HC110 As Paper Developer?

[laudrup]

Hello Gang,

i've used HC110 to develop my last two films and have been really pleased with the results, but on the HC110 resource page it suggested that it can also be used as a paper developer.

Does anyone have any experience of this and what were their impressions please?

I'd also be interested to know suggestions for dilutions and times if possible. I'm still new to this, I also happen to use the wimpy 500ml (1+9 for dilution B) bottle and Ilford Multigrade RC paper.

Any help or suggestions appreciated

Ad

 

[Gerald Koch]

Yes, HC-110 can be used as a print developer. So can Rodinal for that matter. However, practically no one uses them for this purpose because of the expense. You will get better results by using a regular print developer for paper.

 

[dancqu]

on the HC110 resource page it suggested that
it can also be used as a paper developer. Ad

Mr. Gainer at one time used HC110 as a print developer
and got good results. There's no reason it shouldn't make
a good print developer. He has suggested the US strength
be diluted 1:31 and on a liter basis, IIRC, a tablespoon of
sodium carbonate be added.

Film developers as a rule are less active than paper
developers due to low ph. The carbonate will up the
ph and make for quicker results. If 3ml will suffice for
a roll of film then 500ml US should do for 250 or
more 8x10s. Dan

 

[Gerald Koch]

There is a class of developers called universal developers which can be used for either films or papers. Typically they are diluted 1+2 for papers and 1+9 for films. Originally Kodak D-72 was such a developer although it has been some time since Kodak has recommended it for films. The problem with such developers is a matter of balance between all the ingredients in the formula. Film and paper emulsions really required different amounts of restrainer, a different pH, and a different ratio of the developing agents, to name but a few considerations. Any universal developer is a compromise which will produce acceptable results with both film and paper. Notice the operative word is acceptable not optimal. This is the problem when using HC-110 as a paper developer. It may produce acceptable results but they are not the best obtainable. The fact that sodium carbonate must be added to the working solution illustrates the problem.

 

[df cardwell]

HC-110 has been used to solve specific problems.

It isn't suitable for normal purposes.

d

 

[Ryuji]

Film developers as a rule are less active than paper
developers due to low ph. The carbonate will up the
ph and make for quicker results. If 3ml will suffice for
a roll of film then 500ml US should do for 250 or
more 8x10s. Dan

Rodinal has higher pH than most print developers. (But then I don't like Rodinal.)

HC-110 is not a good option for paper development not only due to its lower pH but also due to high degree of solvent action on chlorobromide emulsions. Film developers and paper developers are adjusted for different levels of silver halide complexing agents.

Most practical print developers are limited to 10x to 15x concentration. This is largely because of the solubility of the developing agent. With a suitable developing agent (ascorbate) one could make more concentrated print developer but I see no way to do so without infringing Ilford patent.

 

[dancqu]

[QUOTES=Gerald Koch]
"There is a class of developers called universal developers
which can be used for either films or papers."

I've not found any "universals" that are not carbonated. As
you say dilutions are high for film use. As such they are of
the "compensating" or "acutance" type film developers.

"Originally Kodak D-72 was such a developer ..."

Originally? That could take us back to the 1920s or 1930s.
A Print developer to use for the films of 70 to 80 years ago
may have been OK. We are not talking about some ancient
print developer to be used with todays films.

"The problem with such developers is a matter of balance
between all the ingredients in the formula."

Good balance in converting a film developer to print
developer can be achieved with most non-carbonated
film developers by the simple addition of a small amount
of carbonate. I do it with ACU-1, a one-shot Acufine. As
I've said D-23, of all developers, gives Ansco 120 results
and that's with out the carbonate. Very slow though.
Add carbonate and one has an Ansco 120/ Beer's A
type PRINT developer very similar to FX-1 and
Beutler's FILM developers.

As for solvent levels I wonder if they are any problem.
At reasonable working strengths I think in no case would
they exceed those of the usual print developers. So,
solvency, a mute point.

Once again, as a starting point, I suggest the OP give
Mr. Gainers HC-110 PRINT developer a try. Dan

 

[Ryuji]

As for solvent levels I wonder if they are any problem.
At reasonable working strengths I think in no case would
they exceed those of the usual print developers. So,
solvency, a mute point.

This is simply not true. Solvency of HC-110 is significantly higher than standard print developers. Period.

I noted you weakened your statement by inserting a phrase "at reasonable working strengths" and that is right, if you want to make solvency a non-issue, film developers would have to be diluted several times weaker than for film use, and this will lead to unacceptably slow development, low density, funny curve shape and maybe more problems.

