 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / March 2006?HC-110 as a Print Developer?
Hi: Has anyone experimented with using HC-110 as a print developer? Regards. Bob McCarthy > Hi: Has anyone experimented with using HC-110 > as a print developer? Regards. Bob McCarthy My experience with film developers as print developers has brought me to believe that any will work well with paper. As a general rule those used with film are too slow and need an increase in activity. I allow up to five minutes for complete print development. Very recently I've been working with ACU-1. By a simple addition of a small amount of sodium carbonate times have been brought within five minutes. ACU-1 may be good for 48, 8 x 10s per liter of stock. I've a few more tests to make. Carbonated film developers such as FX-1 and Beutler's do not need any addition. Do some testing. Pick a film dilution then add 1 gram of carbonate to 250ml of solution. Good for 1, 8 x 10 or test with two 5 x 7s in half that solution. For myself I look for complete development within five minutes. There is a chance that at some dilution HC-110 needs no addition. You'll have to play around with it varying dilution and addition. Dan theyankeesnapper@aol.com spake thus: > Has anyone experimented with using HC-110 as a print developer? Sorry to sound like UC on this one, but my question is, why? What's wrong with Dektol or [insert name of favorite paper developer here]?  SignatureTo the arrogant putzes at NBC: Do we call the country Italia? Is its capital Roma? Were previous Olympics held in Moskva, Muenchen or Athine? Do we call it the "Shroud of Torino"? No! So learn to speak English already and call it Turin. - from someone's blog > theyankeesnapper@aol.com spake thus: > >> Has anyone experimented with using HC-110 as a print developer? > > Sorry to sound like UC on this one, but my question is, why? What's > wrong with Dektol or [insert name of favorite paper developer here]? About 1 oz HC110 syrup per quart + 1 tbs washing soda and you'll think you have Dektol. PATRICK GAINER spake thus: >> theyankeesnapper@aol.com spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > About 1 oz HC110 syrup per quart + 1 tbs washing soda and you'll think > you have Dektol. Again, why would I want to do that when I can just *buy Dektol*? Sheesh, you guys: "How to Turn your Acura into a Hynundai in Just 29 Easy Steps". SignatureTo the arrogant putzes at NBC: Do we call the country Italia? Is its capital Roma? Were previous Olympics held in Moskva, Muenchen or Athine? Do we call it the "Shroud of Torino"? No! So learn to speak English already and call it Turin. - from someone's blog > PATRICK GAINER spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Again, why would I want to do that when I can just *buy Dektol*? Because Dektol comes as a powder. Kodak's liquid paper developer concentrate, Polymax T, goes bad after a year. I didn't ask the question, but I'm intrigued and plan on trying it out. If HC-110 + washing soda works like Dektol, I have myself a new paper developer. HC-110 is convenient and the concentrate lasts a LOONNGG time. Patrick, do you know of any easy PC-TEA paper developer formula? > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Surely. If you have PC-TEA on hand, do it the same way as HC110. If you make the solution strong enough, you won't need the carbonate. You will probably want to add some bromide. HC110 has a bromide expedient built in. Many printers keep a bottle of bromide or BXT solution on hand. Sometimes you need more than others. > Sorry to sound like UC on this one, thats not an easily forgiveable offense. but my question is, why? What's > wrong with Dektol or [insert name of favorite paper developer here]? No wonder there are 5 people left on this newsgroup, plus UC. What does it matter why they have a question? Do you think the yankee doesnt know about Dektol? Why do people have to explain their motivation, septic systems and chemistry training just to ask a simple question here these days? Kudos to Joe.... Last week I ran out of paper developer and wondered if the HC-110 would work. Many thanks to Patrick, I'm going to try his suggestion this coming weekend. Regards. Bob McCarthy > Last week I ran out of paper developer and wondered > if the HC-110 would work. Many thanks to Patrick, I'm > going to try his suggestion this coming weekend. > > Regards. Bob McCarthy "Many thanks to Patrick, ..." I'm miffed! Who first this thread mentioned adding sodium carbonate? And in some detail the converting of any film developer into a paper developer? Use bicarbonate of soda, sodium bicarbonate, to convert paper developers into film developers. I've not tried it, but it should work. Mr. Gainer may have given it a try. He is an inveterate experimenter. Dan Kudos to Joe.... Last week I ran out of paper developer and wondered if the HC-110 would work. Many thanks to Patrick and Dan, I'm going to try their suggestion this coming weekend. 8=). Regards. Bob McCarthy > > Sorry to sound like UC on this one, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > systems and chemistry training just to ask a simple question here these > days? Because most of these 'questions' are a waste of our time! > Because most of these 'questions' are a waste of our time! Rofl. Answering questions with questions is a waste of OUR time. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not really. It's a waste of his time. I'm wasting my time pointing this out. That's all right. Time is all I have to waste. It's been done, a bit expensive, but lasts a long time as concentrate so might be OK if you don't want to keep partial bottles of different developers around. I would try Dil. A (only to keep processing times down). Signaturedarkroommike > Hi: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bob McCarthy > I would try Dil. A (only to keep processing times down). > darkroommike I see by one source a 3ml minimum per roll of 120 whatever the dilution. If so there is certainly enough chemistry in 3ml of concentrate to fully develop an 8 x 10 print. To test, process one-shot using dilution F and a solution volume of 250ml. Add some carbonate, split the 250 into 2, 125s, and test with 2, 5 x 7 sheets. Note the time for first emergence; induction time. I test for 3 and 5 minutes to ensure complete development. Ballpark-on-the-light-side exposures are best for these tests as complete development is easier to see. If I see little increase in density at 5 minutes over 3 then 5 is enough. A bit more Na2CO3 and/or concentrate and 3 minutes will do. All that to make high mileage of the chemistry. Dan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.