Rodinal vs HC110

[msbarnes]

Not a better or worse thread, but differences between the two. I started analog photography a few months ago with Trix & Rodinal and I have no complaints, but sometimes I want to try HC-110 because it is just so very popular. I'll probably try it out regardless of this thread but I'd love for you to share your opinions.

 

[2F/2F]

HC-110 is syrupy and is fairly fine-grained. It also seems to work better with a larger variety of films IME. Rodinal is runny and not very fine grained. I have not liked it with some films.

I like HC-110 for any film. It is my standard developer. I use Rodinal, T-Max, X-Tol, and more recently PMK Pyro for special purposes.

 

[sandermarijn]

Sorry, no answer, just saying that I have the very same question.

I shot 13 rolls of Tri-x (120) while on holiday last month and developed all in Rodinal 1+50. I contemplated doing some in HC-110. But then I felt that I wanted consistency and decided to use Rodinal only.

Which left me with the same lingering question that you just asked. Would my results have been radically different had I used HC-110 instead? Less grain for sure. But tonality-wise what difference can one expect?

I've always been under the (rather unsubstantiated) impression that Rodinal is the European preference while HC-110 is the American way of doing things, and that the difference in result isn't all that huge. Could there be some truth in that? That part of the difference in preference is technical in origin while the remainder is more of a cultural thing? (Think Ansel Adams.)

All my Tri-x is gone now. Would have to buy new stock to try it out with HC-110. Too much other film lying around, so my personal comparison of Tri-x in HC-110 & Rodinal will have to wait.

Hopefully others have personal experience with both developers & Tri-x (in its current adaptation).

Sander

 

[Gerald C Koch]

According to Kodak HC-110 produces results very similar to those of D-76.

 

[hpulley]

According to Kodak HC-110 produces results very similar to those of D-76.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

It is interesting, however, that they compared XTOL and D-76 stock to dilution B of HC-110. HC-110 Dilution A may produce better shadow detail (film speed) and higher acutance but larger grain though I normally use that high dilution only for big pushes.

From the unofficial HC-110 page, there is an interpretation of this chart at http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

the 2001 Kodak Professional Photographic Catalog contains a comparison chart.

Compared to D-76, this chart indicates that HC-110 (dilution B) produces:

Slightly less shadow detail or true film speed;
Slightly finer grain;
Slightly lower acutance.
Apparently, HC-110 has somewhat more solvent action than D-76, but less than Xtol.
Opinions differ about the effect of HC-110 on grain. Some photographers report coarser grain than with D-76; others report finer grain. This is probably a function of dilution and agitation.

Opinions also differ regarding acutance, since many photographers report that HC-110 produces high acutance, especially at high dilutions. This is a function of solvent action, which is reduced by diluting the developer.

Where HC-110 really shines is in scientific work or push-processing, where film is deliberately overdeveloped to increase contrast and speed. HC-110 gives surprisingly little fog even with very prolonged development. In this respect it resembles D-19, Kodak's high-contrast scientific developer. I normally use HC-110 (A) for 10 minutes to develop gas-hypersensitized Kodak Technical Pan Film, which fogs severely in other developers.

Like Rodinal, HC-110 keeps very well and gives very reproducible results. It is a good choice when failure would be costly.

 

[presspass]

There are several unofficial websites for HC-110. I have not used it in several years, having been on a D-23 and two-bath kick for a while. When I did use it, I used a higher dilution than Kodak recommends - usually dilution H - and made it straight from syrup. It gives fine results in semi-stand development and is easy to use.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have use HC-110 for years and I like it very much.

Jeff

 

[nworth]

HC-110 and D-76 may produce similar (not identical) results, but they are very different developers. Rodinal is different from both of them. Rodinal shares with HC-110 the ability to tailor its characteristics by changing the dilution. Rodinal usually shows sharper grain than HC-110 and it may be a bit sharper in general. HC-110 gives somewhat finer grain and a bit higher film speed (usually not enough to be useful).

 

[Colin Corneau]

HC-110 and D-76 may produce similar (not identical) results, but they are very different developers. Rodinal is different from both of them. Rodinal shares with HC-110 the ability to tailor its characteristics by changing the dilution. Rodinal usually shows sharper grain than HC-110 and it may be a bit sharper in general. HC-110 gives somewhat finer grain and a bit higher film speed (usually not enough to be useful).

That seems to be about it, from my observation.

Rodinal is also noteworthy for lasting an extraordinarily long time after the container's been opened...I've had it work just fine months and months after cracking open a bottle and mixing it up with water - even when it's dramatically darker in color and seemingly spoiled.

I usually use Rodinal with finer grained, slower films -- PanF+ and TMX, for example -- as it gives tones I really like and especially noticeably sharper acutance. Haven't used it too much with 400 speed films and up, although I'm curious to try as I've heard good things for it with Tri-X, for example.

 

[jbl]

In my experience, the HC-110 syrup lasts an extremely long time as well. I've had a bottle that I've been working through for a few years now and it's shown no sign of problems.