Anyway, using film developers like HC-110 for print processing is nothing more than an unnecessary compromise.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I've said this many many times here.

Film developers generally contain a lot more solvent than paper developers, and as such can nearly act as a monobath for some papers. This is because they begin fixing out the silver chlorobromide before they begin developing it.

This leads to slower speed, odd contrast and lower dmax.

Some papers with incorporated developers will develop more rapidly than those without developers, and will suffer less of an effect from the film developer solvent.

Paper developers can often be used as film developers at the expense of grain and sharpness. An example is Dektol 1:3 for 3'.

This post of mine is nearly a duplicate of one previously on the use of film developers for papers.

PE

 

[df cardwell]

What PE said.

There have been a handful of times, over my 25 years of printing special images for a handful of clients, when a terrible flawed negative contained a special image.

The photographer was on the other side of the planet. HC-110 solved a specific problem, unsolvable in the range of 'print developers'.

I've also driven a nail with a screw driver. But that was an emergency as well.

.

 

[Gerald Koch]

I've not found any "universals" that are not carbonated. As
you say dilutions are high for film use."Originally Kodak D-72 was such a developer ..."

Originally? That could take us back to the 1920s or 1930s.
A Print developer to use for the films of 70 to 80 years ago
may have been OK. We are not talking about some ancient
print developer to be used with todays films.

Kalogen (given in the formulas section) is a universal developer that does not use carbonate. Metaborate based print developers can also be used for films.

In the 50's Kodak made a universal developer oddly called Kodak Universal, old but not ancient.

There are people today that regularly use D-72 for film. It makes an excellent developer for MF and LF films producing brilliant negatives.

 

[Photo Engineer]

There are people today that regularly use D-72 for film. It makes an excellent developer for MF and LF films producing brilliant negatives.

Gerald, that is the Dektol I mentioned above. Used 1:3 for 3' or 1:7 for 7' it does as you say, but at the sacrifice of grain and sharpness.

PE

 

[Gerald Koch]

Gerald, that is the Dektol I mentioned above. Used 1:3 for 3' or 1:7 for 7' it does as you say, but at the sacrifice of grain and sharpness.
PE

Actually it works quit well at 1+9 and for MF and LF formats grain is not that much of a concern.

 

[Ryuji]

Kalogen (given in the formulas section) is a universal developer that does not use carbonate. Metaborate based print developers can also be used for films.

I don't see an advantage of using borates to buffer print developers at all. Carbonates are a much better choice.

In terms of environmental impact, carbonate is also much preferred than borates. Borates aren't that toxic but they are harmful to plants. Small amounts in film developers are ok but there is no reason to use larger amounts in print developers (or anything else).

 

[Photo Engineer]

In terms of environmental impact, carbonate is also much preferred than borates. Borates aren't that toxic but they are harmful to plants. developers

Yes, I posted this quite some time ago. Thanks for bringing it up.

Borates are harmful to citrus plants in particular, and at the urging of the citrus industry in both Florida and California, Kodak eliminated Borate from color print developers in the 60s.

PE

 

[dancqu]

"This is simply not true. Solvency of HC-110 is significantly
higher than standard print developers. Period."

Solvency is usually associated with sulfite levels. If the
sulfite level of HC-110 in a working strength solution is in
proportion to the level of the dimethanolamine sulfur dioxide
complex in that working strength solution then the level of
sulfite, I'd think, must be low.

"I noted you weakened your statement by inserting a phrase
"at reasonable working strengths" and that is right, if you want
to make solvency a non-issue,..."

I did not weaken my statement. I qualified my statement.
And what could possibly be wrong with reasonable working
strengths? So you agree. At reasonable working strengths
solvency is a non-issue. The strength I had in mind is the
1:31 dilution mentioned by Mr. Gainer. A 1/32 liter of
HC-110 in a solution volume of 1 liter.

A liter of Dektol 1:1 contains 22.5 grams of sulfite. I do
not know how many grams of sulfite derive from 1/32 liter
of HC-110 and it's sulfur dioxide complex. Less I'd expect
than that of 1 liter of 1:1 Dektol. Dan

 

[Ryuji]

Solvency is usually associated with sulfite levels. If the sulfite level of HC-110 in a working strength solution is in proportion to the level of the dimethanolamine sulfur dioxide
complex in that working strength solution then the level of sulfite, I'd think, must be low.

Dan, that's a wrong assumption. The strongest silver halide solvent in HC-110 is monoethanolamine.

Primary amines are pretty strong silver complexing agent, only a bit less than ammonia at high pH. Henn and King used it probably because they wanted to raise the pH economically. Ilford took a different approach in their Ilfotec HC.

Dead Link Removed