Sprint Standard vs HC-110 with Kodak Tri-X

[Dusty Negative]

I'm excited to present you, based on absolutely no popular demand whatsoever, this side-by-side comparison of Sprint Standard and Kodak HC-110 (new formula)!

"But, Why? Who cares?" - Well, perhaps just me, because I started my still-young darkroom career using HC-110 and Ilford fixer & wash, but after a few months slowly slid into purchasing exclusively Sprint products during the pandemic because, frankly, they had everything available in one convenient location during a time when there always seemed to be *something* out of stock at B&H, Adorama, and Freestyle. So, to stop the madness of a different brand each for developer, fixer, wash for film and print, I started purchasing everything from Sprint.

Now that life has begun anew (er, rather, now that we are recklessly willing ourselves towards that end) I figured I would finally take the time to do a comparison of the two. And, my oh my, have I learned a thing or two. In no particular order:

1. I now think I understand acutance. Goodness, what a difference. Standard has none in comparison to HC-110.
2. However, Standard does an amazing job maintaining highlights.
3. Additionally, Standard also "controls" (or perhaps inhibits is a better word?) grain.
4. Having said #1, #2, and #3, the images developed with Standard certainly lack pop. You will decide whether that's good or bad.

Methodology:

* large beauty dish metered to f16.
* Sheila, my model, agreed to stand perfectly still during the entire shoot.
* Mamiya RB67 with Sekor 180mm.
* From left to right, f5.6, f8, f11, f16, f22, f32
* Image on left is Sprint Standard. Image on right is HC-110
* Ignore the numbering - it made sense to me at the time but ended up being largely pointless. Yes, I know, they are backwards on the Sprint frames, because I wrote them on the non-emulsion side, then wrote on emulsion side for Kodak.
* Images scanned with my Canon EOS R6, emulsion-side up.
* Exact same settings (only two) applied to each image in C1, to wit, 1. invert, then 2. stretch out the histogram a bit.

 

[removed account4]

Hi Dusty Negative
I’ve slid back into Sprint products. I’ve never used 110 , so I can’t help you there. I am using Sprint Developer (print and film ) and couldn’t be happier.. Paul Krott was a genius and a heck of a nice guy.
good luck with your situation
John

 

[gone]

Try Acufine if you like acutance. That developer is crazy sharp. Not that great in tonality, but it has over the top edge sharpness.

 

[Dusty Negative]

good luck with your situation
John

It's a *great* situation to be in. Choices, particularly of the informed variety now that I've spent time researching. I can read about this stuff all day long, but it rarely sticks unless I get my hands dirty.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Try Acufine if you like acutance. That developer is crazy sharp. Not that great in tonality, but it has over the top edge sharpness.

I'm not sure yet. I do mostly portraiture, so the subtlety of Standard seems appropriate. I have yet to do a similar side-by-side test of a real person, but I would assume someone with some age in their face is likely to look just a wee bit, uh, "smoother" with Standard than with 110.

 

[Dusty Negative]

It looks to me like the HC-110 negatives were developed to significantly higher contrast than the Sprint negatives, which can make it difficult to compare them because the degree of development and contrast affect both objective and subjective (perceptual) sharpness, grain, pop etc.

Just something to keep in mind when comparing films and developers.

OK, learning moment for me. How would you control for that? They were both developed to Massive Dev recommended times per temperature.

 

[Dusty Negative]

OK, learning moment for me. How would you control for that? They were both developed to Massive Dev recommended times per temperature.

correction - Standard developed per Sprint recommendation per temp / HC-110 per Massive Dev. Perhaps that was the problem.

 

[MattKing]

correction - Standard developed per Sprint recommendation per temp / HC-110 per Massive Dev. Perhaps that was the problem.

Yep, that is the problem.
Tell us what the developing times were.
It may be that you over-developed with HC-110. It may be that with your conditions, you under-developed with the Sprint developer. Or it may be that you did both.
By the way, the only objective way of measuring acutance requires a microscope. And acutance is a particular example of contrast.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Yep, that is the problem.
Tell us what the developing times were.

Sprint was 5 minutes at 26 celsius, per Sprint guidelines.
HC 110 dilution B at 4:30 per Massiv Dev converted down (up?) to 25 celsius, as the water had cooled somewhat.

BUT THEN...I just re-checked Massive Dev chart, and I see there are two times for Tri-X...one for a "previous version of this film." Guess which one I used.

I have a few expletives I'd like to lay out here, but I'm thinking they would get me banned, so I'll just sit in silence for a moment.

 

[removed account4]

Sprint was 5 minutes at 26 celsius, per Sprint guidelines

their chart/s doesn't/don't go to 26C
https://www.sprintsystems.com/time-charts
( and its usually not recommended to process any film for 5 mis or less, there are chances that it might lead to uneven development )

didn't they recently change the formulation of 110 ? I never look to the MDC for accurate information. .. its often times a "crap shoot"

enjoy your tests I hope you find what you are looking for !
John

 

[Wallendo]

their chart/s doesn't/don't go to 26C
https://www.sprintsystems.com/time-charts
( and its usually not recommended to process any film for 5 mis or less, there are chances that it might lead to uneven development )

didn't they recently change the formulation of 110 ? I never look to the MDC for accurate information. .. its often times a "crap shoot"

enjoy your tests I hope you find what you are looking for !
John

The 26C times are listed at the bottom of the page you linked.

