HP5+, from hc110 to LC29, problem...

lambertus_s._hofstra1 · February 6, 2012

For developing HP5+ I have been using Ilford LC29. Running into a bottle of HC110, and having read that they're virtually the same developers, I thought I'd give it a try. What I do is make a testseries, zone V and then under- or overexpose by one stop at the time to get the other zones, and adjust asa according to what my densitometer tells me is 0,1 dlog. Should sound familiar to quite a few members of this forum.<br>

Now here's my problem: from LC29 I get a personal asa of 320, but with HC110B that turns out to be one stop lower, so I'd have to shoot it at 160. This would make it pointless for me, I'd simply shoot a 100 asa film instead.<br>

From what I've read HC110 should give me results more in the 200-320 or even 400 region. So does anyone have any personal experience in this matter? Any advice on how to proceed? High dilution and (semi-)stand perhaps?<br>

I'll try to upload the graphs. This includes my ideal graph, as taken from "way beyond monochrome". With LC29 1+19 I get very close to this one, giving it 8 minutes (apparently LC1+19 is the same as dilution B for HC110, which is why I started out using 8 min. I do know recommended time is 5 minutes. From experience I also know that times found on the internet are usually too short for me (it's 6.30 for LC29 1+19). For HC110 8 minutes is clearly too long, as seen by the values higher on the curve. But there's loss of speed anyway....</p>

measurements: Sekonic L-758D, Analyser Pro<br>

HC dilution B, 8 minutes at 20 celcius (68F), inversions: first minute, 10 sec. every next minute</p>

lambertus_s._hofstra1 · February 6, 2012

<p>I'm sorry, can't upload the graph as spreadsheetfiles are apparently not permitted. Values as follows, first row actual measurements, 0,11 is zone II. Second row is what I'm approximately looking for. As you can see this would amount to underexposure of shadows and overexposure of highlights.<br>

Cheers, Bert</p>

steve m smith · February 6, 2012

<p>Now here's my problem: from LC29 I get a personal asa of 320, but with HC110B that turns out to be one stop lower, so I'd have to shoot it at 160.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Could you not shoot it at 320 as normal (for you) and increase the development time by about 20%?</p>

thirteenthumbs · February 6, 2012

<p>Have you seen <a href="http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/">http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/</a><br>

I have shot HP5+ at EI320 and developed in HC110 dilution B and H at +15% over the published times in the link at 68°F as I do all ISO 400 films I shoot. If I were to test for .1 over fb+f I would get between .085 and .11.</p>

lambertus_s._hofstra1 · February 6, 2012

<p>Hello Steve,<br>

The given table is for my normal speed, 320asa. If I increase the development time further than what I have done already it may result in a little more density for the shadows, but I will certainly result in further blocking of highlights. So what I'm looking for is a way to bring up the shadows and to dampen result on the highlights. Normally one would shoot at a lower asa as this controls the shadows, and develop shorter as this controls the highlights. But that would get me too low an asa. As HC110 is used by so many photographers someone might be using it in the way I'm looking for...<br>

Thanks for you reply though!<br>

Bert</p>

jon_porter2 · February 6, 2012

<p>I get good results with HP5+ rating it at 250 and developing in HC-110 1:50 for 8 minutes at 68 degrees. Agitation is three inversions every minute.</p>

lambertus_s._hofstra1 · February 7, 2012

<p>@ Charles: Yes, I know the site. Michael Covington in fact does mention that HC110 produces an S-shaped curve like the one I found, particularly with Tmax 100. So perhaps I should simply accept things as they are. Still think there should be a way around this though, especially in order to get the same speed out of my HP5+ as LC29 does...<br>

By the way, I also used:<br>

http://www.stefanheymann.de/foto/entwickler/hc-110.htm<br>

Mind you, it's in German</p>

lambertus_s._hofstra1 · February 7, 2012

I didn't want to make my post too long. In fact the first thing I did was to look if anyone was using this developer in dilutions that were less alchemistic. So I found a site giving me 1:50 (1+49) and 8 minutes. Yours? Anyway, I was glad some clever chap thought this through and tried just a couple of shots at 320, developed for 9 minutes (adding a minute because published times always seem to be to short for me, must be something to with the water, my aura or my water or whatever...).<br>

What I got was this (zones III to VII), second row once more my ideal curve:<br>

As you can see there's considerable loss of speed compared to my ideal curve. The effect increases at the higher zones. For zone VII there is more than 0.3 underdevelopment. Unfortunately I shot this to just to see if it would get me in the ballpark, on a short strip of film. Hence no toe or shoulder included, which in retrospect is a pity. Perhaps my next effort should be 1:50 at say 12 minutes?<br>

By the way, I too use a diffusor enlarger, so I definitely do not want less contrast. Takes me back to where I started; I had to use grade 4,5 to avoid muddy prints...</p>

philippe_bedfert · February 9, 2012

<p>Contrary to the common thogh, Ilfotec LC29 is NOT similar to Kodak HC-100. Ilfotec LC29 is similar to Ilfotec HC. Ilfotec HC and Kokad HC-110 are not similar. The 2 formulas are pretty close but as the it's not published formulas, no one can says that they are similar. From my experience, I can say that Ilfotec HC and Ilfotec LC29 have the same properties. But compare Ilford and Kodak products it's like compare oranges and apples.</p>

lambertus_s._hofstra1 · February 9, 2012

<p>Based on my own experience I would tend to agree. That, however, still leaves my question of how to get more speed out of this combo. I think I'll try the Ansel Adams way, and if that doesn't get me wat I want I'll switch back to Ilford....</p>

lambertus_s._hofstra1 · February 9, 2012

<p>Based on my own experience I would tend to agree. That, however, still leaves my question of how to get more speed out of this combo. I think I'll try the Ansel Adams way, and if that doesn't get me what I want I'll switch back to Ilford....</p>

lambertus_s._hofstra1 · February 14, 2012

<p>So here's the latest. HC110 1+99, 1 hour, 3 inversions per 15 minutes (not quite my original plan, life crept up on me). First row dlog measured, second row again my ideal curve. This time it's a up-swept curve with loss of speed in the low and (even more) in the middle density areas. I'm giving up on this stuff and switching back to Ilford LC29 or perhaps HC. Thanks for your responses,</p>

<tbody>

<tr>

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

Sign In

HP5+, from hc110 to LC29, problem...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in