-jbl

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Rodinal gives, for the most part a fairly long and straight curve, which means very even tonality. Shadow detail is slightly compressed so you will see a distinct toe. If you develop longer in Rodinal, pretty much the whole curve adds density at the same rate, and it's very powerful so it'll keep doing that for a long time. But straight line, unless you slow down agitation a bit (to 3 minute or 5 minute agitation intervals), in which case you can force a curve with a shoulder and somewhat compressed highlights.

HC-110 gives an upswept curve as well as a toe. To me, effective film speed (shadow detail) is very similar between HC-110 and Rodinal.
The upswept curve means very good separation the higher up towards the highlights you get. But be careful, if you develop for too long you will easily go beyond the printable range and get highlights that block up. In normal negatives this also means that if you bring down highlights to printable levels, by using a lower contrast paper or paper filter, mid-tones can seem a bit dark. This is good for some subject matter, and not so much for other kinds.

Both developers can give very pleasing results, and lots of people do just that all the time. They are different in tonality, however, as described above, where Rodinal catches more of the highlights, but with less separation than HC-110, but has better separation in the mid-tones, and shadow detail is about equal. In my opinion, Rodinal is better for medium to high contrast lighting, and HC-110 better for low contrast lighting.

Less important, to me, is that Rodinal gives a sharp, but beautiful grain, whereas HC-110 looks a bit less distinct. Rodinal gives sharper edges. HC-110 gives slightly finer grain.

- Thomas

 

[Grainy]

I'm thinking about almost the same as msbarnes. Rodinal is my standard developer for ISO400 and below. So far I've been using DDX for high ISO, but I'm not sure if I will buy a new bottle when it's empty or if I should switch to HC-110. I'm streamlining things at the time and want to use maximum two developers. After a lot of testing the last year I'm beginning to settle on a few types of film also.

 

[sandermarijn]

Thanks Thomas, you address exactly the aspects I was curious about between HC-110 and Rodinal. Most people know and speak only of the difference in grain and (perhaps) edge sharpness. It's tonality that is often left out, either because it's too difficult a subject or because people feel this is not as distinct a property of the developer (I'd say they're right there; many other factors at play).

I like film/developer combinations that give a bit of shoulder, such that the highlights are easy to print. Not so desirable for 'punchy' general photography (street, people, 'things') perhaps, but quite useful for landscapes (skies). So it seems I made the right choice the other day in using Rodinal with Tri-x, instead of HC-110.

I am almost starting to wonder at this point if I can get by using only Rodinal and Xtol. HC-110 seems to fall somewhere in between. But then I've hardly used it- those who have will probably disagree (and I couldn't prove them wrong at this stage).

Sander

Sander

 

[2F/2F]

It's true that HC-110 can give slightly muddy low- to-mid tones if you print and/or develop for the high tones. However, if you print for the mid tones and burn for the high tones, it can really give a slight snap in the mids that some developers don't give you. Also, the tonality of HC-110 can be altered quite a lot by using different dilutions. It loses it's characteristic "bite" in the high tones if used 1:63 while sticking with one of the standard agitation routines recommended by Kodak or Ilford. IME HC-110 at 1:63 behaves very much like D-76 1:1 (though times are generally longer). IME, Rodinal is less sensitive to dilution in terms of the tonality it creates.

The key is tailoring your developer to your desired print. That is why I use both.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks for sharing your experience. I've mainly used HC-110 Dilution B, so it's good to have your experience too.

I also agree that Rodinal gives similar results whether diluted 1:25, 1:50, or even 1:100. 1:25 gives a bit more grain, but I don't find it very grainy to begin with, so no big deal there. Especially 1:50 to 1:100 I can't really tell the results apart.

It's true that HC-110 can give slightly muddy low- to-mid tones if you print and/or develop for the high tones. However, if you print for the mid tones and burn for the high tones, it can really give a slight snap in the mids that some developers don't give you. Also, the tonality of HC-110 can be altered quite a lot by using different dilutions. It loses it's characteristic "bite" in the high tones if used 1:63 while sticking with one of the standard agitation routines recommended by Kodak or Ilford. IME HC-110 at 1:63 behaves very much like D-76 1:1 (though times are generally longer). IME, Rodinal is less sensitive to dilution in terms of the tonality it creates.

The key is tailoring your developer to your desired print. That is why I use both.

 

[Jerevan]

Uhm, Michael... Do I read you correctly as you seem to say that Rodinal is NOT an acutance developer? The "It is not fine grained, nor is it as sharp as acutance developers." seems to indicate that. Or maybe it's just me being too tired?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Xtol is also a general purpose formula, but gives higher shadow contrast, finer grain, and higher sharpness than hc110 (although one must be careful characterizing a developer's gradation tendency because it can vary significantly depending on the film, exposure, and development methodology - ie hc110 can produce high shadow contrast if the film is given more exposure -

Sorry for editing your quote, Michael, emphasizing with italic and underlined fonts. What the OP was asking about was relative differences between HC-110 and Rodinal, so we must assume that all other things are equal. If you increase film exposure, BOTH HC-110 and Rodinal will exhibit improved shadow detail. I don't deny that our chosen film should be exposed to draw the best from the developer, but my observations still hold true as relative difference between Rodinal and HC-110.

