D76 vs HC110

[henri_straat]

Hi,

 

I am hoping to hear some opinions about the differences between D76 (1:1) and

HC110 B dilution with Kodak TRI-X.

 

I have finally settled on these two developers (for the short term as I'm

still a beginner) and wanted to get some input from other members about their

experiences with the two combinations above.

 

Is there a noticeable difference in grain? Is one sharper than the other? Is

one more reliable than the other? Which one do you think is more aesthetic or

pleasing to the eye? Which combination has a more a classical look as opposed

to a more modern look?

 

I like the convenience of HC 110 B dilution and mix it straight from the

bottle in concentrate form. But, it is a more active developer and I'm still

proceeding with caution. I have still not learnt to appreciate the differences

between these two combinations, however subtle they may be.

 

I read somewhere that HC 110 was used in the days of the photographer pressman

as it used to shave minutes of developing times - hence getting the image into

the newspaper faster. Having read that, I was wondering if it is an

improvement on D76?

 

Thanks in advance for any opinions about this,

 

Cheers

[Monophoto]

For me, the essential difference is convenience, and HC-110 wins. I simply prefer to dilute liquids rather than mix from powders.

[evan_goulet]

For some (which I really can't describe) I prefer to use HC-110 when I push Tri-X (HP5+/Neopan400) and D-76 at box or pull speeds. I would typically use dilution H for pushing. I seem to get a bit more shadow detail that way.

[jim_appleyard]

You may find more info here:http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

[User_502260]

The reason you see a slight speed increase in HC-110 is that it is a phenidone type developer. D-76 is a metol-hydroquinone developer. When films were more grainy a phenidone type developer gave more grain than D-76 along with the extra speed. Now that films have been improved the extra grain isn't as much of a problem but the extra speed can be useful. This accounts for the greater popularity of phenidone type developers in recent years. These include DD-X, Microphen, X-tol, PC-TEA, UFG, Acufine, FG-7 and others.

[paul_brenner1]

I agree with the above comments. Over time, I've used both HC-110 and D-76. I tend to use HC-110 (when I'm not using Pyro) for the reasons mentioned: Easy to mix, keeps forever, consistent.

One note: The published time of 7.5 minutes at 68 degrees for the "old" Tri-X was too long. The "new" Tri-X has shorter published times. (I don't know if they are "realistic" or not, as I don't use the new Tri-X because it doesn't work well with Pyro.) The point being, that Dilution B may have uncomfortably short development times with the new Tri-X, especially if the new published times are also too long. This suggests a longer dilution time. Not a big issue, but something to keep in mind.

[peter_schauss1]

I switched from D76 to HC110 for Tri-X primarily because I get better contrast without loosing tonality. I suspect that I also get more consistent results because HC110's activity does not change with age the way a stock solution of D76 seems to do. I use dilution H (half the strength of dilution B) with a time of 11 minutes.

 

As a side note, I have found HC110 gives me a bit too much contrast with Plus-X, my other favorite film, which I used to develop in D76. For Plus-X, I have settled on Rodinal.

[mike_barger]

Jeff, I've had good luck with Tri-X 120 and 510 Pyro. It's the only pyro I've used, but have had good luck with it. There is some info over on APUG.

 

Mike

[mikeseb]

I have developed Tri-X in just about everything; for the overall combination of sharpness,

grain, and tonality my vote is for Xtol or D-76, either straight or 1+1 if you don't mind a

bit more obvious grain with the latter.

 

I have not been as impressed as I thought I'd be with HC-110 at a variety of dilutions; I

found it soft, although the tonality is very nice. The long-lasting concentrate is

convenient, especially as my developing sessions are fewer and farther between these

days.

 

I have switched from the Kodak-made D76 to D76H, which is a variant containing a bit

more metol, NO hydroquinone, and about the same alkali. Its advantage is that, without

the HQ, there is no change in its activity due to pH changes caused by the HQ. It looks the

same to my eye, and the dev times are the same as standard D76. It's a breeze to mix, a

liter at a time, and it's therefore always fresh.

[dave_wilson1]

I have used Hc-110 a lot and like it. I used to first run it for t-max in a jobo setup because it was much better than other developers at the time, including t-max developer (terrible). I don't like any powders, just my opinion. D-76 is however a very good developer, and works real well with trix. As usual, best to try each out and experiment, find what you really prefer.

