Would it make sense to mix Rodinal and HC-110?

My film of favour used to be Ilford FP4+ processed in Rodinal; I

recently bought some LF gear, however, and decided to switch to HP5+

because the two extra stops are worth it at f/22. But Rodinal isn't

the best stuff for HP5+; it does OK in 4x5, because the large size of

the negative hides a lot of defects, but the grain is excessive and

not very clean in 35 mm format And I'd like to use the same film for

both formats, for simplicity and standardization issues.

 

Scott Eaton makes a strong point for HC-110; finer grain and better

mid tones/highlights are a good thing, but I worry about accutance

loss. I read that Lex Jenkins mixes X-Tol and Rodinal and gets

satisfactory results. I'd rather mix Rodinal and HC-110, which are

more readily accessible to me.

 

My hope, of course, it that I'd sacrifice some of the finer grain

effect of HC-110 (but not too much) for better accutance, while the

tonality effect would remain more or less the same. Is it a reasonable

expectation? Has anyone ever tried this mix? Are the two products

compatible enough to work together?

Sounds like an interesting experiment. Go for it.

Lex:

 

You are waiting for me to say something?

 

Developers are carefully balanced mixtures of various ingredients. The alkalinity strength and type, concentration of developing agent or agents, solvent, and restrainer are all calculated for a specific balance of properties. Mixing two very different developers together will not likely produce anything like a compromise between the two. These two developers, in particular, are very different.

 

Rodinal uses hydroxide as its alkalai. HC110 does not.

 

A much more promising approach would be to use two developers in succession with a water rinse in between.

 

HB

>Hans Beckert , jan 29, 2004; 05:01 p.m.

Lex: You are waiting for me to say something?

 

I can't speak for Lex, but I was just hoping for once you wouldn't say anything.

Too much to hope for...

 

Mixing developers does not produce a compromise between them...

Well, you may not like what Hans says, but he knows his s--- and generally has the science on his side. It's possible that mixing developers will yield something you like, but it's pure luck. It would be far wiser to simply choose from available formulas with known qualities and buy or brew some up. IMHO, though I don't consider HC-110 in the same class as a maximum acutance developer, even in 35mm it performs very well. I'd just go with that, or even the old standby, ID11/D76. The beauty of 4x5 is you can pick and choose for tonal quality with far less consideration of grain and acutance. (note I didn't say *no* consideration!)

I would have to agree that mixing these two developers probably would not lead you

to your desired result, and will certainly eat up a lot of your time. HP-5 (and Tri-X)

developed in HC-110 is a time tested combination and can give you excellent results.

If you are looking to keep things simple, a desirable goal IMO, HP-5/HC-110 will

serve you quite well. I would try that for a while, including making a bunch of prints,

before going off into experimental land. and if its experimentation you are after,

there are books full of formulas waiting to be tried!

just my two cents.

Try it, what have you got to lose, a couple bucks? It's kind of an odd combination, but even after a century of B/W development, there's still much that's not really well understood, so maybe you're onto something. Me, I'd try different dilutions of either XTOL or D76 for starters, but if I were really worried about grain and for some reason had to use the same film in smaller formats, I wouldn't pick HP5+. You could also try FP4+ in something like dilute XTOL or Microphen -- that's only about a stop slower than HP5+ in Rodinal. Anyhow, if it works, let us know! Come to think of it, let us know if it doesn't!

You could also try doing half the development in HC-110 and the second half in Rodinal. Or the other way around.......

Acutance loss in 4x5"? I would say that one usually wants somewhat different properties of grain in 4x5" than in 35 mm. I'm in a somewhat similar dilemma as you; in my refrigerator I have a box of HP5+ and a box of FP4+ in 9x12 cm. I've used both films in MF and I've shot a few sheets of them in LF (I've done mostly color work lately, so my progress has been slow in terms of BW testing.) I usually do Rodinal, which looks very good with FP4+, but now I'm determined to get a bottle of HC-110 and try it on HP5+, since I'm not entirely satisfied about the HP5+ and Rodinal combo and wish to find something that's both economical and better. Even with Rodinal and HP5+ I can't see any grain in 11x14" prints (using 9x12 cm film) and resolution is very high, so I don't consider acutance to be a major in issue for me (35 mm is another story.)

 

But mixing the developers does not sound like a good idea, for the resons that Hans mentioned.

What about Tri-X and HC-110?

 

I really like FP4 but have never been a fan of HP5 because it always looks too grey to

me. But Tri-X looks more like the 400 version of FP4+ and does well in all formats in

both HC-110 and Rodinal.

 

Just a thought since you are switching anyway.

Yes, I could keep my Rodinal if I switched to Tri-X; but it's not widely available in cut sheet sizes around here, as HP5+ is the standard stuff my pro shop keeps (Tri-X is way overpriced in comparison).

