.
  Lightstalkers
* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

HC-110

Just a couple of questions regarding hc-110.  does anyone have experience using it with tri-x, especially the new tri-x.  also with hp5.  regarding tri-x, there’s a little bit of a question mark as to whether the 3 1/2 minute development time with dilution b is correct especially since the old development time is 4 minutes longer…..i’m very suspicios of any development time under 5 minutes…..

also, there seems (or seemed) to be two kinds of hc-110 out there: one for europe and one for the states.  i think this may no longer be the case,  since the dilution instructions for both are 1+31 but just wanted to make sure.  many thanks,
jake

by [a former member] at 2005-07-22 06:26:36 UTC (ed. Mar 12 2008 ) rome , Italy | Bookmark | | Report spam→

Hi,
 Check this site out for all your processing needs:

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

never steered me wrong

jeremy

by Jeremy M. Lange | 22 Jul 2005 07:07 | Sunnyside, Queens, United States | | Report spam→
I second Jeremy’s opinion. I’ve used digitaltruth for about 20 brands of film and 5 developers.

I dillute my hc110 very simply- 2 not full bottle caps per 0,5 litre soda bottle (I mostly develop on the road) for an approximate solution B, and develop both tri-x and hp5 for 5 minutes, as per digitaltruth info.

But do a cliptest and see what works for you!



by Alex N | 22 Jul 2005 08:07 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
many thanks


by [former member] | 22 Jul 2005 09:07 | rome, Italy | | Report spam→
I’m just happy to see a question about hc-110, instead of some new canon digi

by doug mcgoldrick | 22 Jul 2005 15:07 | chicago, United States | | Report spam→
jake, glad to see you’re off the Xtol nonsense and on the HC-110. I mix the stock solution as instructed to get a half-gallon of it. Then, 1+7 for dilution B. You’ll get 64 rolls of film developed out of one bottle of 16 oz. concentrate.

Develop for 5 minutes at 68 degrees. Adjust accordingly for temperature and / or pushing. Now, I throw it all in the same tank: Tri-X, HP-5, Plus-X or FP-4, it all comes out more or less OK. Obviously, not TMAX 3200, that requires special handling.

Ben Hoy also knows a lot about this stuff. Email him.

by [former member] | 22 Jul 2005 23:07 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
After years of developing TriX in Microdol at a dilution of 1:3 for something like 17 minutes at 72 degrees, which renders a superb, and i mean superb negative (beautiful middletones, tight grain, great contrast), I decided to try Xtol because in St domingo I really cannot fuss with long development times and temperature regulation, but I havent started yet.  I would be curious, Alan to hear a little more about why you dont like Xtol and use HC110 instead.  I only used the latter once, years ago when I was first trying out various developers to see which I liked, and I dont remember a thing about it.  Fill us in!

by Jon Anderson | 25 Jul 2005 12:07 | St Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Xtol is unstable and can only be purchased now in 5 litre packs. The only film I use it for is TMZ asa 1000-1600. For TMZ you can’t touch Xtol, it was basicaly designed for TMZ and the other TMAX films. Xtol can really ruin your Tri-x though and you might not know it till you try to print it. I have seen very strange posterization and other grain/midtone nastiness with no apparent cause or warning. I think they just have too much tech in the formula for even two envelopes. There is alot written about what Kodak has tried to remedy the problem if you look around, mostly to do with packaging. TMZ in Xtol, dilute 1.5chem. to 1DISTILLEDH2O and use it at 75f for 8 min(asa1200) or so depending on asa. I use HC110 infrequently but I still use it at dil.B for 5 min. At 68f. The nice thing is it usually works fine with tap water. I really don’t buy all the time change stuff, hey they had it wrong the first time right. My choice is ABD-76 from Photographers Formulary. A bath lasts forever(in brown glass) and is replenishable, B bath is borax and you can get that anywhere. It is truly panthermic, I used it last summer at 82f just to see and it looks just like the stuff processed at 70. Just don’t forget to pour bath A back into the bottle. Mixed Borax only lasts about a day before it starts to come out of solution so I guess that could be a drawback, but it’s easy to mix at about 85f. And its also OK with tap water for B though I use distilled if it’s available. This is the best stuff if you have mixed lighting on the same roll. As long as you expose for the shadows you get a perfect neg with the nice sharp D-76 look.

by [former member] | 25 Jul 2005 13:07 | Detroit, United States | | Report spam→
Thanks Ben for the info.  Wish I had known this before I got here, because it is almost impossible to get any chemicals in st domingo.  I will look around, and in the meantime put up with the Xtol until I get back to NYC and stock up on other chemistry.

Anyone want to send a CARE package to St DOmingo?


by Jon Anderson | 25 Jul 2005 14:07 | St Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
ben points it out — that’s why i use HC-110, it’s basically usable under any circumstances, easy to mix, easy to carry, can store it for a long time — for 35mm photo-journalism of the classic variety, there’s no need to fool around with fancy stuff. 5 minutes at 68, plus or minus a little to your taste. you’re good to go. fast, and does the job.

lots of folks love agfa rodinal but for me it has too grainy and 1930s of a look. i prefer to be in the 1960s!

D-76 is cool but powder is a pain. HC-110 is liquid.

