Sheets/HC-110 users: different dilutions for sun and overcast?

[Juan Valdenebro]

With higher dilutions does he mean higher concentration dilutions? So, more developer used for a certain volume?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Well, it seems higher dilution means less developer...
So, low concentration HC-110 dilutions are better for sun and also for overcast?

 

[MattKing]

The various dilutions will give very similar results except for changes in activity and development time. Changes will also cause very small differences in grain and acutance - due to the change in the relative amounts of sulfite.
That is assuming you have enough syrup in the tank - Kodak's recommendations work out to 6 ml per roll or 8x10 sheet. A higher dilution combined with lower than recommended amounts of syrup allows you to make use of localized exhaustion, which is a tool that can be finicky.
The efficacy of HC-110 resides in its ability to be flexible with changes in dilution, not that it changes (much) with changes in dilution. Stronger/less dilute means more activity and faster results, when the film and its intended use requires that.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I understand as you say, Matt, HC-110 behaves in a less different way than other developers when we use its dilutions, and I know it was made to replace several commercial development applications with a single product, but I'll ask it a different way: did Ansel Adams use his sunny 1:119 dilution for overcast too? I doubt it, but I'd be happy to see he did...

 

[Alex Benjamin]

did Ansel Adams use his sunny 1:119 dilution for overcast too? I doubt it, but I'd be happy to see he did...

From "The Negative" : "It is wise in any case not to make too much of the issue of developer choice, since the effects of variations are perhaps not as vital as many suppose them to be. My preference, at this writing, is the Kodak HC-110 proprietary formula, since I find it applicable to much of my work in large format and roll film. I prefer to prepare the basic stock solution from the concentrate..., and I then dilute this stock solution 1:7 for normal development. I have used it 1:15 for contraction, and occasionally 1:30 or more for compensating effects, and for extra strength in the negative, I dilute it only 1:3."

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thank you, Alex!

 

[Craig]

MInd you, with some of the films that were available to Ansel had a standard developing time was around 18 min. Films have changed a lot in the intervening years, so a lot of what he says about particular developing times and dilutions is obsolete now.

 

[npl]

If it can help .. I'm still in the process of testing HC-110 with various stock to see if it could become the only developer I use (except odd experiments I like doing with plants or coffee and vitamin C .. but that's another thread).

For HP5+ I got good results simply following Ilford's datasheet : dilution B 1:31 @800 7.5min, @1600 11min. For EI 320/400, I use the popular unofficial dilution H (1:63) for 10min.

Regarding sunny scenes, a few warning I learned at my negatives expense : HC-110 is HOT, you have to be careful especially with dilution B (or "worse", A) an it's short developing time, because it's very easy to overdevelop the highlights, especially (obviously) in sunny scenes and when pushing. Dilution H (1:63) is great in that regard because the longer dev time allows you to start somewhere, and lowering the time until you're happy with the highlights's density. For exemple, with fomapan 100 I started at 10min and I settled for now at 8.5min.

(Semi) stand developement with dilution G (1:119) can also be a good tool in very sunny contrasty situation, but I still need to experiment with that. Did it once in cloudless sky with bright sun and snow, fomapan 100 shot in a very cheap plastic point and shoot : 1:119, 60min, 30s initial agitation, 2 gentle inversion at the 30min mark. It was OK in term of shadow and highlights developement, but I didn't like it much ..

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/ has already been mentionned, there's also http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

So Ansel Adams used a really wide range including all common HC-110 dilutions and more, J. Brunner made it simple with1:49 for everything, and I'll try my own system with only two dilutions.
Yes, maybe 7.5 and 15 was going to be unnecesary sometimes, and it also seems a good idea mixing less solution for 35mm than for medium format:
I'll test my HC-110 system for sunny scenes with a dilution that's close to dilution H, and a different dilution -very close to dilution E- for soft light: J. Brunner's 1:49.
For sun (EI200) I'll do 1:71, that's 5ml for 360ml total, or 8.2ml for 590ml total, with 30 seconds initial agitation, and 3 inversions every third minute.
For soft light (EI640) I'll do 1:49, that's 7.2ml for 360ml total, or 11.8ml for 590ml total, with 30 seconds initial agitation, and three inversions every minute.
I'll have some fun seeing first if I like my two final times for HP5+.
Thanks everyone.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

MInd you, with some of the films that were available to Ansel had a standard developing time was around 18 min. Films have changed a lot in the intervening years, so a lot of what he says about particular developing times and dilutions is obsolete now.

Sure.
I mean, of course there are some differences from some points of view, but from other points of view, it's all the same... And differences don't matter for those of us testing materials for setting our own times and systems.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If it can help .. I'm still in the process of testing HC-110 with various stock to see if it could become the only developer I use (except odd experiments I like doing with plants or coffee and vitamin C .. but that's another thread).

For HP5+ I got good results simply following Ilford's datasheet : dilution B 1:31 @800 7.5min, @1600 11min. For EI 320/400, I use the popular unofficial dilution H (1:63) for 10min.

Regarding sunny scenes, a few warning I learned at my negatives expense : HC-110 is HOT, you have to be careful especially with dilution B (or "worse", A) an it's short developing time, because it's very easy to overdevelop the highlights, especially (obviously) in sunny scenes and when pushing. Dilution H (1:63) is great in that regard because the longer dev time allows you to start somewhere, and lowering the time until you're happy with the highlights's density. For exemple, with fomapan 100 I started at 10min and I settled for now at 8.5min.

(Semi) stand developement with dilution G (1:119) can also be a good tool in very sunny contrasty situation, but I still need to experiment with that. Did it once in cloudless sky with bright sun and snow, fomapan 100 shot in a very cheap plastic point and shoot : 1:119, 60min, 30s initial agitation, 2 gentle inversion at the 30min mark. It was OK in term of shadow and highlights developement, but I didn't like it much ..

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/ has already been mentionned, there's also http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html

Thank you, npl. I'll check that last link.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

MInd you, with some of the films that were available to Ansel had a standard developing time was around 18 min. Films have changed a lot in the intervening years, so a lot of what he says about particular developing times and dilutions is obsolete now.

Adams' last revision of The Negative dates from 1981. Two of the films mentioned are Ilford FP4 and HP5. FP4 isn't that old — first appeared in 1968 in 35mm and was made available in 220 in 1971. If you look at Ilford recommended times for FP4 (the 1970s and early 80s data is easy to find) and FP4+ (introduced in 1990) in ID-11, they are exactly the same — 9 minutes at 22º for FP4 and 11 minutes at 20º for FP4+, which tells me the two films aren't that different and that Adams' development times/dilution could still be used — or ay least experimented with — in HC-110 (all available in The Negative, 2002 paperback edition, p. 246).

Where the difference lies, and what explains the unusual development times, is in how Adams rates them. FP4, for example, is rated at 80 for 35mm, and 64 for 120 and sheet film. HP5 is rated at 160 (!) in 35mm. That's the only rating available for HP5. That film was launched in 1975 only in 35mm — obviously as a competitor for Tri-X in street photography and photojournalism — and wasn't made available in medium format until 1982. Again, although I don't know the details of Ilford's film R&D, suggested development times for HP5 and HP5+ are similar with the same developer.

If someone has the detail of what exactly was changed between FP4 / FP4+ and HP5 / HP5+, I'd love to know.

I have no info regarding Kodak's changes with Tri-X. That film is rated by Adams EI 200 in 35mm and 120, and 160 in sheet.

Of course, HC-110 itself has recently changed formula. Plenty of data and threads on that subject. I don't use the new stuff, but have fallen back on Ilfotec HC.

 

[faberryman]

So Ansel Adams used a really wide range including all common HC-110 dilutions and more, J. Brunner made it simple with1:49 for everything, and I'll try my own system with only two dilutions.
Yes, maybe 7.5 and 15 was going to be unnecesary sometimes, and it also seems a good idea mixing less solution for 35mm than for medium format:
I'll test my HC-110 system for sunny scenes with a dilution that's close to dilution H, and a different dilution -very close to dilution E- for soft light: J. Brunner's 1:49.
For sun (EI200) I'll do 1:71, that's 5ml for 360ml total, or 8.2ml for 590ml total, with 30 seconds initial agitation, and 3 inversions every third minute.
For soft light (EI640) I'll do 1:49, that's 7.2ml for 360ml total, or 11.8ml for 590ml total, with 30 seconds initial agitation, and three inversions every minute.
I'll have some fun seeing first if I like my two final times for HP5+.
Thanks everyone.

Please note that for your proposed for sun (EI200), 1:71 dilution, 5ml for 360ml total does not meet the minimum 6ml/roll requirement.

How will you determine the development times for each of those different dilutions?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Please note that for your proposed for sun (EI200), 1:71 dilution, 5ml for 360ml total does not meet the minimum 6ml/roll requirement.

How will you determine the development times for each of those different dilutions?

Please note you're wrong, and clearly you have not tested 5ml for correct sun exposure with ISO400: 1/125 f/11.
5ml are way more developer than it's necessary.
Go test it.
If one day I think you're prepared to understand my methods, I'll gladly share them with you.
Right now I think you're not ready.

 

[faberryman]

Please note that for your proposed for sun (EI200), 1:71 dilution, 5ml for 360ml total does not meet the minimum 6ml/roll requirement.

Please note you're wrong, and clearly you have not tested 5ml for correct sun exposure with ISO400: 1/125 f/11.
5ml are way more developer than it's necessary.
Go test it.
If one day I think you're prepared to understand my methods, I'll gladly share them with you.
Right now I think you're not ready.

I just got a bottle of HC-110 (the real old syrup made by Kodak before recent years' problems) and I've never tried this developer before.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

So you think I have not developed today?
Go test it: you can even do snow on direct sunlight, and 5ml. are enough.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

IMO (and what do other members think?) it's not for generous sunny exposure when we need more developer, but for soft light when we uprate film.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Ferry: there's a safety factor used by Kodak.
Other photographers use 3ml per roll.
But materials are there for you to test them.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

By the way, if other members have any comment on this:
I don't think my 5ml for 360ml total, nor my 8.2ml for 590ml total, both 1:71 from syrup, work in the field of local exhaustion even... They're just a lowish concentration that's appropriate for contrast (sun) control with reduced agitation. IMO local exhaustion requires less developer.
In other words, 5ml for 35mm (360ml total) offer my film enough developer up to the end of development, just like 8.2ml do for 120 in 590ml total.
I have not done both formats yet to compare, but I think tone will be the same for small and MF rolls.
Of course, with a lot less developer, say 2ml, the tone of the smaller rolls would start suffering.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If someone has the detail of what exactly was changed between FP4 / FP4+ and HP5 / HP5+, I'd love to know.

Major reformulation to allow for an update in the hardener used (almost certainly to a vinyl ether like C-41 etc) - there was a podcast a few years ago where a couple of Ilford engineers very briefly described what was done, and that they effectively had to completely re-engineer the emulsions to suit new (more accurate, more batch-to-batch consistent) methods of manufacture. i.e. a non-trivial project, but done such that the 'look' (aka characteristic curve & colour sensitivity) remained apparently the same - there are also a number of ways that development rates could be adjusted if necessary, and it would make some sense to do so - especially for larger scale commercial developing etc. The '+' versions seem noticeably sharper overall, slightly finer grained & with slightly higher low frequency sharpness - which seems to add a little more clarity to the whole feel of the image. As for variances in development times, much of that seems to reflect what sort of light sources Ilford reckoned users were enlarging with - and then largely circled back round to close to ISO standard gradient, as many were apparently splitting the difference & ending up about there anyway...

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Major reformulation to allow for an update in the hardener used (almost certainly to a vinyl ether like C-41 etc) - there was a podcast a few years ago where a couple of Ilford engineers very briefly described what was done, and that they effectively had to completely re-engineer the emulsions to suit new (more accurate, more batch-to-batch consistent) methods of manufacture. i.e. a non-trivial project, but done such that the 'look' (aka characteristic curve & colour sensitivity) remained apparently the same - there are also a number of ways that development rates could be adjusted if necessary, and it would make some sense to do so - especially for larger scale commercial developing etc. The '+' versions seem noticeably sharper overall, slightly finer grained & with slightly higher low frequency sharpness - which seems to add a little more clarity to the whole feel of the image. As for variances in development times, much of that seems to reflect what sort of light sources Ilford reckoned users were enlarging with - and then largely circled back round to close to ISO standard gradient, as many were apparently splitting the difference & ending up about there anyway...

Interesting. So, essentially, it was a question of making it better without necessarily making it different. I couldn't find the characteristic curve for the older FP4 to compare it with FP4+, but the two spectral sensitivity graphs are exactly the same.

The first technical data sheet for FP4 did have two different development times for each of Ilford's developers, one labeled "normal contrast" for printing in a condenser enlarger, and one labeled "higher contrast" for diffuser enlarger printing.

 

[Lachlan Young]

essentially, it was a question of making it better without necessarily making it different

Yes. Same deal as with when Tri-X etc moved from Room 13 to B-38. As far as I am aware, all the Delta films (+ XP2, I suspect) and all the paper emulsions from MGFBWT onwards are made on the much more advanced 'Rapid Mixing' plant, while Pan-F+, FP4+ (& Ortho+ sub-variant) and HP5+ (& SFX sub-variant) seem to be made on slightly older emulsion plant (along with some of the older paper formulae I'd imagine). I wouldn't be enormously surprised if FP4+/ HP5+ (and variants) get an upgrade at some point & move to the newer plant.