While I agree that Rodinal has impressive mid-tone separation qualities, in my mind additional important reasons for using it are:
1. Tonality and malleable highlights. Changing agitation intervals from every 60s to every 5m makes a difference in highlight contrast, and boosts the shadows, while mid-tones remain basically the same.
2. Texture. Rodinal adds texture to prints by virtue of how it renders grain.
3. User friendly concentrate that lasts forever.

To remain objective I have give the account above. It is completely void of my personal opinion.

- Thomas

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I agree with points 2 and 3. It definitely has a distinctive look. Point 1 is tricky because very similar things happen when HC110 (and most general purpose developers) is used highly diluted and with reduced agitation - ie shadows boosted and malleable highlights. Ansel made dilute/reduced agitation HC110 techniques famous. What I would say though, is dilute Rodinal might be better suited to severely reduced (ie semi-stand) or stand development than most general purpose MQ/PQ developers. Many people use it that way with good results, and it appears to be less prone to stand development artifacts.

Yes indeed, I agree with you that HC-110 does yield similar effects as Rodinal when reducing agitation. I remember doing a few rolls of that back in 2007 with Foma 100 and Plus-X and it worked really well. Thanks for reminding me.

Rodinal is indeed very good for standing development. It's yet another reason to use it. And what I found interesting is that if you're interested in grain it became a lot less prominant at 1+200 and standing development than with regular agitation.

Both developers can yield amazing results. I confess that I'm not a huge HC-110 fan, but have tried to remain unbiased (to some degree of success). But just look at someone like Bill Schwab who uses nothing but it, and whether you like his subject matter or not, he makes some pretty damned beautiful prints that have wonderful texture and beautiful tonality - sometimes delicate and other times dramatic. I'm lucky to have a few of them and to have seen quite a few of them in person. Neither Rodinal, nor HC-110 is magic potion. They are different, and after trying each of them for a while it should be entirely possible to discern which one works best for every user.

 

[Jerevan]

Acutance is one thing and fine grain is another. Rodinal is an acutance developer and FX-2 may be a fine grain developer, (meaning the metol and glycin dissolves the grain) while Pyro developers masks grain.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

A Pyro developer might mask grain. I honestly don't know much about that, but think it's mostly to do with printing on graded paper, which has different color sensitivity than multigrade paper.
My reason for using Pyro is to use in split grade printing. I just started dabbling with PMK after three years of Xtol and it presents some unique possibilities with split grade printing. When you slap on the Grade 5 filter you'll see what I'm talking about.

I don't care about acutance, grain, and all that stuff. I care about tonality.

 

[Jerevan]

Okay, I'll just leave it there. Thanks.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I didn't know you were starting to fiddle with PMK. Are you using it for your rangefinder year?

Yep. Shaking it up a little. Not giving up on Xtol, most likely, but it should be allowed to try something new every three years or so...
I was curious about what it'd do for the highlights mostly. And while I haven't perfectly dialed in the negatives for printing yet, I can see the benefits. I used Pyrocat a lot a few years ago, which has less of an image stain.
PMK so far seems to yield great punch in the highlights, with an intensity that I am thoroughly enojoying.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've been kind of the opposite. Too much experimenting/testing lately. I go through phases now and then when I'll have an idea and then spend way too much time on it. I haven't used Pyro for quite a while as I've mostly been doing 35mm lately for some reason.

Excellent. All this would be in vain if we didn't put it into play and go shooting a lot. I do think that the process serves the pictures, but trying something new it takes a while to get comfortable again. Hopefully there is a benefit...

So, to go back to the OP - there are lots of things you can do with different developers, but for the most part we end up making prints with our negatives that we are either happy with or we are not. Usually the reason our prints sometimes suck isn't because there was a problem with our materials, but a lack of skill in using them. That's most certainly true for me as well, but we work with it until we get it right.

Both developers will give great results. Pick one of them, use it until you're comfortable using it in all sorts of lighting scenarios. It isn't really until you are capable of eking the maximum out of your materials that you can start to fully appreciate something that is different anyway.

Have fun!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Over the years I have used several dozen developers. Some of the ones that I liked are no longer made or their formulations have changed. I used Rodinal for several years. This was until the last bottle Rodinal didn't produce the same results with which I was familiar. From later information this occurred when Agfa changed their formula and cut down on the amount of developing agent and increased the amount of (cheaper) potassium hydroxide to compensate. Ah, the almighty bottom line. The present day rodinals all seem to have keeping problems, perhaps poor packaging. I have now stopped using anything except HC-110. It produces the results that I like and it keeps like the old Rodinal. So I now avoid the siren call and stick with what is tried and true for me. I find the arguments that developer A is better than developer B to be pointless. They seldom have any scientific basis. So pick something and stick with it. The search for the grail leads to madness.

 

[john_s]

....Ah, the almighty bottom line........

The accountants at Agfa (not the photo engineers) also removed the only expensive ingredient in Viradon toner (selenium).