Silvergrain article on HC110

[phenix]

Silvergrain is perfectly right.
But hey, don’t trash your HC110: use it instead to develop your film! Results are surprisingly good!

 

[gainer]

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

None was taken. I have problems at both ends. I have sacro ilieitis. When I asked the doctor for a translation, he just said "Pain in the ass." On the other end, I had an attack of meningo-encephlitis a few years back that took away some memory connections. The memories are in there somewhere, but are not always searchable. I can visualize a process or describe an object or person that I want to name, but the name does not come. Strangely, I always remember "pyroliqneous liquor" because the chemistry professor told us if we couldn't remember that name on an exam, he would accept "Goo that comes off of burnt wood." I can't remember the professor's name, though. He also showed us the great Mogul Diamond and the two smaller stones into which it was cut. Anyone who says humor has no place in the University classroom never met this fellow. Or my father for that matter.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, to inject another note of humor, it is pyroligneous, not pyroliqneous.

My uncle told me to tell you to "stop being concerned, kid, wait until you are 87". I told him of this thread and he told me to pass that on to you.

PE

 

[Lee L]

Anyone who says humor has no place in the University classroom never met this fellow.

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."

Two weeks later the professor climbed in through the window in a clown suit.

Lee

 

[gainer]

Now that q was a tupo.

 

[Don Wallace]

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! )

 

[Arvee]

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

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

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! )

When I soaked my exposed negatives in a solution of HC-110 diluted with water it blackened the exposed silver...pretty much the same way that D-76 does.

Which is what I wanted.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

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

If you're talking about this passage:

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.

Then I say balderdash. HC-110 looks as good as anything else. I don't especially like it for 35mm, but it won my heart with medium format Pus-X and Tri-X.

It's just another general-purpose developer, like Rodinal, or D-76. In 35mm I really like XTOL because of the finer grain, the look, and all that, but for anything bigger, HC-110, like Rodinal is a great first developer.

In all B&W processing, proper technique matters a bit more than the silver bullet developer. Badly processed film, no matter what the developer involved, will never look good.

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.

 

[Alex Hawley]

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.

Ahh, that's about the best statement on the subject I've seen. There are those who keep trying to place an absolute technical quantification on all these things, whether it be developers, papers, film, or lenses. In my opinion, they are missing a fundamental point which Michel eloquently stated.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I agree with Michel.

HC110 is a general purpose film developer like D76. It gives good results for most applications and like many comments (as noted here earlier) on that web site, there are errors or inaccuracies.

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.

PE

 

[gainer]

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.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

We should just toss out all of Asnal Adams' prints made from negatives souped in HC110.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

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.

I think that's the core issue: "good" and "bad" are not objective concepts, but graininess, impact on characteristic curve, sharpness, and effective film speed are all measurable up to a certain point.

Many people believe fool's tales about the given properties of a product.

I find that lots of people believe that the world is either entirely objectively knowable, or absolutely subjective. It's a bit of both.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

We should just toss out all of Asnal Adams' prints made from negatives souped in HC110.

Well that would be a bit Asnal of us, wouldn't it?

 

[middy]

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.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

That's just your opinion.

Yeah, but what you're saying is just relative. Nyah nyah nyah!

 

[eddym]

I have made action pictures of ballet dancers and symphony orchestra members that I treasure that I developed, both negatives and prints, in HC110.

So did I, and so do I still. For 24 years and counting...

 

[jackc]

Why do film at all?

There have been many great, moving, photos that did not have high resolution fine-grained edge efects.

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.

However, given everything being the same, smoother and sharper images are still preferable, unless you are specifically looking for the opposite effects.

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, much the same way the collectors of classic cars derive pleasure in fixing them rather than using them to drive to work faster or in greater comfort.

I've sensed for some time a great tendency by the pros on this and other forums, to discourage people, especially new amateurs, from experimenting films/developers/chemistry, in pursuit of elusive, subjective, minute or non-existent, and certainly quite irrelevant "improvements" in their pictures, be it grain, sharpness, tone, etc., that they should try to focus on the meaning and beauty of the images themselves, however created.

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. I don't even need a watch to tell me time. For that, I have my cellphone, my computer, my microwave, my car, and any guy I bump into in the street. It's knowing about the mechanics of the watch that gives me the pleasure.

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. Let it remain a confusing, messy, boundless but perpetuating universe in which mysteries real or imagined exist every where, and that despite our individual efforts in fine tuning the craft (the fun part), we always lose ourselves in our pursuit, and no order or agreements should ever emerge.

 

[billtroop]

>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?

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

>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?

I have read that Ansel Adams used HC110, but also that John Sexton regularly uses D-76.

 

[panastasia]

.....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.

jackc,

Your missing something. We are having fun! We are pursuing the craft, each in our own way, but we do it for the results. How we get there by experimenting along the way is also fun. It's a balance of the two. The ends justify the means.

Learn who you're preaching to, the so called pro, or expert, has much to teach and the learning curve has no end.

Good luck with your exploration and try not to get lost in the details, they're infinitely variable. We eventually settle on what pleases us - while we continue to experiment..

Paul

 

[Ray Rogers]

A Fool in the Dark

I think the main points are:
1. Some processes are more efficient than others.
2. We are not convinced which are which.
3. Even inefficient processes can be utilized to make "good" works.
4. We don't like "authoritarian" or dictator-like value judgements being decreed upon us.
5. Ultimately, it SHOULD BE about the image; In the artistic world, technology is more of a tag-along.

We should not be so arrogent as to refuse to learn from anyone.
I can learn from the fool in the square as well as the fool in the park.


I take strong objection to the commonly heard "The ends justify the means."
but it is so not HC110 that I will not go there here.

(thoughts from a fool in the dark)

 

[billtroop]

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.

 

[sanking]

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.

Bill,

Thanks for posting. Some interesting tid bits there.

Sandy King