• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

To replenish or not to replenish?

Mainecoonmaniac

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
6,295
Format
Multi Format
This sounds like a questions written by William Shakespeare. I have been a long time user of HC-110. Does anybody know the advantages of reusing the developer in dilution B then replenishing it according how may square inches of film is processed in it? I've heard many years ago that replenished HC-110 that is "seasoned" is better then fresh. I normally use the developer one shot, but at times, I have to mix up a half gallon at dilution B to process 4x5 film then toss the used developer which I hate to do. My last questions is that Kodak no longer makes the replenisher. There's a substitute made by Legacy Pro. Is it comparable to Kodak's?
 
HC110 Replenisher was discontinued by Kodak so you'd be better using a developer like Xtol replenished which works extremely well, and gives better sharpness, and grain than HC110 anyway.

Ian
 
I knew a lot of photographers that swore by replenished soup , the longer the better. These were paticulary those who liked printing on a very high grade paper and prefered thin with detail negs.

From my own practical point of view I prefer one shot, as I do not like the carryover of the last run of film.
I have printed from seasoned lines*other labs* and my own single shot production.
Without a doubt my film was and still is cleaner with less crap .
As well I print lith a lot and I found the shadow areas lacking in seasoned devs verses fresh HC110.
For lith printing its all about the blacks and their pull time and today I refuse to print any film not processed in single shot small tank ways.

I am getting cranky as I get older.

I cannot comment on the carryover effect of other runs but I am sure there are those here who will chime in and talk about what happens as you replenish and the pros and cons, which there are both proponents.
 
Over the years since 1969 I've always used replenished developers until moving abroad, I only stopped last Autumn because it's no longer feasible when I'm away for long spells. I also process on location, hotel rooms etc.

There's other threads on developer replenishment, there can be some major advantages, developers like D76/ID-11 were designed from the outset for replenishment, I've never found a downside. I've also used one shot developers alongside since the mid 80's and never found any issues of loss of shadow or highlight detail with either.

HC110 is a bit prone to loss of shadow detail/film speed anyway, it doesn't come out high in Kodak's developer comparison table and it may be more variable when used replenished. It wouldn't be my choice when there's far more robust replenish-able developers.

Kodak and particularly Ilford did quite a bit of work on the effects of bromide build up, developing agent exhaustion & subsequent replenishment formula & rates particular when phenidone or a similar developing agent is used instead of metol. The research papers were published in the 1950's.

Ian
 
Thanks for all your input. I hope Kodak won't discontinue HC-110 like the replenisher. I've used it for all long time and it's like an old friend.
 
Mainecoonmaniac said:
There's a substitute made by Legacy Pro. Is it comparable to Kodak's?
Click to expand...

Comparable maybe, is it the same no. Legacy Pro makes a point to say that L110 does not have either the color nor the viscosity of HC-110. Legal considerations would prevent Legacy Pro from marketing a copy. Would I mix them noway.
 
Legacy Pro (chemical) products where previously sold by Freestyle under the Kentmere brand name when they were the US importer before Ilford bought Kentmere, they are made by a West Coast US company who were once well known for there Colour chemistry. Memories slipping it's quite late here, Unicolor I think (I have the manufacturer/owners address & contact details archived I think the company has shrunk vedry significantly).


HC110 is quire difficult to manufacture, Ilford's Ilfotech HC & LC equivalent uses a slightly different approach to give very similar results. while they are interchangeable they can't be mixed

The formulae are hinted at in Patents etc so making a near clone isn't that difficult, without infringing patents.

Ian
 
For most of us, replenishment does not really make sense. We do an occasional one shot or maybe a few rolls and then throw the developer away before it gets stale. But if you are in a situation where you are processing several rolls a day for a reasonably long period, replenishment may make a lot of sense, both economically and as a convenience.
 
Even 3, 4, half a dozen rolls a week average is enough to make replenishment very practical and economic. I kept Xtol replenished for Tmax 400, sometimes it wouldn't get used for a week or two frequently longer then 20+ rolls in a session, sometimes some sheet film etc if I'd run out of Rodinal. Very easy very stable, as the chemistry was at room temperature close to 20° it made processing sessions very quick & easy just warm & go. Replenish after every 10 films.

With deep tanks it's even easier

Ian
 
I replenish XTOL and use it undiluted.

Steve
 
Even though I don't develop a lot of film, replenishment makes sense for me because I need almost 2L of developer to fill my sheet film tanks. I use replenished D23.
 
This thread is somewhat timely for me.
I have a gallon packet of D76 replenisher that Ado shipped me by mistake 5-6 years back and it wasn't worth returning so I need to use it soon.

I also just bought 2 5L packets of xtol. I've never used Xtol but the replenish thread made it sound attractive. (maybe I should stay off this site )

I'm worried about speed loss after reading a few comments here and there. I'm shooting 120 & 35 these days and am used to good shadow detail from my 4x5 days.

Anyone else notice speed loss with either of these replenished compared to what you've been used to from dialing in your processes with 1 shot.
 

I don't know about HC110 but with Xtol replenishment is sweet and cheap. I store the stock in a reused wine box and the working solution in a reused 1.75 liter Margarita Mix bottle.

