Down the Road

Photographs and stories by Jim Grey

Since 2007

Another go with LegacyPro L110 developer

Jim Grey
45 comments on Another go with LegacyPro L110 developer
3 minutes
, , , ,

I’m not loving Arista EDU 200 in LegacyPro L110 developer, a Kodak HC-110 clone. This time, my fixer was starting to exhaust. It affected the whole roll to varying extents. But a handful of photos turned out all right enough, and I’m willing to make my claim based on them. Next time I use L110, I’m choosing a different film.

Tree by the pond

At least I had a good time with my Pentax ME and its 50mm f/1.7 SMC Pentax-M lens. Shooting the ME always brings me a little joy. Before the pandemic and the stay-at-home order, I’d been shooting my 35mm f/2.8 lens most of the time. I work in Downtown Indianapolis and that wider lens lets me get more in the frame without having to step into the busy street. But here in the vinyl village there’s plenty of room to roam. 50mm is perfect.

In the vinyl village

These are the best of the images from several lunchtime walks around my neighborhood. I just shot whatever. The shooting itself was therapeutic. I still have my vinyl-village project in mind, so whatever I shot I tried to grab lots of surrounding context.

What road?

Arista EDU 200 develops mighty fast in L110. Using Dilution B, 1:31, it develops in 3:30. My meager experience tells me that development times of under 5 minutes are not a great idea — there’s so little margin for timing error. Last time I worked around this by using Dilution E, 1:47. I didn’t love the results. This time I used Dilution H, 1:63. To get enough developer into the tank that it wouldn’t exhaust before developing finished, I had to use my 500ml tank rather than my 290ml tank.

Fence

The photo forums say that HC-110 (and I presume its clones) work well with Tri-X, HP5+, FP4+ — films with a traditional grain structure. Too bad I don’t have any of those films on hand. Arista EDU 200, which is Fomapan 200 in disguise, has more of a tabular grain structure I gather.

In the vinyl village

I’m realizing I’m still on my film-developing learning curve. I had only just started to get repeatable, decent results from Rodinal when I decided to plunge into L110. I’m so impulsive. I should have stuck with Rodinal until I mastered it.

In the vinyl village

My goal was to be able to develop a roll of Adox HR-50 I’m shooting. Rodinal is not recommended for that film; the Massive Dev Chart doesn’t even list this combo. After our discussion in the comments on my last L110 post, I ordered the Adox HR-DEV developer that is meant for HR-50 film. That ought to lead to the best possible results.

Pipeline

If you’re thinking, “What’s he bellyaching about? These are fine” — well, I don’t disagree with you. I’m not showing you the ones that didn’t work out at all, however.

2" or More

I need to shoot up some film that’s expired but, since the garage fridge died, I can’t store cold anymore. I have a roll of original-emulsion Agfa APX100 left, and from what I hear that film was made for Rodinal. A reader sent me a roll of Arista Premium 100, which is said to be repackaged Kodak Plus-X. I’ve seen some samples of Plus-X in Rodinal in the forums and I love the look. I also have one last roll of Ferrania P30 Alpha to shoot. I tried that film in Rodinal before but the Rodinal was, surprisingly, exhausted. I’d like to give that film another go in fresh Rodinal.

Get more of my photography in your inbox or reader! Click here to subscribe.

Comments

45 responses to “Another go with LegacyPro L110 developer”

  1. Andy Umbo Avatar
    Andy Umbo

    Jim, I don’t know why you should have exhausted fixer….I’ve used Kodak Rapid fix (with the hardener for film) for decades , mixed in distilled water, and I was able to easily process a professional level of film (25-30 rolls of 120, 25 sheets of 4X5 per month) over a few months period without getting close to exhaustion. If you aren’t using this stuff, changing to it would be a suggestion.

    The only other suggestion I could give you is that in the olden days, HC-110 worked great with Tri-X, but I used it mostly with sheet film and stuck with replenished D-76 for roll film. I will tell you that I remember HC-110 being pretty ugly and “unrecommended” (by Kodak) with a lot of medium speed films. Kodak always advertised HC-110 as a “liquid D-76”, but it wasn’t and did not have the high quality image level with all types of films. If you’re sold on liquid developers, a film change may yield entirely different results.

    I know you like the liquid format for simplicity, but I still cannot stress enough the beauty and dependability of mixing powdered D-76 and using it full strength with replenishment (with your volume, I’d use it straight and dump it). Also way better full strength than the 1:3 version. Way better shadows…

    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/27631-REG/Kodak_1464106_Rapid_Fixer_Solutions_A.html

    Reply
    1. Jim Grey Avatar
      Jim Grey

      I don’t understand why my fixer exhausted either. I use Kodafix, and I was only on my fifth roll of the current working solution. I mixed fresh the next roll and all was well.

