HC110, what am i doing wrong

[Cerebum]

And with respect to the bottle, where does it say it was made? If in the USA, the HC-110 probably won't exhibit the legendary longevity of the old HC-110. There are other threads though that indicate that they are getting reasonable longevity.
I wouldn't swirl beforehand. But I also wouldn't change your agitation.
By the way, my experience with various dilutions of HC-110, used both one-shot and with the no longer made replenisher, is that it isn't a full speed developer. If you normally expose your film at the ISO speed, give it 1/3 a stop more instead.

I was just reaching for the bottle to drop it in the bin but I will give it another go, and I will use the datasheet as a starting point and add 10% for good measure. The ring-a-round is a great idea, but I won't be buying any more Kodak HC110, and, knowing my luck, I will nail it with my last drop lol. If I want 110 again it will probably be the Bellini, although I do like Adox products and love their FX-39 ii we will see, but for now, time for more experimentation thanks for all the help
Peter

 

[npl]

I have no experience with Orwo UN54, but a dev time of 8min is short for 1:63, it's often >= 10min with that dilution

 

[Cerebum]

I have no experience with Orwo UN54, but a dev time of 8min is short for 1:63, it's often >= 10min with that dilution

That makes sense. I was looking at plus-x. The data sheet says 5mins for 1:31 add 1/3 stop and double it for 1:63 and we are in to the 11min zone

 

[moto-uno]

FWIW , I always used the 1:31 and simply followed the Digital Truth development times and was always quite happy with the results . The last bottle I
had was 7 years old before it was empty . Tried many other developers in the mean time , but my scattered shootings meant many were past their due date and my Scottish blood
just hated wasting product . So HC-110 was my go to and now for similar reasons I'm using Blazinol , divided into numerous small eyedropper bottles and I think
I'm good until I'm finally 3/4's of a century old !

 

[Cerebum]

Well, that made a difference. I took my time start point from the film's datasheet rather than MDC, I added 1/3 of a stop to the time, and a further 25% (dilution B 1:31 to D 1:39, I like longer dev times) taking me to 7 minutes. The film was the expired Plus X from a well tested bulk roll, shot at iso64. It looks like I was basing my dev times off duff info. Moving forward, I will only use the HC110 when I have a 100% reliable time so as to build up my confidence with the dev. Thanks for all the advice once again I have attached an image showing leader opacity. This is pretty much where I like it

 

[Cerebum]

FWIW , I always used the 1:31 and simply followed the Digital Truth development times and was always quite happy with the results . The last bottle I
had was 7 years old before it was empty . Tried many other developers in the mean time , but my scattered shootings meant many were past their due date and my Scottish blood
just hated wasting product . So HC-110 was my go to and now for similar reasons I'm using Blazinol , divided into numerous small eyedropper bottles and I think
I'm good until I'm finally 3/4's of a century old !

I hate waste too after this thread I gained ⅓ of a bottle of HC110. Big win

 

[MattKing]

Well, that made a difference. I took my time start point from the film's datasheet rather than MDC, I added 1/3 of a stop to the time, and a further 25% (dilution B 1:31 to D 1:39, I like longer dev times) taking me to 7 minutes. The film was the expired Plus X from a well tested bulk roll, shot at iso64. It looks like I was basing my dev times off duff info. Moving forward, I will only use the HC110 when I have a 100% reliable time so as to build up my confidence with the dev. Thanks for all the advice once again I have attached an image showing leader opacity. This is pretty much where I like it

Frame numbers, rather than ghost images - well done!
FWIW, I never trust leader density, but frame numbers from film that I have had previous good negatives from tell you a lot.

 

[lamerko]

Does the exposed film tail have good density? That would give you a clue about the problem.
I'm using Bellini's version of HC - it's more active than Kodak HC110. But not that much.

 

[Cerebum]

Frame numbers, rather than ghost images - well done!
FWIW, I never trust leader density, but frame numbers from film that I have had previous good negatives from tell you a lot.

Thanks Matt

 

[Cerebum]

Does the exposed film tail have good density? That would give you a clue about the problem.
I'm using Bellini's version of HC - it's more active than Kodak HC110. But not that much.

I think the Bellini is better. The results are a touch sharper, but now I have an idea where I was going wrong all good (I still prefer FX-39)