Many photographers feel that the original FORMULA, as given in the Cookbook , without the extras is superior to either commercial product.

StephenT · Aug 24, 2015

Ditto the nitrile glove recommendation. Easy on, easy off. Wash your hands with the gloves on, dry, remove, reuse. A box will last forever.

HC110 Agitation

ColColt

John Bragg

ColColt

bvy

Fixcinater

bvy

Fixcinater

ColColt

Gerald C Koch

bvy

Gerald C Koch

ColColt

snikulin

MattKing

Moderator

snikulin

John Bragg

snikulin

snikulin

MattKing

Moderator

Gerald C Koch

snikulin

John Bragg

Gerald C Koch

snikulin

StephenT

HC110 Agitation

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency