Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   Keyphoto   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   RK Photo   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies   Silverprint Ltd

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Equipment > Darkroom

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old 21st May 2022, 12:05 PM
Svend Svend is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by loganca View Post
That's why I've always tended to reject the insufficient mixing theory offered to explain this problem. It just doesn't seem that difficult to sufficiently mix HC-110 and I've been very careful to do so properly.

But it does appear that this issue might be somehow related to my use of HC-110 since I did not see these streaks on the most recent roll I developed using Ilford DD-X.
Iím going to go back to developing time here. Iím guessing for DDX you would have used about 8 to 10 min developing time, right? Thatís a lot longer than the times you used for HC110 at Dilution B.

How did you handle the initial agitation? Did you go to a full 30 secs?

I still maintain itís not the developer, but rather a combination of your technique (too little initial agitation), choice of dilution and short dev. times, and the choice of tank necessitating long initial fill times (relative to the short total development times). But you wonít know until you try HC110 at a higher dilution, and then agitate longer for the first cycle. Keep us posted if you try any of these. HC110 is great stuff. No reason you couldnít get it to work for you.
__________________
Regards,
Svend
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 21st May 2022, 02:45 PM
loganca loganca is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: California, USA
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svend View Post
Iím going to go back to developing time here. Iím guessing for DDX you would have used about 8 to 10 min developing time, right? Thatís a lot longer than the times you used for HC110 at Dilution B.

How did you handle the initial agitation? Did you go to a full 30 secs?

I still maintain itís not the developer, but rather a combination of your technique (too little initial agitation), choice of dilution and short dev. times, and the choice of tank necessitating long initial fill times (relative to the short total development times). But you wonít know until you try HC110 at a higher dilution, and then agitate longer for the first cycle. Keep us posted if you try any of these. HC110 is great stuff. No reason you couldnít get it to work for you.
Since I hadn't done any film tests with DD-X in order to determine development time, I took Ilford's recommendation of 6.5 minutes for Tri-X at EI200 - that's exactly the same time I was using for HC-110. As for agitation, I again followed Ilford's directions for DD-X and performed 4 inversions in the first 10 seconds and then 4 inversions during the first 10 seconds of each subsequent minute of development.

Tank fill time with the Jobo 1520 was about 8 seconds, or about 2% of the development time for both HC-110 and DD-X.

Other than the streaks, I have liked the results I've been getting with HC-110. It's also far more economical than DD-X. Although I've been growing tired of experimenting with it and wasting rolls of film, I am curious to see what happens if I move to an even higher dilution like H, and the longer development time it necessitates, as well as a longer initial agitation. I think I'll burn another roll of film and try that next.
__________________
Web: thesociallandscape.photography
Instagram: @thesociallandscape
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 21st May 2022, 04:30 PM
Reginald S's Avatar
Reginald S Reginald S is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Germany
Posts: 72
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by loganca View Post
Although I've been growing tired of experimenting with it and wasting rolls of film, I am curious to see what happens if I move to an even higher dilution like H
Why don't bringing the film to the developer as recommended by Alaris?
I really don't understand what dilution would have to do with straight dense stripes on the film, except waisting the developer directly to the film.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 21st May 2022, 05:26 PM
loganca loganca is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: California, USA
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reginald S View Post
Why don't bringing the film to the developer as recommended by Alaris?
That's not really practical for me as I develop my film in a spare bathroom that can't easily be made dark enough for film loading. I currently load the film in a spare bedroom, which is completely dark and used as my dry space for printing, but there is no sink/running water there so it can't easily be used for developing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reginald S View Post
I really don't understand what dilution would have to do with straight dense stripes on the film, except waisting the developer directly to the film.
I think the theory here is that a more dilute developer will not act as quickly as the film is being poured into the tank, and the longer development time necessitated by the more dilute developer will allow for more even development. At least that's my understanding.
__________________
Web: thesociallandscape.photography
Instagram: @thesociallandscape
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 21st May 2022, 05:51 PM
alexmuir alexmuir is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 2,468
Default

In the first post you referred to HC110 Ďoriginal formulaí. Is that developer you have recently purchased, or the original Kodak formula before the change, around 4-5 years ago? Iím just curious if the age of your product might be an issue.
Alex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 21st May 2022, 05:57 PM
loganca loganca is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: California, USA
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexmuir View Post
In the first post you referred to HC110 Ďoriginal formulaí. Is that developer you have recently purchased, or the original Kodak formula before the change, around 4-5 years ago? Iím just curious if the age of your product might be an issue.
Alex
It's the original formula from before the change. My bottle is a few years old.