      I’ve stayed away from D-76 because you have to buy so much at a time. The envelope makes a gallon! It would take me five years to go through that. I have just discovered, however, that the Film Photography Project sells a D-76 clone in quantity to make a liter of solution. That seems better.

      I have zero interest in messing with replenishers. I want to do one-shot development. My volume is very low — about 2 rolls a month — and I want to keep things simple.

      Reply
      1. Andy Umbo Avatar
        Andy Umbo

        BTW, B&H won’t ship the Kodak Rapid Fix with hardener, store pick-up only, but Free Style Photo will and it’s only about a buck more than B&H. Yeah, I was suggesting you don’t replenish and use D-76 straight and dump it, I know you have a low volume.

        Because of my volume, I’ve been on a search for labs that do processing and proofing ONLY (even if it’s by request), and I’m amazed it’s almost impossible to find at any rate, much less a reasonable one; and the quality level is appalling (and no telephone numbers to call them)! I think the “junior” processing personnel think they can drag your film through a scanner gate and no matter how much they scratch it up, it won’t be a problem on the digital file. I do NOT want scanning services because of this poor and reckless handling.

        The NEG is the thing, and it’s always been the thing,

        Reply
        1. Jim Grey Avatar
          Jim Grey

          It’s funny, Andy, I’ve been having thoughts lately about whether I want to keep my negatives or not. I know, it’s the true archival record of each photograph. But I work exclusively with the scans. I don’t imagine a time when I’ll have a true home darkroom to make prints. Now that I’m developing my own, I’ll definitely be honing my technique to get negatives that make good scans, not good prints.

          I’d want to rescan some negatives where the lab I used delivered skinty resolution, like 1500 px on the long side. You can’t do much more than a 5×7 print of those scans.

          Reply
        2. P Avatar
          P

          Jim, please hang onto your negatives. Otherwise, you’ll likely regret it someday, even if you’re currently satisfied with the quality of the scans you have from them (despite there always being way more information in the negative). Plus, what happens if/when your HDD fails and you don’t have a backup on another drive, or a RAID array set up. Nothing can make data loss an impossibility. And when it’s gone, it’s gone.

          Reply
        3. Jim Grey Avatar
          Jim Grey

          I’m still thinking through my stance on this. So conversations like this help me process my thinking. I appreciate them.

          As for backups of my scans, I have a second hard drive that shadows my main drive. It saved my bacon 3 years ago when my main drive took a dump and needed to be replaced.

          The one thing my backup system doesn’t protect me against is a house fire or destruction by tornado. But then, if either of those things happen my negatives are toast as well.

          Eventually I’ll get Internet with a good enough upload speed that I can back up my files in the cloud. That’s the best loss protection available right now.

          Reply
        4. tbm3fan Avatar
          tbm3fan

          Don’t ever get rid of negatives! Is that a strong enough emphasis?

          Reply
          1. Jim Grey Avatar
            Jim Grey

            I should do a post on this and encourage a larger conversation about it!

            Reply
  2. P Avatar
    P

    These didn’t turn out bad at all, Jim. Good job.

    I do think Fomapan 200 is probably better suited to Rodinal, or any other high acutance developer for that matter, rather than HC-110. And I know I’m a broken record, but with basically any off-the-shelf developer you really are better off exposing Fomapan 200 at two-thirds to one full stop slower than box speed and developing normally.

    That said, if you want to give HC-110 and Fomapan 200 (exposed at 200) another shot, you could also try a more dilute solution of HC-110 (dilution E or H would probably work fine — I wouldn’t use B) with reduced agitation (maybe agitate at two to three minute intervals) and extend your developing time by 25-50% (you’ll have to experiment) to get more pronounced edge effects/acutance/perceived sharpness — or visual “pop” — while also likely gaining just a little bit of film speed, resulting in better shadow detail without blowing your highlights. I’ve never done this, but it would be an interesting experiment, and could potentially get you results closer to what you desire.

    You seem to imply that T-Grain emulsions are not a good match for HC-110. I think a lot of people would disagree with that. I think T-MAX 100 and 400, as well as P3200, and ACROS all look amazing when properly developed in HC-110. In fact, I prefer all of them in HC-110 to D-76 or other developers with a lot of solvent activity. I feel like modern emulsions were made to be super sharp, and using solvent developers kind of defeats the purpose, especially if you’re not darkroom printing. The higher the dilution of HC-110, the less solvent activity it has.