 

As the previous said, grain isn't much of an issue with 4x5 film unless you enlarge a lot; but tonality could be better. And I also shoot some 35 mm film as well; a first trial of a 35mm roll of HP5+ in HC-110 yesterday evening shows tamer grain than HP5 + Rodinal. I'll have to wait for enlargements before I judge the tones.

Rob Gruber , jan 30, 2004; 10:49 a.m.

"I really like FP4 but have never been a fan of HP5 because it always looks too grey to me. But Tri-X looks more like the 400 version of FP4+ and does well in all formats in both HC-110 and Rodinal."

 

My experience as well, but with a different developer. Tri-X and FP4 are good companions and resemble each other fairly closely.

Hans and Rob,

 

When you say that you find HP5+ too grey, I assume that you are both comparing it to Tri-X at the same developed contrast. So what characteristic of the film is making it too grey? Curve shape?

 

I'm curious because I have narrowed down my choice of film to Neopan 400 and HP5+, and the latter is more readily available here (now and maybe in the future too) and noticeably higher speed in my experience. At this stage I like the look of both, but haven't tested in all conditions yet.

I would not say HP5+ is too 'grey' at all. It is a long-scale film, and therefore works best in compensating developers such as D76 1:1 or Acutol.

Think rather a lot of yourself don't you, "Hans?"

 

Read everything Patrick Gainer has written on the subject before commenting further. You might actually learn something, tho' I doubt you'd admit to it.

Honestly I didn't do any scientific evaluations of Hp5, I followed whatever the

recommendations were and I didn't like it much and doing the same non scientific

test, I liked Tri-X. I then fined tuned from there.

 

Didn't see any reason to persue it more as I can get Tri-X in 35mm or 120 for about

$2/roll.

 

I think the new Tri-X, in 120 at least, is better than the old in terms of grain with the

same great tonality.

 

I'm sure with dedicated testing etc you could get nice tones out of HP5 (or anything

else really) that's just my non-scientific opinion.

Hey Lex.... {grin}

 

My own experiments with mixing developers has been so-so, and quite frequently the results are not the sum of the components. Always worth a try though.

 

For 35mm try Delta 400 with HC110. Somewhat tighter grain pattern than HP5, but not radically so. In 4x5 I can't imagine HC110 not yielding glorious results with HP5.

 

Also note my constant recommendation for Tri-X professional in Rodinal. The professional version of Tri-X (rate at EI 250) mixed with Rodinal at 1:50 yields amazingly sharp negs without the coarseness of other older 400 speed films.

Mixing two developers is not, as some think, mixing two discrete entities. Developers are not compunds, but mixtures (solutions) the ingredients of which retain their identity. That means that 'Rodinal' or 'HC110' do not exist except as a trade names. They are simply combinations of ingredients in a package. When mixed together, the hydroxide of the 'Rodinal' is every bit as available to the 'HC110' ingredients as it is to the other ingredients of 'Rodinal'.

 

Since HC110 is a phenidone-based developer, and inasmuch as phenidone is a very active developing agent that is usually activated by borax alone, I would expect fog to be a problem with this approach.

 

If one desires to try something along the lines, using two developers in succession (with a water rinse in between) would be far more fruitful avenue of experimentation.

Occasionally I tried mixing Xtol and Rodinal myself and although I haven't run side by side comparisons I will use this combo again.

 

One thing that might be helpful would be to figure out dilutions for Rodinal and HC110 that need exactly the same developing time with HP5. Then you could very easily take 3 pictures of the same thing and develop in Rodinal, HC110 and a 50% each mixture and compare. If you see any benefit from the mixture and want to go on using it, you could then fine tune it by trying 25%/75%, 75%/25% mixtures and so on and keep one variable (your processing time) constant.

 

By the way I don't think HP5 is the best film for this, because Rodinal umixed gives big but mushy grain and that is not why I (you) want to use Rodinal, I want to use it to get well defined grain.

 

I used DD-X/Rodinal twice to push 400TX 120 to 1600-3200: I souped 1 roll 400TX 120 in 35ml DDX + 5ml Rodinal + 460ml water, 30min@23°C (=40min @ 20°), agitation 5s vigorous every 3 minutes and got slight base fog and very usable negs (http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1567156).

 

A second roll was souped in 20ml DDX, 2,5ml Rodinal, 475ml water, 3h@23°C, agitation 5s vigorous every 30 minutes (modified stand development), gave significantly higher base fog and brown sooty deposit on neg that could be washed off. No significant difference in contrast or shadow detail between the two methods. On close examination with a loupe I could not find ANY adjacency effect and the negs didn't look like high acutance to me either.

 

I other words, if you are doing this (adding Rodinal to HC110) to coax high accutance out of HP5, I think you will be diappointed. You might as well use a tried combo like 320TXP and Rodinal.

The only way to know for sure is to try it. Despite all the speculation, apparently no one else has -- be the first.