HC110 made simple.

[polyglot]

500mL is sensible for those shooting 120, but I think 320mL is what a Paterson tank requires for 35mm. So 1+31 makes sense for 35mm shooters...

 

[NedL]

I thought the point of the "made simple" part of the article was to mix it as a 1-shot rather than following the directions on the bottle for making up "stock" and then diluting again. Like everyone here, I use a 10ml syringe, mine came from a pet store, for giving medicine. My tank for 35 mm is 240ml and I use 6ml syrup to make dilution "d". For 120, my tank is 480ml and I use 10ml to make dilution "e". For stand and semi-stand I also use dilution "m" ( for "Mike" who is Blia100 over at flickr ) which is 1:250, or for me 2ml syrup and 480ml water ( and yes it does develop after an hour even though the "common wisdom" is that 6ml is the minimal required... )

1 more thing, I do see value in sticking to one dilution, at least for each film type. It's taken a while to dial in my favorite times for each of these. If I started using a different dilution, I'd have to start that process over again!

 

[Doc W]

I have used HC-110 for about 10 years now, mixing directly from syrup, and I really like it. Once you get used to pouring the stuff into a small graduate, it is really easy. I pour the syrup into the graduate, being very careful to ensure that I do not hit the sides, which will throw off the measurement because of the viscosity of the syrup. I also make sure to rinse out the graduate with the water I am adding, at least 4-5 times to make sure I am getting all the syrup. The hypodermic method suggested by Covington works well too.

The only problem I had with it was in my Jobo for zone system development with sheet film. In order to keep the development time from creeping under five or even four minutes, for N-1 and N-2, I had to go to higher dilutions. Not a problem, except that the Jobo only holds so much and I don't think the motor likes the tank filled right up. I now use Expert Drums without the processor (hand rolled in my darkroom sink) and that method allows me to use highly dilute solutions, like F (1:79).

I have never been able to find anything from Kodak which indicates clearly the minimum amount of syrup per unit of film, so here is how I figure it. The Kodak data sheet says that one gallon of dilution B will process 10 sheets of 8x10 film. One gallon is 3785 ml so one gallon of diliution B would contain (3785ml / 31 + 1 ) = 118.28 ml of developer, which develops 10 sheets of 8x10. So one sheet of 8x10 would require 11.8 ml, rounded off to 12 ml. One 4x5 sheet would thus require 3 ml. I once calculated the surface area of a roll of 120 film but I can't remember how I did it. In any case, based on that now-missing arithmetic, I used 6 ml per roll of 120 film. I suppose I could just measure a developed roll!

 

[MattKing]

The Kodak data sheet (J24) says, when processing in tanks, one litre of dilution B has the capacity to process five 8 x 10 sheets.

The capacity figures quoted above are for tray processing.

One litre of dilution B means includes 30 ml of concentrate, so 6 ml of concentrate have the capacity to process one 8 x 10 sheet.

One 8 x 10 sheet = one 135 - 36 roll = one 120 roll.

So your 6 ml per roll of 120 makes sense.

 

[StoneNYC]

I have used HC-110 for about 10 years now, mixing directly from syrup, and I really like it. Once you get used to pouring the stuff into a small graduate, it is really easy. I pour the syrup into the graduate, being very careful to ensure that I do not hit the sides, which will throw off the measurement because of the viscosity of the syrup. I also make sure to rinse out the graduate with the water I am adding, at least 4-5 times to make sure I am getting all the syrup. The hypodermic method suggested by Covington works well too.

The only problem I had with it was in my Jobo for zone system development with sheet film. In order to keep the development time from creeping under five or even four minutes, for N-1 and N-2, I had to go to higher dilutions. Not a problem, except that the Jobo only holds so much and I don't think the motor likes the tank filled right up. I now use Expert Drums without the processor (hand rolled in my darkroom sink) and that method allows me to use highly dilute solutions, like F (1:79).

I have never been able to find anything from Kodak which indicates clearly the minimum amount of syrup per unit of film, so here is how I figure it. The Kodak data sheet says that one gallon of dilution B will process 10 sheets of 8x10 film. One gallon is 3785 ml so one gallon of diliution B would contain (3785ml / 31 + 1 ) = 118.28 ml of developer, which develops 10 sheets of 8x10. So one sheet of 8x10 would require 11.8 ml, rounded off to 12 ml. One 4x5 sheet would thus require 3 ml. I once calculated the surface area of a roll of 120 film but I can't remember how I did it. In any case, based on that now-missing arithmetic, I used 6 ml per roll of 120 film. I suppose I could just measure a developed roll!

