Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / November 2004
id11/d76 today alternative: Hc110 or Xtol? Or both?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
stefano bramato - 25 Oct 2004 22:48 GMT hi People!! I stuck with id-11 since more than ten years (but sometimes I prefer Microphen...) and always i felt very comfortable when developing in this soup every kind of my rolls. 120 or 135 no matter. So i'm searching another two developers to stuck on, for next hard years... But now, due the Ilford' bad times i want to experiment new ways.
Someone sugested me Ilfosol (but many many others dsay to me that is a crap) and ascorbic developers. In many tests I was niced to try Ilfosol at 1+14. Now i was googling, so many so nice words for HC110. Some of your fresh experiments or suggestions?
but the real curiosity is for me xtol: ascorbic acid is more enviromental friendly but yet enough good to have id-11 results if not nicer. One xtol-pack is on the way, just ordered, but i need so many frsh suggestiins also for this developer.
Can someone help me? Few words are happily enough and well accepted!!
have a nice life, Stefano
PS: someone surely wiser than me write "hey matey, is time to make your soup with your hands.... c'mon" but i'm still worried!
 Signature Non ? bello cio che ? bello figuriamoci cio che ? brutto!
Donald Qualls - 25 Oct 2004 23:26 GMT > Now i was googling, so many so nice words for HC110. Some of your fresh > experiments or suggestions? I can't say anything about XTOL, but I've used HC-110 almost exclusively for the past nine months. I've used Dilution B, but mostly use Dilution H (half strength of B) and Dilution G. I like Dilution G because it gives me easy, direct control of contrast; if I give little or no agitation, I get strong compensation, contrast control in the highlights, and nice shadows. If I give more agitation, I can get any contrast I like up to about N+1 without changing development time -- for TMY, 15 minutes at 70 F (your time will probably be longer; mine run very short compared to what I see others post). Since the dev time doesn't change, I don't have to worry about gaining or losing speed as I change the contrast of development. As a bonus, the grain pattern of TMY in Dilution H is crisp and even, but smooth rather than gritty, and shows up in reasonable scan sizes only when cropping below 35 mm frame dimension.
 Signature The challenge to the photographer is to command the medium, to use whatever current equipment and technology furthers his creative objectives, without sacrificing the ability to make his own decisions. -- Ansel Adams
Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer http://silent1.home.netcom.com
Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect.
stefano bramato - 25 Oct 2004 23:49 GMT Ah, per?! Donald Qualls ha scritto due cosette forse interessanti...
> > Now i was googling, so many so nice words for HC110. Some of your fresh > > experiments or suggestions? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > shows up in reasonable scan sizes only when cropping below 35 mm frame > dimension. your words seems to be so comfortable... I was right now reading about strong dilutions in covington site and seem to be a point of step ahead for hc110. Thanks Donald you're always so gentle.
Ciao, Stefano
 Signature Non ? bello cio che ? bello figuriamoci cio che ? brutto!
Claudio Bonavolta - 26 Oct 2004 10:06 GMT > hi People!! > I stuck with id-11 since more than ten years (but sometimes I prefer [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > PS: someone surely wiser than me write "hey matey, is time to make your > soup with your hands.... c'mon" but i'm still worried! Ciao,
Well, ID-11 will certainly be available again once Ilford's actual troubles are gone. By the way, if the worst happens, Kodak D-76 is very similar to ID-11 and will give you the same results.
I can't give you informations regarding HC-110, I've never used it.
Regarding X-Tol, well, that's the developer I mostly use for low/medium speed films (up to 1600ISO). In 35mm, I usually dilute it 1+1, for larger negs you can go 1+3 (coarser grain but more acutance). I consider it as one of the best compromises between fine-grain (finer than D-76/ID-11), acutance and speed. Properly mixed and stored, the stock solution can last very long: I diluted a 5 liters pack in March 2002 and it still gives good results, more than 2 years and a half after (much longer than what Kodak states). I keep some to see if it can reach the 3 years ...