Microdol has too low contrast for me, in the old days i think a lot of commercial labs used it and you always had to extra pump in your blacks when you print. and 17 minutes? who has the patience for that???

jake talked me into trying XTOL and i have weird black streaks on some of my negs. the only way to deal with them is to make some huge scan and photoshop them out. HORRIBLE!

by [former member] | 25 Jul 2005 14:07 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
Hey – I’ve been using the TXP and HC110 for the past 10 or so years and never changed the processing times. I don’t know why they suggest such short times now, and I have never tried them. Processing using HC110 at 1:10 dilution (stock:water) for 12 minutes at 20c looks great.

by [former member] | 25 Jul 2005 15:07 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
all in all i’ve never had a problem with xtol in fact if i had my choice i’d be using it now, but the water situation is not great and since i don;t want to store it a gallon at a time is why i looked for something else.  i’ve been using it for about 5 years and was always happy, especially in the shadows and in the grain, so jon, i’m actually somewhat envious and alan i’m not really sure what you did wrong although i have read that the solution can be erratic if not mixed and stored correctly…..regardless i’m looking forward to using the hc110 so hopefully will do my first test tomorrow……


by [former member] | 25 Jul 2005 16:07 | rome, Italy | | Report spam→
I hear you Alan on all  points, but as to using Microdol with TriX, I have to say that, for me, here in the Caribbean, with that unbelievably hot sun and the high contrast of the scene, the Microdol works beautifully.  Dark skin reproduces with great detail, the highlights have detail and look bright but not blown out, etc.  Rodinal I love, but you are right it gets a bit too grainy, though I think it improves the look of TMax 400, which is kind of flat and lifeless.  Well, when I get the chance I will try the HC 110 again.  I just get nervous transporting liquids like this on a plane, whereas powder in a sealed envelope doesnt seem to bother the security people.  And powder is not a problem for me here, since I have my own place and mixing up the chemistry is no big deal.

Gee it’s nice to talk about film and chemistry for a change!


by Jon Anderson | 25 Jul 2005 16:07 | St Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
man, i know this crazy hungarian, he’s in budapest now and uses some ancient Pyro formula to develop his film, he was so insane about “accuracy” and so on that he smashed a beautiful old Zeiss 9×12 plate camera, that he had been using, to bits with a hammer. i told him, if you’re so upset just put a modern lens on that, align it, etc. etc. but he said, the hell with that, literally beat it to death with a hammer, and went out and put a new Sinar 4×5 on his credit card. To my knowledge he is still using this, no hammers, and poisoning himself with Pyro.

so, whatever works for you! jake’s photos with XTOL certainly look great, that’s what matters.

and jake, regarding bulk loading, all you need is the loader thing ($20?) and a whole bunch of the reloadable cartridges (about 50 cents or 75 cents each) — these come in aluminum or plastic versions — they should be used maximum 4 or 5 times as dust collects on the felt and will scratch your film. Mark it with a sharpie each time you use it and throw away after the fifth time. Then, you need scissors and masking tape. After loading the 100 ft. roll in complete darkness into the loader thing, all operation CAN be in daylight. BUT, i would go to complete darkness for each roll so as not to have to lose my last few frames on each roll — which happens if you tape the film onto the spool and put the cartridge together in daylight — depending on your specifics, it does indeed come to around $1.50 per roll.

by [former member] | 25 Jul 2005 22:07 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
yes, this bulk loading is actually really quite nice and the idea of being able to do it so cheaply when you get down the chemical cost (admittedly much easier and convient to do with hc110) is really quite liberating.  unfortunatly yesterday they sold me the wrong bulk loader something called a bobinatrice z, so while i doubt they have a lloyds pehaps they have another model of the bobinatrice.  here they sell film only in 15 meter (50 foot) packages and the spools seem to have a square slot in which to wind so hopefully this is standard and i can get a winder that works….we’ll see.


by [former member] | 26 Jul 2005 00:07 | rome, Italy | | Report spam→
Do you have any experince with Tri-x + Diafine?
I have been using it for a year with good results and it does have some good advantages:
-Can be  use with tab water
-It last for EVER  !!!!!!!!!!!
-Developting time  and temperature is irrelevant ( especially good for those who likes to develop on the road)
-Shadow detail
-No need to Stop Bath
-Small grain
-Tri-x must we used at ISO 1000  (even 1200). Good  for low light  shooting and great DOF at daylight

Sometimes  this high ISO can be a problem when shooting my old cameras ( even my Hexar AF) with a maximun shutter speed of 500.

I have used D-76 but never HC-110. How would you compare HC-110 to D-76   adn HC-110 to Diafine?


by Alex Reshuan | 26 Jul 2005 07:07 | Miami, United States | | Report spam→
i used diafine years ago and i remember shooting it at 1600, all in all iif given a choice i’d definitly go with d-76 and then pretty much all other developers before going with diafine.  one fo the main problems i had was distortion (not the exact term) of grain, kind of in waves.  in this regard i think it was a heat issue because i remeber the deveopler being a bit warm so watch out for that, i don’t reccomend using it above 75 degrees.  as far as pushing is concerned it did do a nice job, but i don’t think as well as d-76 or xtol (from what i’m reading ehre xtol seems to be very much an individual preferance so test it on a few rolls before you use it on something that really matters to you, but i think it’s great and is my prefreance of developers.)  the benifits of diafine, as you mentioned is that it’s easy to use, but again as far alternatives go 110 can’t really be beat, so i’d say unless you’re in a real pinch goto other developers first….but if it works for you, and it seems that it does, then no reason to stop.


by [former member] | 26 Jul 2005 08:07 | rome, Italy | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Recommended
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→

Participants

Jeremy M. Lange, Photographer Jeremy M. Lange
Photographer
Durham, North Carolina , United States ( RDU )
Alex N, Photographer Alex N
Photographer
New York City , United States
doug mcgoldrick, photographer doug mcgoldrick
photographer
Chicago , United States
Jon Anderson, Photographer & Writer Jon Anderson
Photographer & Writer
Ocala Florida , United States
Alex Reshuan, Photographer Alex Reshuan
Photographer
Guayaquil , Ecuador


Keywords

Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2014 November Eleven