Why do I need to develop longer?

[Jessestr]

Different film as well?

Same film stock.
Left one is a new HP5+ roll, right one was 2 years old and bulk rolled.

 

[Donald Qualls]

So, now we know. The new HC-110 doesn't age as well as the old syrup.

 

[MattKing]

That isn't the new HC-110. That is the version before the recent change in July of 2019.
The edge printing looks really different between those two films. Is there any chance the older film isn't what you think it is?
Try using the old HC-110 with your new film and new agitation.

 

[Jessestr]

So, now we know. The new HC-110 doesn't age as well as the old syrup.

I thought this was the syrup. Are there even older versions?

Edit: this isn't the latest version I think. It's definitely syrup though but not the new version I think. However it's fresh and was still sealed.

 

[Jessestr]

That isn't the new HC-110. That is the version before the recent change in July of 2019.
The edge printing looks really different between those two films. Is there any chance the older film isn't what you think it is?
Try using the old HC-110 with your new film and new agitation.

Is there even a newer version of this HC-110 bottle? How can I tell which version I have? Is it the one that is less "syrupy"? Heard they made it more fluid and easier to mix?

Yes it's HP5+ it says it on the printing, but I cut off the photo since there were pictures of my girlfriend on there which I didn't want to post online. To prove you, here it is again.
I will try the old HC-110 with the new agitation and compare as well!

 

[MattKing]

I thought this was the syrup. Are there even older versions?

That is the pre-July 2019 catalog number.
It probably says made in Germany on it. The very recent new version is now made in the USA again, and is quite different.
Lots of people are looking for what you have .

 

[Jessestr]

That is the pre-July 2019 catalog number.
It probably says made in Germany on it. The very recent new version is now made in the USA again, and is quite different.
Lots of people are looking for what you have .

Oh really? Is the new syrup that bad? I read it shouldn't make any difference though.

 

[MattKing]

Oh really? Is the new syrup that bad? I read it shouldn't make any difference though.

Most likely it will work either identically or very similarly to the old stuff if used within its recommended time, but won't have the extraordinary longevity of the old stuff.

 

[Jessestr]

Most likely it will work either identically or very similarly to the old stuff if used within its recommended time, but won't have the extraordinary longevity of the old stuff.

I see, I wonder if my old bottle would still work well too with the new agitation method. Would it really make such a difference?
My old agitation method is 20 inversions in 5 minutes
The new one is over 60 inversions in 5 minutes... so a lot more activity I guess and thus denser negatives?

I also posted a photo of my HP5+ roll to prove it's HP5+

 

[Donald Qualls]

Agitation can be huge. I used to develop for "push 2" times and agitate every 3rd minute, to get absolute maximum true speed and maintain normal-looking contrast. That's two stops of push undone (except for shadow improvement) just by agitation 1/6 as much as your new method.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I just shot the same scene again with the new agitation and NEW fresh HC-110. Same light metering, same exposure etc, .. WHAT a difference in density!!

Left is the new HC-110 bottle + different agitation: 4 turns at 30 sec interval - 30 second initial
Right 5 y/o bottle with this agitation scheme: 4 turns every minute - 10 second initial

As an extra... my old HC-110 bottle compared to the new one

it might be worth it to do old bottle and new bottle with the same film, but keep agitation the same. Looking at the rebates, these don’t appear to be the same film.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

That is the pre-July 2019 catalog number.
It probably says made in Germany on it. The very recent new version is now made in the USA again, and is quite different.
Lots of people are looking for what you have .

I have a full never opened bottle of it sitting on my shelf that supposedly expired in 2019-03. I was considering cracking it open after I finish working through my bottle of dd-x at home, but now maybe I’ll offer it up for sale if it’s that coveted.

 

[grainyvision]

Same film stock.
Left one is a new HP5+ roll, right one was 2 years old and bulk rolled.

I've seen several anecdotal reports here and elsewhere that bulk rolled HP5+ looks completely different compared to standard HP5+, even if capable of similar results. I'd be much more curious of seeing these new vs old HC-110 results on the same batch of film. Personally, I've played with a lot of different developers and have never had results like your bulk rolled HP5+. The base on mine is always a little bit purple and density stands out like on the new HP5+ results you posted

 

[Randy Stewart]

Your negatives appear to have adequate shadow density, so you are probably not under-exposing. If you are unhappy with low contrast, increase your development time. Burk also makes a good point. 5 minutes is at the raw border of being able to develop consistently for most folks. Consider increasing your dilution and using a longer, and more controllable, developing time. I think you now appreciate that trying to set up processing standards using a 5 year old, half used bottle of developer is practically a waste of time. For starting points on processing use the manufacturer's suggested developing times, not the hit or miss info in the MDC (should you be using the MDC).