This is why the idea of 1:49 was created, it's already complicated enough haha


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dorff]

My understanding is that the only currently available packaging is in 1 liter, which is not the same concentration as the original US packaging (493 ml or something like that). I still have a full bottle of the latter, and had been using it at the "unofficial" dilution H (1:63) which is twice the dilution of B. That has worked well enough for me, and I'll probably just stick to that as it takes me a bit further especially on 120 film where one needs a larger developer volume. If you work on 550 ml at 1:49, it will require 11 ml of concentrate, twice what is technically necessary per film. The obvious solution is to load two rolls onto one Paterson reel, which is entirely possible, but that means having to hoard films that require the same developing time. At dil H 10 ml gives me 640 ml of developer, and saves me a few drops of precious developer. It is very expensive to import liquids, so every drop helps.

For most films, HC-110 gives me a very similar result to Rodinal. However, Rollei RPX400 and Kentmere 400 fog something terrible in Rodinal, and are miles better in HC-110. I suspect that it might be true for some other emulsions also.

 

[Roger Cole]

Sure it does, it makes the math a heck of a lot easier, I use HC110 Dilution S (for Stone) of 1:25 because 1:31 gives me a headache trying to calculate the increases for each film. Maybe I'm a simpleton, but 1:50/1:25/1:100 are much easier to calculate.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Depends on whether you work in metric or english system. I use whichever is easiest for the dilution I'm using! So for 1+31 I'd use an ounce of concentrate to make a quart of solution.

 

[Roger Cole]

My understanding is that the only currently available packaging is in 1 liter, which is not the same concentration as the original US packaging (493 ml or something like that). I still have a full bottle of the latter, and had been using it at the "unofficial" dilution H (1:63) which is twice the dilution of B. That has worked well enough for me, and I'll probably just stick to that as it takes me a bit further especially on 120 film where one needs a larger developer volume. If you work on 550 ml at 1:49, it will require 11 ml of concentrate, twice what is technically necessary per film. The obvious solution is to load two rolls onto one Paterson reel, which is entirely possible, but that means having to hoard films that require the same developing time. At dil H 10 ml gives me 640 ml of developer, and saves me a few drops of precious developer. It is very expensive to import liquids, so every drop helps.

For most films, HC-110 gives me a very similar result to Rodinal. However, Rollei RPX400 and Kentmere 400 fog something terrible in Rodinal, and are miles better in HC-110. I suspect that it might be true for some other emulsions also.

I thought I read that it IS the same concentration, just in a larger bottle.

Can someone confirm one way or the other?

 

[darkosaric]

I thought I read that it IS the same concentration, just in a larger bottle.

Can someone confirm one way or the other?

I have this 1l bottle, been using it as it is American concentration: on HP5+ it gives perfect negatives with devchart times (dilution B and H).

 

[Doc W]

The Kodak data sheet (J24) says, when processing in tanks, one litre of dilution B has the capacity to process five 8 x 10 sheets.

The capacity figures quoted above are for tray processing.

One litre of dilution B means includes 30 ml of concentrate, so 6 ml of concentrate have the capacity to process one 8 x 10 sheet.

One 8 x 10 sheet = one 135 - 36 roll = one 120 roll.

So your 6 ml per roll of 120 makes sense.

Matt, I am glad I posted. I have always found that section of the data sheet a little confusing but what you say makes sense. At least I have not been using too little. But what about 4x5? This would mean each 4x5 sheet requires 1/4 as much, or only 1.5 ml per sheet! This is getting close to "development by faith alone." If that is the case, then it will have a big impact on just how much I have to load up the Jobo drums. This is good news.

On the other hand, it now seems like I have enough HC-110 to bequeath to my grandsons. I hope they don't just drink it.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, I am glad I posted. I have always found that section of the data sheet a little confusing but what you say makes sense. At least I have not been using too little. But what about 4x5? This would mean each 4x5 sheet requires 1/4 as much, or only 1.5 ml per sheet! This is getting close to "development by faith alone." If that is the case, then it will have a big impact on just how much I have to load up the Jobo drums. This is good news.

On the other hand, it now seems like I have enough HC-110 to bequeath to my grandsons. I hope they don't just drink it.

Don't forget, that 1.5 ml of concentrate per sheet means just 48 ml of dilution B per sheet.