I prepare it this way: - demineralized water - part A *must* be fully diluted before adding part B, ambient temperature water is used. - stir without inserting air in the mixture - brown glass bottles (pharmacy kind) fully filled (4x 1-liter + the rest in 100ml) - once the 100ml bottles are all empty, I fill them again with one 1-liter bottle - 100ml is the minimum quantity for a 135-36 roll - the 100ml bottles contain slightly more, as I use it 1+1, I just add some more water to fill completely the bottle, then I complete up to 200ml for processing. - bottles stored in the dark
Un salutone, Claudio Bonavolta http://www.bonavolta.ch
stefano bramato - 28 Oct 2004 23:01 GMT > Regarding X-Tol, well, that's the developer I mostly use for > low/medium speed films (up to 1600ISO). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Kodak states). > I keep some to see if it can reach the 3 years ... Ciao Claudio, is always a pleasure to read your words and suggestions. I want to try this developer. Bought two packs for preparing 5 litres... hope well!!
PS: i want to prepare myself some developers and fixers too... it's just arrived the mini-scale and anchell's cookbook!! :D just to add snap on my life!! wow||
Salutoni, Stefano
 Signature Non ? bello cio che ? bello figuriamoci cio che ? brutto!
Richard Knoppow - 26 Oct 2004 10:45 GMT > hi People!! > I stuck with id-11 since more than ten years (but sometimes I prefer [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > PS: someone surely wiser than me write "hey matey, is time to make your > soup with your hands.... c'mon" but i'm still worried! Xtol is a very good developer. It gives slightly finer grain and slightly more film speed than D-76 or ID-11. HC-110 is a versitile and reliable developer but gives slightly coarser grain and slightly less film speed than D-76. T-Max and T-Max RS are also quite reliable, give maximum film speed but are again grainier than D-76 although not much. There are other good developers on the market but these, and Rodinal, are the ones I mainly have experience with. If I were to choose a single developer for the best combination of qualities it would be Xtol. Actually, D-76/ID-11 is hard to beat which it has been the standard of comparison for nearly eighty years.
Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com
PGG - 27 Oct 2004 18:15 GMT <snip>
> Can someone help me? Few words are happily enough and well accepted!! I started with D76. But the stuff started going bad before I used it all. Then I went with HC-110 for awhile. I also experimented with Rodinal and am now using Xtol. My observations:
- Rodinal loses a lot of film speed. It seemed all my negatives were under-exposed. But even when halving the marked speed, I wasn't all that impressed
- HC-110 is easy to mix and keeps a long time. Seems similar to D76 but more convenient. But still loses some film speed
- Xtol is awesome. I get full-film speed. Grain is minimal. I really like the results with Tmax. Some say it produces Tmax negatives that aren't "sharp". I guess I agree with this, but I like the look regardless. No grain visible with Tmax 100 when making a 11x14 print.
Michael A. Covington - 27 Oct 2004 23:54 GMT > - Xtol is awesome. I get full-film speed. Grain is minimal. I really > like the results with Tmax. Some say it produces Tmax negatives that > aren't "sharp". I guess I agree with this, but I like the look > regardless. No grain visible with Tmax 100 when making a 11x14 print. For sharper edges in the image, use diluted Xtol (less solvent action).
Ecolar - 28 Oct 2004 09:22 GMT I have used both HC110 and XTol.
HC110 gives less sharp negatives than XTol, but you may better push the development with HC110 (or even better with TMAX).
I have found that using distilled water instead of tap water can make a great difference in the reproducibility of your results. Also, I am using XTol 1:3 dilution in most cases, that provides very good results, nice shadow ranges and it is very very cheap (plus, XTol can be stored - undiluted - for many months without special precaution as its "C vitamin" like content (ascorbic acid) makes it nearly oxydation free).
Last, XTol is environment friendly, which adds to its interest.
(I used Delta100, TMax100, HP5, and Foma 100 /T200 films in 120 rolls).
Emmanuel
Thor Lancelot Simon - 28 Oct 2004 18:09 GMT >I have used both HC110 and XTol. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I have found that using distilled water instead of tap water can make a >great difference in the reproducibility of your results. Also, I am using You must have pretty strange tap water. Is it well water?
It's not necessarily a good idea to use distilled water to mix developer; Kodak formulates it for "average North American tap water" and water with no mineral content at all is definitely not that.
Kodak does sell a product that's basically meant to turn distilled water into "average North American tap water" for use in mixing developer, though. I can't ever remember its name, but if you're going to mix developer with distilled water you should really use it.
 Signature Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud
Michael A. Covington - 28 Oct 2004 20:47 GMT > It's not necessarily a good idea to use distilled water to mix > developer; Kodak formulates it for "average North American tap water" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > going to mix developer with distilled water you should really use > it. I've never heard that. I've always had good results using either distilled water or tap water (the results are the same except that I can trust the distilled water to be somewhat cleaner and more free of dissolved air). What is this product?