I found it interesting that Sprint recommends only 3 minutes of fix, and 15 complete water exchanges (3/min x 5m) for it's wash. I guess their system is optimized for an educational environment.

Looking at the chart TX400 at 26C should be 5m 30s.
Sprint also recommends that "Most films should remain below 25°C."

 

[removed account4]

The 26C times are listed at the bottom of the page you linked.

I found it interesting that Sprint recommends only 3 minutes of fix, and 15 complete water exchanges (3/min x 5m) for it's wash. I guess their system is optimized for an educational environment.

Looking at the chart TX400 at 26C should be 5m 30s.
Sprint also recommends that "Most films should remain below 25°C."

Wallendo -
I didn't see it on the big chart with just letters ! thanks for opening my eyes
I've been using their film developer and fix for decades and have never had problems with archivability
I dilute 2:8, and fix my films ( and prints ) 2x clear time in 2 separate baths. rinse then fix remove
and wash for 20 mins filling and dumping cause I want to just make sure.
( im paranoid cause my clients test for residual chemistry ) probably if I washed for 15 mins it would be fine
seeing perma wash says you only need to wash for 5 mins with their product...
ymmv of course...

 

[Dusty Negative]

So, I cooked the Tri-X too long (about 2x!) due to using old data. I pulled the Tri-X sheet from Kodak Alaris and proper time would have been something like 2 minutes at that temperature...clearly not recommended. Plus, the data sheet only provides times for dilution A and B, so I would have to resort to Massiv Dev for the other dilutions which, as pointed out above, may not be accurate enough for a proper side-by-side comparison. Back to the drawing board.

 

[MattKing]

Use the HC-110 datasheet, not the Tri-X datasheet.
https://kodak.sinopromise.com/uploads/files/chemistry/j24.pdf

 

[removed account4]

So, I cooked the Tri-X too long (about 2x!) due to using old data. I pulled the Tri-X sheet from Kodak Alaris and proper time would have been something like 2 minutes at that temperature...clearly not recommended. Plus, the data sheet only provides times for dilution A and B, so I would have to resort to Massiv Dev for the other dilutions which, as pointed out above, may not be accurate enough for a proper side-by-side comparison. Back to the drawing board.

you might consider making contact sheets of whichever results you want to inspect/compare. unless the negative is your final product it really has little to do with your results. your "cooked" film might look good as a print or inverted scan or however you like to present the images, I wouldn't totally give up with these films...

 

[titrisol]

Sprint Standard is closer to D76 (1+1 or 1+3) than HC110 for me.
I have use it on and off and it does a great job in Fomapan 400 (Sprint says to use letter Q)
Negatives have good tonal range and tones are well separated

Besides the temp adjustment table, you can also look at the "Letter Adjustments" table they provide:

 

[Dusty Negative]

you might consider making contact sheets of whichever results you want to inspect/compare. unless the negative is your final product it really has little to do with your results.

Fair. Ultimately, the only REAL purpose of me doing all this is to train my eye to start really seeing how different chemistry works on Tri-X. I can watch videos all day long but I need to *do* these tests myself to really internalize what’s going on. From a simple user’s perspective, I prefer HC110 because it’s just so easy to store and use. But I wanted to *see* the difference on the negative to help answer the question of which developer I prefer from a rendering aspect. Alas, as mentioned above, my comparison was flawed by overcooking the Tri-X in HC110, so I’m still not completely sure.

I am aware that HC110 is likely to be at least a bit grainier than Standard, but just how much? And is it more or less pleasing? Those are obviously subjective but I’ll keep up until I get my answer. Very few people post Sprint videos so it looks like it’s up to me to do the work, which I thought I’d share.

 

[titrisol]

The covington innovation HC110 page was probable the best resource for that developer including dilution calculations
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

 

[removed account4]

Fair. Ultimately, the only REAL purpose of me doing all this is to train my eye to start really seeing how different chemistry works on Tri-X. I can watch videos all day long but I need to *do* these tests myself to really internalize what’s going on. From a simple user’s perspective, I prefer HC110 because it’s just so easy to store and use. But I wanted to *see* the difference on the negative to help answer the question of which developer I prefer from a rendering aspect. Alas, as mentioned above, my comparison was flawed by overcooking the Tri-X in HC110, so I’m still not completely sure.

I am aware that HC110 is likely to be at least a bit grainier than Standard, but just how much? And is it more or less pleasing? Those are obviously subjective but I’ll keep up until I get my answer. Very few people post Sprint videos so it looks like it’s up to me to do the work, which I thought I’d share.

sounds like an excellent plan, its always great to do exactly what you are doing ..

 

[Dusty Negative]

Sprint Standard is closer to D76 (1+1 or 1+3) than HC110 for me.
I have use it on and off and it does a great job in Fomapan 400

I used it with Fomapan 200 before Fomageddon ... I liked it quite a bit. Seemed just grainy enough, with, as you say, really lovely separation. I haven't tried 400 yet. Probably time to give that a try.