[michaelging]

Canon or Nikon,Hasselblad or Mamaya,Toyo or Horseman, UV or skylight,like all the previous contentions, both D76 and HC110 are great developers.The differences are slight,, and correctable wether you are scanning or wet printing .I use D76 as I have developed thousands of rolls of Film in it and I know what it will do with a certain film and lighting condition. I have also developed hundreds of rolls in HC110. If I showed you a print from a negative that was properly developed in ether developer, I bet you would not know the difference in looking at a wet print or on a monitor.,

 

Yes Henri you are correct, at the photo lab at our paper we had,D76 for most "normal" assignments and HC110 for pushing film or when you are on deadline and needed the 5 min difference in development times.You would not think that the difference in times would be that important , but many times in shooting night sports you would soup the Tri-s in HC110, rinse for 5 sec, fix in rapid fix.wash for 30 sec and print a photo with a wet neg on deadline.

 

For the cost of a couple of Lattes at Starbucks you can run your own tests and see which qualities that each developer has, and decide for yourself which suits your style of photography better. There really is no one way to get a beautiful print,no one film, one developer,one scanner,one enlarger,one camera or lens. Its a little like asking someone how much pepper they put on their meal, or how much dressing on their salad. I understand your question and the reason you are asking it, but you will get many subjective opinions about what other photographers want or do not want in their photography , and really only you can decide which developer gives your photos the look you want.

 

I see post here all the time where people want more grain in their photos, more contrast, greater sharpness,more detail, and then other who are looking for less sharpness , less contrast , and smaller grain. Photography I believe, needs to be experienced by the person doing the craft , and then using all the tools that a photographer has at their disposal they can express their creativity. I can see you have done the research and have asked the right questions, but I also believe you are to the point where other opinions will not help you improve your style of photography,only by doing the work yourself will you find the answers you are looking for.

 

By the way in reading your privious post,"Top eleven things that I learnt-also another purple question",I see you have already started on the road to find the answer you are looking for.I look forward to seeing some of your photographs,so we can see what your personal style of photogaphy is all about.

[allancobb]

My only comparative experience between these two developers is with HC-110 dilution B and straight D-76 on Kodak TMY. Tonality was pretty much identical as far as I could tell, but under the same degree of enlargement, I found HC-110 to be a bit grainier than the straight D-76. But the difference was slight and was a factor only at high magnifications. Probably not even worth mentioning if working with medium format. Cheers, Allan

[musubi1000]

When I was in school we used HC-110. It wasn't until a teacher suggested to me D-76 1:1 did I fall in love w/ B+W. Sharper, finer grain, and beautiful tonality. Henri Cartier-Bresson used the same combo as well I believe or was it Jean Loupe Sieff? I only used HC-110 for pushing T-max 3200 ever since.

[russ_kerlin]

<p>I don't use Tri-X, but with Fuji Acros, I can offer the following comments

concerning D-76 1:1 and HC-100 Dil B:</p>

<ol>

<li>HC-110 B produces better accutance</li>

<li>Grain is approximately the same for both</li>

<li>HC-110 B is significantly more compensating, meaning that it has a longer

tonal scale, and highlights will not get blown out as easily</li>

</ol>

<p>Note too that D-76 1:1 is what I call a "compromise" developer solution. 

It is neither fine grain nor high accutance, but produces the best of both

worlds and works well for small format film.  If you want fine grain, go

with D-76 stock or another fine grain developer.  If you want high

accutance, go with D-76 1:3 or another high definition developer.</p>

[jeff_drew4]

If you eat the same pancakes everyday, and you always make them the same way with same ingredients and they always taste the same, fine but same, that is D-76! D-76 is a fine, all-purpose developer. It was my first one, many moons ago and was always okay with Tri-X. <p>

HC-110 gives you variety, convenience and for me, it gave Tri-X that little extra boost in contrast that i needed for the publisher of the newspaper. I could play with dilutions and experiment and with Tri-X, it is a great combo for the long term!<p>

[henri_straat]

Hello,

 

As usual, thanks for the great response. This board is a constant source of inspiration/education and I really appreciate all of your opinions.

 

It was interesting to see some members said that HC is better for pushing - I plan to do some more film tests over the coming weeks to see which one I will settle on. However, I think that I'm almost at the conclusion that with regards to my negs, they look better developed normally in D76 and pushed in HC.

 

Regards>