For this to be meaningful for developing a single sheet, you need a tank that will ensure even immersion and development flow with just 48 ml of developer - I don't think that such a beast exists.

By necessity, with 4 x 5 film you need to either develop multiple sheets at the same time, or use more than the minimum amount of developer.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

For a particular film: 1 36 exp 35mm roll = 120 roll = 1 8x10 sheet as far as silver content.

If you do the calculation 5 ml of HC-110 concentrate is more than enough developer to correctly develop one of the three choices above.

 

[okto]

Oh, I was already mixing mine one-shot with a syringe. I assumed everyone else had read the Covington Innovations HC-110 page too.

I just have the dilutions memorized for the tanks I use at this point. Dil B is 9 in 300mL per roll in a Paterson tank, 14 in 450mL for the daylight-loading Jobo. Dil A is twice that, dil H is half.

Do other people have a gaggle of different tank sizes they use, or bounce around all over the dilution scale?

 

[okto]

If you do the calculation 5 ml of HC-110 concentrate is more than enough developer to correctly develop one of the three choices above.

Kodak data says a minimum of 6mL syrup per film for consistent development.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Kodak data says a minimum of 6mL syrup per film for consistent development.

Kodak is very conservative in its recommendations. I have been using 5 ml per roll for many years and so have a number of other people.

 

[Doc W]

Don't forget, that 1.5 ml of concentrate per sheet means just 48 ml of dilution B per sheet.

For this to be meaningful for developing a single sheet, you need a tank that will ensure even immersion and development flow with just 48 ml of developer - I don't think that such a beast exists.

By necessity, with 4 x 5 film you need to either develop multiple sheets at the same time, or use more than the minimum amount of developer.

Matt, yes, thanks for the reminder. I use dilution F so I can get development times for N minus development up to 4-5 minutes. With the other dilutions, the development time is too short for comfort. What the new numbers mean for me is that I can do more sheets at this high dilution without having to use such a large volume of developer. For single sheets, I still have to use the same amount as for multiple sheets, but this is not a big problem.

 

[StoneNYC]

Depends on whether you work in metric or english system. I use whichever is easiest for the dilution I'm using! So for 1+31 I'd use an ounce of concentrate to make a quart of solution.

True, as an American I find the American system confusing, even as a kid I never could get my quarts and pints straight... I prefer metric for everything because its much easier for me.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

My understanding is that the only currently available packaging is in 1 liter, which is not the same concentration as the original US packaging (493 ml or something like that). I still have a full bottle of the latter, and had been using it at the "unofficial" dilution H (1:63) which is twice the dilution of B. That has worked well enough for me, and I'll probably just stick to that as it takes me a bit further especially on 120 film where one needs a larger developer volume. If you work on 550 ml at 1:49, it will require 11 ml of concentrate, twice what is technically necessary per film. The obvious solution is to load two rolls onto one Paterson reel, which is entirely possible, but that means having to hoard films that require the same developing time. At dil H 10 ml gives me 640 ml of developer, and saves me a few drops of precious developer. It is very expensive to import liquids, so every drop helps.

For most films, HC-110 gives me a very similar result to Rodinal. However, Rollei RPX400 and Kentmere 400 fog something terrible in Rodinal, and are miles better in HC-110. I suspect that it might be true for some other emulsions also.

Why 550 and not 500ml? Which is what most tanks take, or 1L for a bigger tank.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Cole]

True, as an American I find the American system confusing, even as a kid I never could get my quarts and pints straight... I prefer metric for everything because its much easier for me.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm familiar and comfortable with metric, but argue loudly against the US converting. For everyday use I think the American units are just more usable in scale and make a lot of sense. I work mostly in metric in the darkroom but when I see something like 1+31 or 1+15 I instantly switch to US. I don't seem to have any problems using either. But then mental arithmetic is, fortunately, pretty easy for me (annoys my wife who calls me "calculator brain" sometimes.)

 

[StoneNYC]

I'm familiar and comfortable with metric, but argue loudly against the US converting. For everyday use I think the American units are just more usable in scale and make a lot of sense. I work mostly in metric in the darkroom but when I see something like 1+31 or 1+15 I instantly switch to US. I don't seem to have any problems using either. But then mental arithmetic is, fortunately, pretty easy for me (annoys my wife who calls me "calculator brain" sometimes.)

