Xtol vs HC-110

I have been experimenting with Xtol and really like it, and am considering getting some HC-110 for comparison.

My general impression is that they are very similar but with different keeping and handling properties. Aside

from handling differences, what are the main advantages of Xtol or HC-110 in relation to each other?

XTOL must be mixed in 5 liter batches from powder, which is not really convenient. HC-110 is a liquid. Both can be used in various dilutions. XTOL delivers box speed, and is a bit superior to HC-110 in this regard, although I don't consider that a big deal. XTOL is environmentally friendly, but is susceptible to failure due to mineral content of the water with which it is mixed or diluted. Many people use distilled water to overcome this problem. I don't think HC-110 has the same issues.

 

Ultimately, you should run tests to see which developer gives you negatives that you prefer to print. I'd pick and stick to one after you make your decision.

Xtol advantages: less grain; full box speed; ?sharper (subjective I admit)

HC-110 advantages: syrup lasts forever (chief advantage); best dev I've tried for T-max 100 / Delta 100 / ?Plus-X

IMO HC-110 is made for Kodak TM and Ilford Delta films and is exelent for them.

 

Xtol is for X, F, FP, HP and such.

What Jim said.

 

Also, HC-110 is a more active developer. I find that it's so active that it's quite difficult to control with

continuous agitation (like you get with a Jobo CPP-2 for example). So a lot depends on your workflow.

 

I tested 5x4 Tri-X with both HC-110H and XTOL 1:3 with a Jobo. When the film was developed to the same contrast

index (or as close to the same as I could make it) I found that the results were very, very, similar. The XTOL

grain looked just a tiny bit crisper and more well formed, while the HC-110H had just a tiny bit more local

contrast. Really, I wouldn't give you a dime for the difference.

 

But XTOL 1:3 give me an IE of 400, 1/3 stop above box speed, a full stop above HC-110H. That, and its better

environmental performance was enough for me. The icing on the cake was the decreased activity

that meant I could pull my contrast down where I actually wanted it. So it really wasn't much of a contest for me

in the end.

 

But clearly YMMV and you should do your own testing with your own workflow to see what works best for you.

Fortunately I don't see how you could go wrong. Both of these developers are winners in their own way.

To me, Xtol seems to work well with most films, though with T-max films i seem to get better results with HC-110 (B). Also, Xtol, if kept in a dry place will last well beyond its expiration date. I recently opened a 5-liter pak which expired 2005 and it works as good as new...<div></div>

It's not just about the grain or sharpness; XTOL will give you better midtones (to the expense of highlights), whereas HC-110

will give you snappy highlights (to the expense of midtones).

 

So if you're doing rather general photography, portraits, anything that requires good gradations from light to dark, go with

XTOL. The highlights won't necessarily shine, but you will have very nice midtones as the above picture eloquently

demonstrates.

 

I use HC-110 mostly for scenes where I want to have deep shadows and brilliant highlights. A winter scene would be a good

example.

 

Think of the effect of each developer a bit like a Photoshop curve. XTOL would have an upward bump in the middle, whereas

HC-110 would have a downward bump in the middle. That's a crude generalization, but it applies reasonably with most films.

TMAX films in particular will be more susceptible to the change in developer than traditional grain films like Tri-X.

Thanks for the information everyone. I have been seeing the nice mid tones. I will get some HC-110 to play

with and compare with these observations in mind.

Kodak provide a chart on their website for choosing B&W film developers depending on what the photographer requires such as finest grain, highest sharpness and no single developer does everything. Xtol appears to offer the optimum all round yield.

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

I have used both extensively. I agree with pretty much everything said here. However, I have found HC110 to be far superior for alternative developing methods. I do a lot of night imaging, which requires very long exposures. Those long exposures demand diluted solutions and extended times with minimal agitation. I have not been able to get results I like with XTOL for that purpose.

 

Personally, I have abandoned XTOL and now use D76 for most development and HC110 for night image development.

 

As the saying goes, "test, test and test some more."

 

Dave

Both of these are phenidone based developers so film speed and grain will be similar. There will be some differences having to do with the dilutions used for each developer. Was HC-110 made for T-MAX films? I used HC-110 may years before the T-MAX films existed. I actually like straight D-76 better for the T-MAX films and HC-110 for the traditional films.

"XTOL must be mixed in 5 liter batches from powder, which is not really convenient."

 

Actually, the one liter packages have been available again for some time. But I prefer to mix up five liters at a time.

Charles, where have you found 1-liter packages of Xtol recently?

I just did a search at Freestyle, Adorama and B&H; no 1 liter X-tol listed. Perhaps it's very new and hasn't made it to online shopping yet or it's a special order.

 

I was surprised to see Mic-X still listed in 1 liter sizes, tho'. I thought that had been discontinued quite some time ago.

Kodak states that mixed, undiluted Xtol solution will keep for 6 months in a tightly closed bottle. My own experience confirms this. I'm not able to shoot or process near as much film as I'd like, but I nevertheless find it fairly easy to use all of 5 liters within 6 months. The point: with good keeping qualities for Xtol mixed solution, 5 liter quantity seems workable and convenient.

IMHO, if Kodak had formulated HC110 to use ascorbic acid instead of hydroquinone, they never would have thought of making XTOL. I can't prove that because I don't know the exact formulation of either one. However, a two part developer consisting of PC-Glycol as A and a solution of Kodalk and sodium sulfite as B would come close to XTOL I think.

"It's not just about the grain or sharpness; XTOL will give you better midtones (to the expense of highlights), whereas HC-110 will give you snappy highlights (to the expense of midtones)"

 

I think that just as can be done with Rodinal, HC-110 offers the opportunity to use it at higher dilutions and reduced agitation to reduce the highlight density and improve midtones and shadows. As I have noted about Rodinal, it is the specific combination of dilution and agitation that controls density in the three areas since dilution reduces the developer's highlight activity through exhaustion and agitation increases it. XTOL also offers a bit greater opportunity at dilution, but it has not been tested at the very high dilutions that are often used with Rodinal and HC-110. It also has issues with stability due to oxidation problems-- the reason I no longer use it after one disaster too many.