Thor Lancelot Simon - 29 Oct 2004 06:08 GMT >> Kodak does sell a product that's basically meant to turn distilled >> water into "average North American tap water" for use in mixing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >distilled water to be somewhat cleaner and more free of dissolved air). >What is this product? Well, it's *not* "color developer starter"; I always get it mixed up and then remind myself that that's the _wrong_ product. I will browse a bit and see if I can find the right one on Kodak's web site.
It's basically just a plastic envelope full of highly soluble mineral salts that give you the exact water Kodak formulated their photographic chemicals for, when added to distalled water. It's cheap, too.
I haven't used it myself in years, because I no longer live somewhere where well water (and well water with too much dissolved iron and sulfur to be good for photo processing, at that) is the norm. But if you want to be able to follow Kodak's recommendations for touchy processes like, say, E-6, with confidence, and you're using distilled water to mix the stock solutions, it's a really good idea (and it won't hurt to use it for black and white processing, either).
 Signature Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud
Richard Knoppow - 30 Oct 2004 19:46 GMT >> It's not necessarily a good idea to use distilled water >> to mix [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > somewhat cleaner and more free of dissolved air). What is > this product? I have also heard this but never seen any substantiation. Kodak _does_ make its products with the idea that less than ideal tap water is going to be used to mix them but the difference is in the use of buffering agents to compensate for water pH and the addition of sequestering agents to keep calcium and magnesium carbonates in the water from precipitating on the emulsion. Bottled drinking water has minerals in it for flavor. Really pure water tasts very flat as does completely de-aereated water. Water can be improved for photographic purposes by boiling it. Boil the water for about five minutes and allow it to sit and cool. Then syphon off the clear water. Boiling serves three purposes: it drives off dissolved gasses (like air and chlorine); it reduces temporary hardness by converting some of the dissolved carbonates into insoluble form. They then are deposited on the walls of the vessel or are precipitated and fall to the bottom of the vessel. It coagulates any organic matter which also is precipitated during cooling. The last is probably of no significance in city water systems but may be important for well water. Since Aluminum and copper can cause fogging its best to use a container of some other material for boiling. Boiling will NOT remove chloramines, currently used in many city water supplies in place of chlorine. This can be removed by the use of an activated charcoal filter like a Brita filter. Neither chlorine or chloramines appear to have any effect on photographic chemistry. Chlorine is destroyed by hypo. Dirty water is probably a worse problem in most places than the purity. A good water filter is helpful but even a coffee filter will help a lot. The use of a rinse of clean water after washing will remove dirt from dirty wash water. I suggest a rinse as follows:
Water to 1 liter Isopropyl alcohol, 99% 25 ml Kodak Photo Flo 2.5 ml (half strength)
70% Isopropyl rubbing alcohol can be used, the amount is then 35ml. Just make sure its just alcohol and water, not the kind with Oil of Wintergreen or other flavorings in it.
Soak the film in this for about two minutes and hang up to dry without sqeegeeing. Prints can be rinsed in plain clean water and squeegeed off with a soft sponge before drying.
 Signature --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com
LR Kalajainen - 31 Oct 2004 00:22 GMT In Paris, the tap water is full of calcium and leaves little mineral deposits all over the film. I solved the problem by giving the film a final rinse for 30 sec. or so in water to which I had added 1/2 tsp or so of water softening crystals along with Photo-Flo. This took care of the problem and I got clean negs. Here in Maine, I don't have that problem, and Photo-Flo in the final rinse does just fine by itself.
> > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >Prints can be rinsed in plain clean water and squeegeed off >with a soft sponge before drying. stefano bramato - 28 Oct 2004 22:55 GMT > Last, XTol is environment friendly, which adds to its interest. > > (I used Delta100, TMax100, HP5, and Foma 100 /T200 films in 120 rolls). > > Emmanuel Thanks Emmanuel for your words. Only one thing: I always used bottled low mineral water. maybe surely not better than demineralized water, but far far better than the normal water from home sink. And cost me about 1,30 Euro for 12 litres. Low low mineral water from the supermarket or home store.... It's damn good idea, isn't it?
Ciao, Stefano
 Signature Non ? bello cio che ? bello figuriamoci cio che ? brutto!