I thought one of HC-110's claims to fame was it's almost indefinite shelf life, even after being opened? But I have started to wonder if my bottle has gone 'off' and I may pick up a new bottle of the updated, less viscous, formula and give it a try.
__________________
Web: thesociallandscape.photography
Instagram: @thesociallandscape
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 21st May 2022, 07:22 PM
alexmuir alexmuir is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 2,468
Default

Thanks. This is a quick reply as Iím out and about. Perhaps use something purchased fresh to get you up and running. HC110 can last a long time, but it may depend on storage. Using fresh chemicals should guarantee results.
Alex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 21st May 2022, 07:35 PM
loganca loganca is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: California, USA
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexmuir View Post
Thanks. This is a quick reply as Iím out and about. Perhaps use something purchased fresh to get you up and running. HC110 can last a long time, but it may depend on storage. Using fresh chemicals should guarantee results.
Thanks for the suggestion.

Someone on another forum jogged my memory about a clip test I did before using my bottle of HC-110 for the first time: I submerged a snip of film leader into the working strength developer for the 6.5 minute development time I planned to use and the leader turned a dark black, with light just barely visible through it. This told me that the developer was still 'good' so I proceeded to use it. But using a fresh bottle would certainly eliminate any possibility of the expired developer being the culprit here.
__________________
Web: thesociallandscape.photography
Instagram: @thesociallandscape
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 21st May 2022, 08:18 PM
snusmumriken snusmumriken is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 118
Default

Logan, I've downloaded your images from here and inverted them to visualise what they look like as negatives. I'm struck by something odd. These are dark streaks on the negatives, right? But they don't extend across adjacent shadow areas which are light on the negatives. For instance, on your first image, the RH streak doesn't appear to affect the woodland on the horizon, which is almost transparent in negative. Likewise, the LH streak on image 2 doesn't affect the cross.

Better brains than mine may see other explanations for this, but I'm beginning to wonder (having seen all the discounted suggestions on your similar thread on Photrio) whether this is some kind of competition effect for scarce developing agent within the (dark) highlight areas, combined with an agitation regime that fails to overcome this?

Does anyone know what the concentration of developing agent would be in HC-110 at 1:47, and how this would compare with other 'standard' developers?
__________________
Jonathan

http://www.allmyeye.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 21st May 2022, 08:39 PM
loganca loganca is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: California, USA
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snusmumriken View Post
Logan, I've downloaded your images from here and inverted them to visualise what they look like as negatives. I'm struck by something odd. These are dark streaks on the negatives, right? But they don't extend across adjacent shadow areas which are light on the negatives. For instance, on your first image, the RH streak doesn't appear to affect the woodland on the horizon, which is almost transparent in negative. Likewise, the LH streak on image 2 doesn't affect the cross.

Better brains than mine may see other explanations for this, but I'm beginning to wonder (having seen all the discounted suggestions on your similar thread on Photrio) whether this is some kind of competition effect for scarce developing agent within the (dark) highlight areas, combined with an agitation regime that fails to overcome this?
Interesting observations, thanks for taking the time to look at this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snusmumriken View Post
Does anyone know what the concentration of developing agent would be in HC-110 at 1:47, and how this would compare with other 'standard' developers?
I'm not sure if I'm interpreting your question correctly, but I'm using a tank that contains 500ml of working strength developer. That means there is over 10ml of developer in the tank during processing. Since I'm only processing one roll at the moment with an empty reel above the loaded reel, I would think there is more than enough developer in there to avoid exhaustion.
__________________
Web: thesociallandscape.photography
Instagram: @thesociallandscape
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   Keyphoto   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   RK Photo   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies   Silverprint Ltd

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
just my luck big paul Photography in general 15 2nd April 2020 09:12 PM
Film Development Log Sheet ashfaque Photography in general 5 10th February 2016 11:44 AM
C41 film: Home or lab processing? JamesK Colour film 11 18th November 2012 10:55 AM
Terrible (so-called) professional wedding photos TomHayward Photography in general 56 9th November 2010 04:13 PM
FP4 N+ & N- Film Development Martin Aislabie Monochrome Film 1 23rd September 2009 09:51 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.