The funny part is that our soda is in Liters it's just our milk and gas that's gallons and orange juice that's quarts, it's all screwy lol

Also, I'm pretty math brained except with the US measures system, I can multiply 4 numbers by 4 numbers in my head within 5 minutes while doing something that requires spacial skills (like playing billiards for example) and be correct in my answer. That's an actual genius test that most people cannot do. But I just can't do the US measures lol go figure.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Doc W]

It is extremely important to remember that an English pint is 20 ounces. Important for the pub, not the darkroom.

I grew up in Canada when we learned Imperial measure and only found out that an American gallon was different when I got into photography. Then Canada switched to metric. Ask me why I am easily confused.

 

[Roger Cole]

The funny part is that our soda is in Liters it's just our milk and gas that's gallons and orange juice that's quarts, it's all screwy lol

Also, I'm pretty math brained except with the US measures system, I can multiply 4 numbers by 4 numbers in my head within 5 minutes while doing something that requires spacial skills (like playing billiards for example) and be correct in my answer. That's an actual genius test that most people cannot do. But I just can't do the US measures lol go figure.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree it's screwy.

Soda is in liters NOW. I'm old enough to remember when the 2 liter was brand new and explaining to my parents that it was about a half cup more than half a gallon.

Funny (in the sense of "peculiar" not "amusing" but while I'm well enough versed in metric I still find myself converting back to approximate US measures when it comes to visualizing how much of something there is or how big something is. Just a matter of what one grows up with and uses most in formative years I think. I'm sure it could be reversed with enough effort but I haven't cared to do that.

I certainly can't multi task like that. I MIGHT be able to do the multiplication, but only if quiet and undisturbed. My wife thinks it's amazing that I can even add, say, three digit numbers in my head, or get very very close to the final price of a basket of goods at the grocery store (if I've been paying attention as we went along) including sales tax. You're talking about a whole different level of mental math. But the US measures are more a matter of memorization than math. Once you've memorized the units, the math is pretty simple - at least, it's simple for me and should be far simpler for you. It's not AS simple as the powers of 10 in metric, but it's simple enough.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I'm familiar and comfortable with metric, but argue loudly against the US converting. For everyday use I think the American units are just more usable in scale and make a lot of sense. I work mostly in metric in the darkroom but when I see something like 1+31 or 1+15 I instantly switch to US. I don't seem to have any problems using either. But then mental arithmetic is, fortunately, pretty easy for me (annoys my wife who calls me "calculator brain" sometimes.)

I totally agree. I often asks those who advocate adoption of the metric system to try building a house using a meter stick. For many years the CGPM refused to recognize such prefixes as deca- and deci-. So the cooks deciliter was illegal as were decimeters. Hence my comment on use of a meter stick.

Of course in a way we do use the metric system since the US has redefined the inch to be exactly 2.54 cm.

 

[StoneNYC]

I totally agree. I often asks those who advocate adoption of the metric system to try building a house using a meter stick. For many years the CGPM refused to recognize such prefixes as deca- and deci-. So the cooks deciliter was illegal as were decimeters. Hence my comment on use of a meter stick.

Of course in a way we do use the metric system since the US has redefined the inch to be exactly 2.54 cm.

Interesting so how do people build houses in other metric based countries, or have they simply stopped building houses...


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

I agree it's screwy.

Soda is in liters NOW. I'm old enough to remember when the 2 liter was brand new and explaining to my parents that it was about a half cup more than half a gallon.

Funny (in the sense of "peculiar" not "amusing" but while I'm well enough versed in metric I still find myself converting back to approximate US measures when it comes to visualizing how much of something there is or how big something is. Just a matter of what one grows up with and uses most in formative years I think. I'm sure it could be reversed with enough effort but I haven't cared to do that.

I certainly can't multi task like that. I MIGHT be able to do the multiplication, but only if quiet and undisturbed. My wife thinks it's amazing that I can even add, say, three digit numbers in my head, or get very very close to the final price of a basket of goods at the grocery store (if I've been paying attention as we went along) including sales tax. You're talking about a whole different level of mental math. But the US measures are more a matter of memorization than math. Once you've memorized the units, the math is pretty simple - at least, it's simple for me and should be far simpler for you. It's not AS simple as the powers of 10 in metric, but it's simple enough.

It is a different mental math, you're right, but it's one based on sets of 10 just like the metric system, so that's probably why it's easier for me.

I wouldst be able to add up all the groceries though, or I suppose I would but I wouldn't want to haha


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk