Patrick;
My uncle, who got me into photography is 87 and he is going strong! Stop fretting and get some fish (lovely brain food) and put on some Lee and Perrin. I spotted that right off and wanted to gently twit you. No offence was meant.
PE
My father tells a story about a college class in which the professor was asked at the first class meeting if he ever gave "pop" quizzes (short surprise exams in US vernacular). The professor's answer was, "The day I climb in that window in a clown suit is the day I'll give you a pop quiz."Anyone who says humor has no place in the University classroom never met this fellow.
So I don't get it.......... does HC110 (which I currently use) cause some type of ill effect on negatives over time or something, like eat away at them?
You were confused by the Lee and Perrins reference a few posts ago. If you develop your negs in L&P's Worcestershire Sauce, you will notice
- reduced sharpness
- reduced acutance
- horrible grain
On the plus side, they will taste great, but, yes, as you suggest, the sauce will eat away at them over time, no doubt due to the tamarind content. Sorry, I don't know the chemical name for tamarind. I don't have a phd in chemistry, although I do in another field (keep in mind however, that even rectal thermometers have degrees!)
Okay, enuff with the sauces and rhetoric!
What's the bottom line on HC-110? Is there an inkling of truth in Silvergrain's article? And how does it apply to small and large formats respectively?
Fred
Silvergrain.org said:The image quality of this developer for pictorial applications is poor and I see no advantage in this product other than convenience, low cost and rapid processing.
And lastly, results are never objectively good or bad. They are what they are, and their relevance is always relative to purpose. If you like them, if they work with your approach to photography, then use them.
There have been many great, moving, photos that did not have high resolution fine-grained edge efects. There are times, of course, when the sole purpose of a photo is to test those qualities. There are times when those qualities are essential to the pictorial qualities of a photo. One could devise a photo analyzer that could sort photos, by judging those qualities, into best and worst, but it would not guarantee a place for any of them on my wall. I have a friend who is a very good painter of portraits of people and animals and West Virginia scenery, and she will tell me what I should hang and what I should dump. Never once has she mentioned grain or edge effect.
I have made action pictures of ballet dancers and symphony orchestra members that I treasure that I developed, both negatives and prints, in HC110.
But, unlike other posts, I say use what you like but to develop that affinity you must test it for yourself and not take anyone's word.
We should just toss out all of Asnal Adams' prints made from negatives souped in HC110.
I find that lots of people believe that the world is either entirely objectively knowable, or absolutely subjective. It's a bit of both.
That's just your opinion.
I have made action pictures of ballet dancers and symphony orchestra members that I treasure that I developed, both negatives and prints, in HC110.
That, of most photos that people take, their artistic and romantic merits or lack thereof far out weight any grain and sharpness issues, is agreed to. Some early 19th-century photos I've seen in books are most fascinating despite being fussy, grainy and contrasty.There have been many great, moving, photos that did not have high resolution fine-grained edge efects.
I have read that Ansel Adams used HC110, but also that John Sexton regularly uses D-76.>After reading that, who doesn't feel like pouring their HC-110 down the drain?<
Anyone who's looked at the huge numbers of superb photographs made by Ansel Adams and John Sexton which were developed in HC-110. How many approach those two photographers for sheer command of photographic technique?
.....If it's only the artistic and romantic merits of photography you are after, then perhaps converting to digital will save you a lot of time and money. I think most people who do film and chemistry actually find it interesting as a craft, rather than a tool for better photography...
...Although well intentioned, these pros are missing an important point in my opinion. The fun in any craft is in the pursuit. Not necessarily in the result. For there are other more convenient ways to achieve that result.
I wear a mechanical watch. It's not as accurate as a $10 Wal-mart quartz, far more costly and not as convenient, because I have to remember to wind it once a while. But then I'm not wearing it to tell me time....
So let's all have fun our own way. Let's take off the pro hats. Let's encourage it. Let's experiment it. Let's explore anything and everything about film, chemistry, formulas, temperature, charts, effects, etc.
.. we always lose ourselves in our pursuit, and no order or agreements should ever emerge.
A further point needs to be made about HC-110, which is that it is arguably the most environmentally friendly commercially available film developer. The reason is that it uses smaller amounts of chemicals for the same amount of developing than any other formula known to me (i.e., substantially less than 1g developing agent/litre). This is due to the particular elegance of its ethanolamine/antistain system.
Keith, John Sexton may now use D-76 as a preferred developer (great choice!) but if you look at the technical data over his career, you will find a substantial body of work done with HC-110.
Please note too that in Adams's late publications, he adapted the dilution/intermittent agitation system pioneered by Geoffrey Crawley for use with FX-1 and FX-2 for use with HC-110. HC-110 is quite well-suited to this agitation system.
Finally, there is really very little Dick Henn did not know about developers, having been responsible for so many important Kodak products over a thirty-year period. He was also exceptionally expert in image evaluation, although I persist in thinking that his famous paper with Altman was skewed. I discussed the matter with Henn, who did not take up my hint as to possible bias.
A social aside: the 20th century Kodak research lab was a pretty strait-laced affair. Several of his colleagues told me how shocked they were when, in retirement, Henn grew a beard and took up painting. These comments seemed quaint then; almost impossible to believe today.
Oh and finally - - there is the matter of Henn's little black book. Kodak's little black books contained the formulas for the commercial products. Employees were not supposed to take them home, and certainly not supposed to keep them in retirement, but Henn did both. After he died, the family had a lawn sale of his books, and that black book was purchased, as it were, on the open market, justifying Kodak's worst fears! Fortunately, that particular little black book fell into discreet hands.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?