 

[pentaxuser]

I've seen several anecdotal reports here and elsewhere that bulk rolled HP5+ looks completely different compared to standard HP5+, even if capable of similar results./QUOTE]

Do you believe this? Why would it look different - it's the same film. The other explanation is that for some reason Ilford make a bulk roll HP5+ to a different spec for reasons they keep secret. It sounds possibly inferior. Is it this way because bulk roll is cheaper per square inch? Have I said enough yet to make you wonder what the odds are this is true?

Oh and why make it different if at the end of the day it is capable of similar results?

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

On the inversion regime a question: In the new instructions with the new HC110 has Kodak changed its inversion regime from the old HC110? I had thought that the new HC110 change was its less syrupy nature and that was it. It may have altered its legendary longevity but that remains to be seen.

Any other known and incontrovertible changes in terms of how it operates on film?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

As far as I aware, there are no instructions packaged with HC-110 - old or new.
The Kodak Alaris datasheet on the internet remains sort of unchanged since 2017 - the only reference to agitation is a footnote that reads:
1.Development on a reel, in a small roll-film tank, with manual agitation at 30-second intervals.

 

[Jessestr]

it might be worth it to do old bottle and new bottle with the same film, but keep agitation the same. Looking at the rebates, these don’t appear to be the same film.

I will do this test right now and share the results here. Might be interesting for anybody else reading this. Also, yes it's HP5+, still have the bulk roll box lying around, however it seems it's a different kind. See quote below.

I've seen several anecdotal reports here and elsewhere that bulk rolled HP5+ looks completely different compared to standard HP5+, even if capable of similar results. I'd be much more curious of seeing these new vs old HC-110 results on the same batch of film. Personally, I've played with a lot of different developers and have never had results like your bulk rolled HP5+. The base on mine is always a little bit purple and density stands out like on the new HP5+ results you posted

I believe you, the film base is a bit different as well other than the markings. Odd though.. but I will only shoot HP5+ now which isn't bulk rolled. I will try this right now, same new film and old developer + same agitation as I did with the new developer.

Your negatives appear to have adequate shadow density, so you are probably not under-exposing. If you are unhappy with low contrast, increase your development time. Burk also makes a good point. 5 minutes is at the raw border of being able to develop consistently for most folks. Consider increasing your dilution and using a longer, and more controllable, developing time. I think you now appreciate that trying to set up processing standards using a 5 year old, half used bottle of developer is practically a waste of time. For starting points on processing use the manufacturer's suggested developing times, not the hit or miss info in the MDC (should you be using the MDC).

They do seem have adequate shadow density and the shadows look great when I scan these pictures. I get almost the same result after post processing but the denser negative looks better from the go. Even after post process it just looks better for me personally.

About dilution, I really would love to have a little longer development time to prevent mistakes and have more control, however I'm "afraid" I won't get these same tones as I get with HC-110 dilution B. Will the tones or curve change if I dilute it further? Any suggestions on which dilution to use? Dilution H seems risky for me since I would need 7.8ml on 500ml and that seems to be on the edge of minimum developer necessary for a roll.

As far as I aware, there are no instructions packaged with HC-110 - old or new.
The Kodak Alaris datasheet on the internet remains sort of unchanged since 2017 - the only reference to agitation is a footnote that reads:
1.Development on a reel, in a small roll-film tank, with manual agitation at 30-second intervals.

They are instructions packaged with HC-110, you can peel of 3 layers in the label. It shows a lot of information actually. I attached it to this post.

 

[MattKing]

They are instructions packaged with HC-110, you can peel of 3 layers in the label. It shows a lot of information actually. I attached it to this post.

Those are new - but then I still have some in the old, round bottles, which had no instructions and hadn't noticed the peal-able label when I picked up those bottles to look at them in the store.
I wonder if the new-new bottles (round again) have similar hidden secrets?
If you want to try a different dilution, I like Jason Brunner's 1+49 (which is functionally the same as dilution E): https://www.photrio.com/forum/resources/hc110-made-simple.220/

 

[Jessestr]

Update!!

I tried the same film stock with the old HC-110 and my new agitation method. It's slightly (almost not noticeable) less dense. So the HC-110 still works fine. It's probably the bulk roll HP5 which was the culprit or the agitation method.. or both

 

[pentaxuser]

Update!!

I tried the same film stock with the old HC-110 and my new agitation method. It's slightly (almost not noticeable) less dense. So the HC-110 still works fine. It's probably the bulk roll HP5 which was the culprit or the agitation method.. or both

Glad that there is no difference but taking a chance and flogging what may be a dead horse. is it your belief that it is your bulk roll that is different or that all HP5+ bulk roll is different from the HP5+ in cassettes?

If it is the latter then have you any ideas as to why this should be? The danger with this thought or belief you have is that if differences were to occur with other films that are both in cassette form and bulk roll then it might tempt you down what I sincerely believe is a blind alley which might be to your disadvantage in any future analysis of any film problems.

pentaxuser