D76 vs HC-110 Grain - Which is worse?

D76 at full strength vs HC-110 (dilution B) assuming temperature at

68 degress for both & preferred times used - Which developer will

have the worst grain?? I just used HC-110 (dil b) for a project and

the grain was horrible.

You didn't say which film you used.

I prefer HC-110 over D-76, especially with Plus X.

D-76 will give finer grain than HC110.

 

Jay

"I just used HC-110 (dil b) for a project and the grain was horrible."

 

Did you test the times first?

 

Someone posted some pics of HC-110 a few weeks ago with terrible grain; but I believe the consensus was they were over developed pretty badly. I've used both and I had what looked like very bad grain with D-76 1:1 and Tri-x. Then I did some testing to get my times correct; and like magic they didn't look so grainy.

 

I haven't noticed a large difference between my D-76 and HC-110 negs, but I mainly shoot MF and LF anyway so I wouldn't notice as much. I don't think I've really printed anything from the couple 35mm rolls I did with HC-110.

 

Alan

 

Alan

HC-110 and Tri-X are a very nice combination (at least the Tri-X of a few years ago). Give adequate exposure (I set meter on 200) and don't overdevelop. Overdevelopment is a common cause of obvious grain.

The film was Tri-X. I developed 2 rolls. One in HC-110 (b) for 6 minutes. The second roll in D76 full strength for 7 minutes. As I said, the grain was horrible in the HC-110 as compared to D76. Is this normal?? Can I get a finer grain by changing to a different dilution with HC-110?

I tend to think HP5 looks much better in HC-110 than Tri-X, at least in 35mm... to each their own.

 

You need to test different speeds and dilutions to find your own favorites for grain and acutance. As a standard, though, D76 should give finer grain than HC-110.

In terms of Tri-x, I much prefer the grain of D76 (1:1) over that of HC-110. XTOL lies somewhere in between. The sodium sulfite in D76 gives the grain a softer appearance, and the tonality is very nice. I never liked the grain or the tonality of Tri-X done in HC-110; there's not enough of a shoulder in the highlights and the grain is too rough for my liking. Different dilutions (like 'half b'; i think it's called 'h' or something) didn't do too much, it still looked 'wrong' when I printed on Agfa MCP. D76 and XTOL both give me better grain and tonality, in my opinion. I've always used D76 at 1:1; at full strength you'd get even softer grain.

I have been using HC-110 with Tri-X from the start of my photography and had never seen any grains in my 16x20 and 20x24 prints. When I want something very sharp I use Microdol-X with Tri-X and TMax 100.

In my unscientific tests, I've found that variations of technique made more difference than

whether I was using HC110 or D76.

I might add, here, that 6 minutes at 68F seems somewhat overdeveloped, to me, for Tri-X in Dilution B. How did the contrast compare between the two rolls?

 

In my experience, if developed to the same contrast, there is very little difference between Dilution B and D-76 stock.

 

I use HC-110 almost exclusively at very high dilution, however, and in that form it is most comparable to D-76 1:3 -- both of which will produce slightly larger, crisper grain and more acutance than the stronger solutions, and both of which give much longer process times. My standard time for TMY (which develops at very nearly the same time as Tri-X in both soups) is now 19 minutes at 68F, with reduced agitation.

When HC-110 first came out the newspaper guys loved it. It saved a couple of minutes time and gave a nice punchy negative that reproduced well in the newspaper. Even with 35mm negatives grain was of litle concern in a typical newspaper reproduction because of the relatively course half-tone screen and pulp paper. I liked D-76 1:1 back then and still prefer it, still diluted 1:1. Tri-X today is not the same film it was then, having been "improved" numerous times over the years. I've always thought that it had the best tonality and finest grain of the 400 speed films but HP4 Plus is an extremely close second.

I can't find a direct comparison between HC110 and D-76 regarding grain, but I did find a kind of apples and oranges comparison that may or may not be useful to interested parties. SOme people claim that Tmax 400 is finer grained than Tri-X, and others claim the opposite, but nearly everyone agrees that the difference is minor. Tri-X developed in HC110 has a Diffuse rms Granularity rating of 17 (fine). Tmax 400 developed in D-76 has an Diffuse rms Granularity rating of 10 (very fine). For the sake of comparison, Tmax 100, one of the finest grained films ever made, has a Diffuse rms Granularity rating of 8 (extremely fine) in D-76, which is the same rating as Technical Pan in HC110 (dil.D). Make of this information what you will. There is no doubt in my mind that Kodak is correct in claiming that D-76 gives finer grain than HC110.

 

Jay

In my experience, HC-110 Dil B has somewhat coarser grain than D-76 straight or 1:1. Not vastly worse, and certainly barely noticeable on average-size prints made from larger negatives.

 

However, on the T-Max 100 negatives I shoot in my Minox, it's *very* visible even in 4x5-inch prints. (But this is roughly equivalent to a 12x16-inch print from a 35mm negative, so we're talking a pretty big enlargement.) This has been disappointing...

 

But for ordinary use with reasonably fine-grain films - 8x10s from 35mm, 11x14s from 120 - HC-110 seems just fine.

See the chart ?Selecting a Kodak Professional Film Developer? from the Kodak Website:

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/chemistry/bwFilmProcessing/selecting.jhtml

 

According to the chart HC-110 has less grain, but trades off shadow detail and a little sharpness to attain lesser grain, when compared to D-76.

 

If you are experiencing horrible grain and are using Kodak?s recommended agitation, try switching to Ilford?s recommended agitation of four (4) inversions every minute. Be gentle when agitating. My problems with excessive grain using Tri-X were resolved by switching to less agitation as provided by Ilford?s advised agitation.

 

See page 10 of this Ilford information leaflet:

 

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/Film%20Hobbyist.PDF

With Tri-X (the film with which I'm most familiar and have tested in the greatest variety of developers) HC-110 negatives will be very slightly grainier.

 

However the overall look of film developed in HC-110 is so close to those developed in D-76/ID-11 that I've stopped using the latter. HC-110 keeps longer in concentrate, isn't terribly inconvenient to mix up for one-time use, and can be mixed up in batches to last a week or two depending on your needs.

 

If you're dissatisfied with the grain you got with Tri-X in HC-110 Dilution B it's unlikely you'll be satisfied with D-76 either. Try Microdol-X or, if you can still find some, Ilford Perceptol. If I'm recalling correctly Bauman makes a fine grain developer. And occasionally, depending on availability, JandC Photo carries A49, reportedly similar to Atomal, an older fine grain formula.

 

Also, you might consider rerating Tri-X lower, to somewhere around 200, and developing for appropriately less time. Or switching to a slower, finer grain film. But if you need or prefer a faster film I've found that HP5+ at 200 produces finer grain than Tri-X at 200. (I just happen to like Tri-X better as an all-purpose film.)

I found the HC110 DilB to sit somewhere between D76 1:0 and D76 1:1. D76 1:1 seemed to me me to be grainier but sharper than HC110 and D76 1:0 seems to be a bit finer. I just find I like the look more of HC110 it also works well with HP5 and APX400 that I just tried. If it works well with FP4 or APX100 then I may not need to buy D76 again.