Ecolar - 02 Nov 2004 07:51 GMT Indeed, low mineral water is a great idea. My concern with tap water is the amount of chloride (easy to smell) which has constantly increased during the last 5 years and has reached a very high level since the anti-terror gouvernment actions in 2002 (I am living in Lyon, a major city in France... when I have a chance to spend a week-end in the Alps, the tap water is just perfect to drink and for developing films!). Cheers, Emmanuel
> > Last, XTol is environment friendly, which adds to its interest. > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > Non ? bello cio che ? bello figuriamoci cio che ? brutto! Donald Qualls - 02 Nov 2004 11:43 GMT > Indeed, low mineral water is a great idea. > My concern with tap water is the amount of chloride (easy to smell) which > has constantly increased during the last 5 years and has reached a very high > level since the anti-terror gouvernment actions in 2002 (I am living in > Lyon, a major city in France... when I have a chance to spend a week-end in > the Alps, the tap water is just perfect to drink and for developing films!). According to Kodak, at least, chlorine and chloramine in tap water (at least at levels permitted for drinking) don't have any effect on developers or development.
 Signature The challenge to the photographer is to command the medium, to use whatever current equipment and technology furthers his creative objectives, without sacrificing the ability to make his own decisions. -- Ansel Adams
Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer http://silent1.home.netcom.com
Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect.
Ecolar - 02 Nov 2004 15:33 GMT Then what could make the developments be more consistant using distilled water rather than tap water? I would be very curious to find the technical explaination (and then save on buying dist. water...) Thanks, Emmanuel
> > Indeed, low mineral water is a great idea. > > My concern with tap water is the amount of chloride (easy to smell) which [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth > and don't expect them to be perfect. John - 02 Nov 2004 16:31 GMT >Then what could make the developments be more consistant using distilled >water rather than tap water? You really don't need to use distilled water normally. As far as consistency, I would look elsewhere although you did indicate that you are using Xtol which is suspected to be sensitive to water quality. Have you considered using T-Max RS ?
Regards,
John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!
Donald Qualls - 02 Nov 2004 20:01 GMT > Then what could make the developments be more consistant using distilled > water rather than tap water? > I would be very curious to find the technical explaination (and then save on > buying dist. water...) Your tap water comes from a natural source of some sort -- here in the United States, most major cities get their water from a river or lake system (otherwise from systems of wells) with considerable treatment before it reaches consumer taps to ensure the water is biologically and chemically fit to drink. Those treatments, however, don't filter out seasonal changes in water composition (in some regions, water is harder in summer than in winter, or vice versa -- I forget which way it runs), or short-term changes. There can be chemicals from farm fertilizers, upstream sewage treatment or industrial effluent, and air pollution that gets washed into the watershed by rain, iron from rusty pipes, even lead from really old plumbing (the word "plumbing" comes from "plumbum", Latin for lead) -- and if the chemicals aren't considered hazardous in drinking water, the water won't be treated to remove them. If the chemicals enter the water after treatment (as is the case with most iron, copper, and lead impurities), there is no possibility of municipal treatment removing them. Very few drinking water systems are filtered as you and I think of filtering; it simply costs far too much to apply micron and carbon filtration to huge quantities of water, most of which will be used for laundry, showers, and flushing toilets instead of drinking anyway.
Distilled water is always the same, so it's absolutely consistent. Tap water isn't always the same (at least in some regions), so it can cause inconsistent development. Even though Kodak says chlorine and chloramine don't affect development, there can still be many other chemicals in water that do.
 Signature The challenge to the photographer is to command the medium, to use whatever current equipment and technology furthers his creative objectives, without sacrificing the ability to make his own decisions. -- Ansel Adams
Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer http://silent1.home.netcom.com
Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect.
John - 01 Nov 2004 09:04 GMT >Can someone help me? Few words are happily enough and well accepted!! Stick with the ID11. No need to change.If Ilford does go belly-up you can switch to D76 which is comparable to ID-11. HC110 is OK if you're using medium or large format but 35mm shows a little too much grain for my taste.
Regards,
John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email
stefano bramato - 02 Nov 2004 14:21 GMT > Stick with the ID11. No need to change.If Ilford does go > belly-up you can switch to D76 which is comparable to ID-11. HC110 is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org > Please remove the "_" when replying via email I happily stick with ID-11 or D-76; now I'm trying to make starting from raw chemicals this kinda soup.
In these days i'm trying also HC110 and Xtol extensively and deeply. And I'm receiveing good results with Ilfosol-S at 1+14.
thanks john. Your comments are very appreciated.
 Signature Non ? bello cio che ? bello figuriamoci cio che ? brutto! Ed io imparo.
|
|
|