One super advantage of replenishment is for doing small batches. I have a Nikor tank for 4x5 that takes about a liter to fill. I can shoot 1 sheet, develop it in the full liter replenish with 18ml of stock.

Done one shot in my tank you would need at least 200ml of stock at 1+4, more likely 500ml at 1+1.
 

Many state that they see a small speed boost with XTOL. I never bothered to measure.

Steve
 
Please don't ever let Kodak know I use HC 110, 'cause they'll stop making it within 45 minutes, but you can use the stock solution as a replenisher. careful though, you can get a build up of sodium sulfite if you do this too much and it will throw all sorts of times off...
Logan
 
Wow. That's a lot of useful information. So I have 3 options. Option 1 switch to another developer when hc110 is not available. Option 2 use Legacy Pro's developer and replenisher combo. Option 3 continue 1 shot processing. I just have to be adaptable. Thanks for all your great input!
 
For small-tank processing, HC110 used one-shot is just about the cheapest developer out there, including scratch-mixed developers.
 
Acufine is also replenishable

Though it doesn't get talked about here that much, Acufine is an excellent developer when it's replenished. It's still available and so is the replenisher.
It has worked the best when it was brownish gray from all the bromide after 10-rolls per quart had been processed and replenished following the instructions supplied by the manufacturer.

The desired effect we're all talking about from a replenished developer is how even development occurs. After the developer has been replenished, low values remain unchanged because they are dependent on exposure. However the high values are smoother and because the developer is less active in that area, giving a more compensating effect for some subject matter.

Here's a scan of an old Tri-X 35mm negative, pushed to 1600, using well replenished Acufine processed in a deep 35mm type Nikor tank. The film was loaded on reels, and agitated only for first 30 seconds, then once additionally 1/2 way through the development cycle (about 3rd minute) for 7 minutes at 70F. This is a straight scan, no manipulation from the negative, only the color added. Nikon F3, 105mm Nikkor lens, 1/500 @F2.8.
 

Attachments

  • KJabbar.jpg
    162.7 KB · Views: 172
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow it looks pretty impressive. It's another film and replenishable developer combo to consider.
 
Xtol is also interesting

Sirius Glass said:
Many state that they see a small speed boost with XTOL. I never bothered to measure.

Steve
Click to expand...

Did a litte research and it's pretty low toxicity. It has quite a following.

Btw did you know proctologist besides doing digital work it's the only medical profession that has high standards because they stand behind their work
 
Sirius Glass said:
Many state that they see a small speed boost with XTOL. I never bothered to measure.

Steve
Click to expand...

Unless you do Zone System or BTZ system tests with every film/developer combination what you really notice is better shadow details with Xtol compared to HC110, compared to D76 the difference is slight, measurable with a densitometer but hardly worth bothering about.


Mainecoonmaniac said:
Did a litte research and it's pretty low toxicity. It has quite a following.
Click to expand...

The easiest part of replenishing Xtol is you can just mix the 5 litre pack then split into 2.5 litres working solution and the rest use for replenishment. I kept my original Xtol going that way from it's introduction in the late 80's until March/April this year. When I opened and mixed a new pack I'd take 2 litres of the fresh Xtol and season with 600ml of the old.

Ian
 
Extol doesn't require a special replenisher? Does the seasoned developer make better negs versus 1 shot method? The low toxicity of Xtol is a plus.
 
Mainecoonmaniac said:
Extol doesn't require a special replenisher? Does the seasoned developer make better negs versus 1 shot method? The low toxicity of Xtol is a plus.
Click to expand...

XTOL can be used full strength either:

  1. Without replenishing:
    1. for up to 5 rolls of 135-36 or 5 rolls of 120 or the equivalent of 400 square inches [20 4x5s]
    2. and then adding 15% to the development time for the next 5 rolls of 135-36 or rolls of 120 or the equivalent of 400 square inches [20 4x5s].
    3. Then for the next 5 rolls of 135-36 or 5 rolls of 120 or the equivalent of 400 square inches [20 4x5s] add another 15% to the development time.
  2. With replenishment add 70ml of full strength XTOL for every roll of 135-36 or 120 or the equivalent of 80 square inches [four 4x5s].
Diluted XTOL can only be used one time.

Reference: Koadk PDF J-109 at www.kodak.com

I have done it both ways and I prefer to replenish.
Steve
 
Xtol is unique in that it can be replenished by itself.

Once a dev is seasoned then replenished stock has benefits similar to using stock at about 1+1 to 1+2 better sharpness and tonality but also finer smoother grain than you get with diluted stock. That's because the developer reaches an optimal level of bromide/iodide which helps with sharpness and still has a high level of sulphite which helps keep the grain fine.

The differences are noticeable in practice particularly with 35mm films and when I shared a replenished line with 2 other photographers none of us liked putting our films though fresh unseasoned developer first. But put into perspective it's a difference between very good and excellent.

Replenishment was once the mainstay of professional B&W processing in every lab/darkroom, it's never really caught on with amateurs mainly because most don't realise just how easy, simple and reliable it is. Another fact was pack sizes and needing both developer & replenisher made it seem less practical, Xtol solves that issue.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register