Ilfotec HC compared to HC-110

[John Bragg]

Hi there. I have very scant experience with Ilfotec HC but I have developed 3 films with it so far as a direct replacement for the Kodak HC-110, and have found it to be a tad more active than the original HC-110. My times for HP5+ and Tri-X [both @ ei200] were 12 minutes @ 20c in dilution H. In my humble opinion, it seems to give a shade more film speed than it's Kodak cousin. I have developed another roll of HP5+ today and have given it 9 mins @ 20c and , touch wood, it seems to look identical to films developed successfully in Ilfosol 3. I know everyone's circumstances are different and water etc can play a huge part in the final result, but I would be grateful if anyone with experience of both developers can chime in.
Kind regards, John.

 

[NB23]

Ilfotec-hc certainly has a slightly different viscosity and a touch of a nutty smell that is lacking from hc-110.

Regarding results, Ilford lists a few different times for both films which would suggest a slight difference in results but that may also be Ilford’s contrast targets to be different than Kodak’s. For example Ilford recomends longer times for HP5 + ilfotec-HC versus HP5 + HC-110, with obviously different end results.

All in all, I’ve used both but I never bothered comparing results. I take them as being one same developer even though they are obviously slightly different.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Tetenal revival project

Maybe you could just put the nozzle on a butane lighter gas bottle? As this is Adox's thread, I'd rather not consider that kind of alternative to Protectan.

www.photrio.com

 

[John Bragg]

Well it would seem that Ilfotec HC and I don't get along, at least where HP5+ is concerned. The results of my experiment today aren't up to snuff and I will stick with my tried and trusted Ilfosol 3. I just couldn't get the look I was after as regards grain. Smooth mid tone areas look as rough as a dogs ar$e and not at all good. I like grain in my photos. Well behaved even grain and not the weird oatmeal grain that I ended up with. Highlights and skintones were also overcooked, despite the reduction in time so I'm calling it a qualified success in that I learnt not to procede any farther down that particular rabbit hole.

 

[Steven Lee]

John,

Ilfotec HC isn't exactly famous for its grain character, but I like the moody and gritty look (AKA the curve) it produces by default specifically with HP5+. In fact, I do not use this developer with anything else. HP5+ developed in HC looks a bit like a charcoal painting for the lack of a better analogy. One can say that HP5+ in HC is the opposite of T-Max in Xtol.

Here's a full-sized scan of a 35mm negative. Yes, the grain isn't the smoothest, but it's the overall look that you need to accept/reject. I use it for 35mm when I want this "look", but for large format I use HC with HP5+ exclusively: grain is not a problem with large negatives, and HC seems to last forever which is great because I don't shoot LF too often.

BTW the grain appearance changes quite a bit with dilution. The scan I linked to was developed in 1+31. Sorry, I never used HC-110.

 

[John Bragg]

John,

Ilfotec HC isn't exactly famous for its grain character, but I like the moody and gritty look (AKA the curve) it produces by default specifically with HP5+. In fact, I do not use this developer with anything else. HP5+ developed in HC looks a bit like a charcoal painting for the lack of a better analogy. One can say that HP5+ in HC is the opposite of T-Max in Xtol.

Here's a full-sized scan of a 35mm negative. Yes, the grain isn't the smoothest, but it's the overall look that you need to accept/reject. I use it for 35mm when I want this "look", but for large format I use HC with HP5+ exclusively: grain is not a problem with large negatives, and HC seems to last forever which is great because I don't shoot LF too often.

BTW the grain appearance changes quite a bit with dilution. The scan I linked to was developed in 1+31. Sorry, I never used HC-110.

Hi Steven. That's the look I got. The look I am getting with Ilfosol 3 is more akin to Xtol.

With Ilfosol 3 @ ei200.
Untitled_24312GB by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

 

[Lachlan Young]

Smooth mid tone areas look as rough as a dogs ar$e and not at all good

There are very good reasons why Ilford etc made a shift back to aqueous sulphite containing developers from the non-aqueous adducts.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

There are very good reasons why Ilford etc made a shift back to aqueous sulphite containing developers from the non-aqueous adducts.

Do you know if there is a written history of this change in approach anywhere?

 

[Steven Lee]

Hi Steven. That's the look I got. The look I am getting with Ilfosol 3 is more akin to Xtol.Untitled_24312GB by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

Well... this means that HP5+ in HC is not your cup of tea. Why not stick with Ilfosol 3? It's a fantastic developer which is strangely underappreciated. Ilfosol 3 is a better rodinal than Rodinal!

 

[John Bragg]

Well... this means that HP5+ in HC is not your cup of tea. Why not stick with Ilfosol 3? It's a fantastic developer which is strangely underappreciated. Ilfosol 3 is a better rodinal than Rodinal!

That's my plan. I just happen to have most of a litre of HC decanted into 100ml bottles and was looking to use some. Ilfosol is also very good at preserving highlights. I have used it exclusively for the last 3 years.

 

[pentaxuser]

Smooth mid tone areas look as rough as a dogs ar$e and not at all good.

Was that an American dog, John?

pentaxuser

 

[John Bragg]

Was that an American dog, John?

Was that an American dog, John?

pentaxuser

I am not really sure Peter. I have though had an epiphany today and will use the HC to push the film where nescessary. I think the route of my problem lies in the fact that HC gives the film a true speed of at least 400 iso and I may be going contrary to that by trying to make it work at ei200. Might try a roll at 800 for some low light work, or even 1600 and celebrate the grain as a creative tool.

 

[pentaxuser]

I am tempted to say my quote was so good you named it twice, John

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

Do you know if there is a written history of this change in approach anywhere?

There's a very brief discussion in the patent covering DD/DD-X, and within various patents, academic texts etc that relate to the invention/ manufacture of Delta crystals there are some hints as well. What Ilford seems to be implying is that aqueous sulphite containing developers (even at quite low levels of sulphite) are able to access the development control layer(s - 's' because Delta has two, but the implication Ilford make is that something analogous but simpler is used elsewhere in the range) on the surface of the crystals better than the non-aqueous adduct developers, which has potentially significant impact in terms of visual granularity.

Why not stick with Ilfosol 3? It's a fantastic developer which is strangely underappreciated. Ilfosol 3 is a better rodinal than Rodinal!

It's finer grained, sharper (it should be, the pH is where it should be for optimal sharpness) and actually delivers the development inhibition effects people wrongly assign to Rodinal. Phenyl Mercapto Tetrazole seems to have some potentially very useful effects in film developers, but otherwise largely only seems to pop up in paper developers of a neutral/ cold/ blue persuasion.

 

[NB23]

Ilforol-3 is the best, along with D76 for legendary reasons.

Xtol? Totally flat. Can’t stand XTOL at all. Ruined beautiful tri-x and tmx so many times by using xtol.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Ilforol-3 is the best, along with D76 for legendary reasons.

Xtol? Totally flat. Can’t stand XTOL at all. Ruined beautiful tri-x and tmx so many times by using xtol.

TMX and XTol 1+1 is an excellent combination. Can't say the same for Tri-X, as it is a film I only tried once over 30 years ago, and didn't care much for it... but that was in D-76, and most likely down to inexperience, and not giving it a chance.