Minimum amount of HC-110 for limited agitation

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by ntenny, Feb 6, 2009.

  1. ntenny

    ntenny Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,304
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, C
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    So I've got this roll of Fomapan 100 (it's 120, if it matters), shot at night with what I would consider very long exposures (up to about 15 minutes), and I want a pretty strong compensating effect in development so that light sources don't blow out any more than absolutely necessary. Famously, of course, _The Negative_ suggests HC-110 Dil G with limited agitation for maximum compensation, which seems reasonable.

    But I've only got a 16-ounce tank, Dil G means 4 ml of syrup, and Kodak (and covingtoninnovations.com) recommend a minimum of 6 ml of syrup per roll of film. I see three options: (1) go ahead and try with the lower amount of syrup; (2) go to Dil F and hope it's still dilute enough for Adams's protocol to work well; (3) buy a bigger tank. I'd like to avoid #3 since I don't particularly expect this development protocol to become a habit.

    So, can anyone answer with reasonable confidence one of the following questions:

    * Is 4 ml of syrup enough for a roll of 120 with limited agitation?
    * Is Dil F dilute enough to get good compensation through limited agitation?

    Much thanks.

    -NT
     
  2. trexx

    trexx Member

    Messages:
    299
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Tucson
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I don't know about dil. F but the two options I see are try with 4ml and try , should work file as very little of the film is actually exposed, thus needing little developer. The developer would not be consumed to exhaustion.

    The other, one I've used for 'normal scenes', is mix a double batch. Use half for one third to one half the time and the other batch for the rest of the time. Instead of one of the agitation cycles dump and refill and agitate.
     
  3. fschifano

    fschifano Member

    Messages:
    3,216
    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Valley Strea
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I know this doesn't answer your question directly, but I have found that Diafine makes for a very nice compensating developer for Foma 100 when the film is used at full box speed. You might want to give this a try. The Diafine lasts a good long time, can be re-used many times over, and is a handy tool to have around.
     
  4. Maris

    Maris Member

    Messages:
    987
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Location:
    Noosa, Australia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Beware of Fomapan 100 exposed under low light conditions. If your shutter speeds are sufficiently long it may not be possible to fully expose Fomapan 100 let alone over-expose it.

    I think that Fomapan 100 has the second worst reciprosity characteristics of any known film. The worst is Fomapan 200.

    Foma's suggested reciprocity corrections are:
    1 second on the meter, give 2 seconds
    10 seconds metered, give 80 seconds
    100 seconds metered, give 1600 seconds
    and so on!

    Fomapan 100 or 200 are my standard 8x10 films and I can confirm that Foma's reciprocity corrections are about right.
     
  5. OP
    OP
    ntenny

    ntenny Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,304
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, C
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That's a really good point. I've used the combination before, without thinking primarily of compensation---but looking at some of the results, I did get pretty good compensation in some scenes with extreme range. (<http://flickr.com/photos/ntenny/2804423927> is a decent example, with a little detail in the glaring sky and lots in the deep shadows inside the tunnel. I think I shot it at EI 160-200 or so.)

    The second-batch-of-developer idea from trexx sounds useful too. Gee, guys, thanks for making my decision more complicated! :smile:

    -NT
     
  6. df cardwell

    df cardwell Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,357
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Location:
    Dearborn,Mic
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think agitation every fifth minute is the optimum method for 120. Safe, effective.

    A dilution just needs to slow the process down, to allow the highlights to stop while the shadows keep developing.

    Dilution B (1+15 from concentrate) is still too concentrated, I think, to do the job: the highlights don't begin to slow down.

    1+31 is good. 1+100 is good. I like 1+50 myself. There isn't any merit to extremely high dilutions and long development times. Like Rodinal, there is a range of effective dilution to suit you.
     
  7. CPorter

    CPorter Member

    Messages:
    1,662
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Location:
    West KY
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I have successfully tested for N-3 (4x5) with HC-110 and TMX using a 1:119 dil from concentrate for 15 minutes and agitation at 4/15/4 i.e., 4 inversions in 15 sec every 4th minute with continuous, gentle agitation during the first minute. I don't know if this will work for 120, but it could be a start for you. BTW, IMO, I would get a tank that allows you to dilute the minimum amount of developer required.
     
  8. fschifano

    fschifano Member

    Messages:
    3,216
    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Valley Strea
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Nathan,

    These aren't the greatest of photographs to be sure, but they do show what Foma 100 and Diafine can do. The Unisphere shot is particularly telling. The underside of the globe is in deep shadow, yet there is still some detail in the sky poking through. I shot both through a deep yellow filter. Both photos were printed on Arista.Edu Ultra RC VC paper at around grade 2. Scans were tweaked to match the print as closely as possible.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 9, 2009
  9. trexx

    trexx Member

    Messages:
    299
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Tucson
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Don't you hate it when someone get right in the middle of you shot.:wink:
    Nice examples of the film and developer.
     
  10. OP
    OP
    ntenny

    ntenny Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,304
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Diego, C
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Well, after pondering for a while I went with Diafine, and the results look good, except for the last couple of frames, which were shorter exposures. (It was close to freezing and my feet were wet; you'd cut your exposure times too!) The negatives are drying, and it'll be a while before I have a chance to do anything further with them, but to the extent that I can judge, I'm hopeful.

    Thanks to everyone for the assistance!

    -NT