    I suggested previously that, if you want a 200 speed film for everyday shooting, maybe you should just shoot TRI-X at 200 with little to no change in normal development, or shoot T-MAX 400 at 200 and pull it in development. Since then I’ve been thinking, and another option, especially if you want finer grain and a decent amount of contrast in the negatives, is to just shoot T-MAX 100 at 200 anytime you’re feeling in a 200 mood, and develop it normally in HC-110. After all, Kodak’s own literature says to process TMX normally if shooting at 200. There’s no need for push-processing unless you expose it at 400 or 800. I just thought I’d throw that out there. In addition, I’d actually expect TMX negatives exposed at 200 and developed normally would scan extremely well since they’d have slightly reduced overall density. I think you recently bought some 120 TMX so if you want to try this out, I think you already have what you need to do so.

    With your low volume of film developing, I really wouldn’t recommend D-76 at all. You might use it a handful of times, and then it would be dead. Even if perfectly stored in a full bottle, it really can’t be trusted beyond six months, and I wouldn’t trust it past four. And if the bottle isn’t filled to the brim with zero air in it, the developer will probably be dead in two months or less. I don’t know about everyone else, but after going through the aggravation of mixing a stock solution of a powder developer, having it be worthless in less than six months time when only a few rolls of film have been put through it is just irritating. Plus, economically, it makes zero sense for low volume use. For the average user, liquid concentrates make far more sense. That’s why they dominate the market.

    Best of luck!

    Reply
    1. Jim Grey Avatar
      Jim Grey

      I have one roll left of the Arista EDU 200 and I’ll shoot it at 125 and see what happens.

      I wasn’t implying HC-110 isn’t good for T-grain films as much as I was reporting what I read in the forums. The forums are dangerous, though, as every guy with a developing tank has formed his opinions and appears willing to fight to the death for them in the forums. I should try T-Max 400 in L110. I have a few rolls of it around here.

      I did not know that Kodak gives the same dev times for T-Max 100 shot at both EI 100 and EI 200. That makes T-Max 100 a lot more interesting to me.

      I did recently try HC-110 with a roll of 120 Tri-X that expired in 1981. That went pretty well, all things considering.

      It would be supremely frustrating to mix up a liter of D-76 and then have it go bad after a few months.

      Reply
      1. P Avatar
        P

        Haha, yes, forums are a dangerous place indeed. I’m trying hard not to just be “another guy with a developing tank” down in your comments section. Instead, I’m doing my best to just throw a bunch of suggestions out there that might make sense for you based on your wants (e.g. a true 200 speed everyday film stock), needs (e.g. simplicity of developing for low volume throughput), and style of shooting/developing (inferred from prior discussions and the aesthetic of images that seem to please you the most). If nothing else, I’m just trying to limit the frustration you face in your film developing ventures. I know firsthand how aggravating it can be to go through the effort and not get the results you’re after. That’s no fun.

        Reply
        1. Jim Grey Avatar
          Jim Grey

          I can tell, and I appreciate it. I’m unlikely to turn into a fellow who loves processing for its own sake. After six months or so it is still 100% a means to an end for me and I want to dial in my chemicals and technique fast so I can just get on with shooting.

          Reply
      2. Andy Umbo Avatar
        Andy Umbo

        I really don’t want to get into a harangue about T-Grain films, but as a professional, never needed them and didn’t want them; and I knew a lot of professionals that thought the same when they were introduced. Too much grain? Use a slower speed or a larger format! The way T-grain films changed the grey scale compared to regular films (especially in the face tones), made them a non-starter for most; and even more importantly, if you read the Kodak literature, the processing agitation had to change, among other things, and hey, why do it if you are happy with, and getting repeatable results with, what you have?

        The main reason I bring this up, is that when T-films were introduced, Kodak published equivalent times for standard developers, but highly recommended the actual T Film developers, as well as the specialized agitation. Again, why change for me, but they said that T films could only reach maximum potential with the correct developer. I actually went to a roll out by Kodak Tech Reps about this in Chicago…we were all “Ho-hum”.

        I have to laugh about the “pixel peepers” on the forums. They were there at photo clubs and the like prior to digital, and always recommending a system they discovered where using battery acid, that an old sock was floating in for a week, was the ultimate developer!

        Reply
  3. Nigel Kell Avatar
    Nigel Kell

    Well, the ones you’ve shown look a lot better! Fixer is a bit of a mystery; mine seems to work till long after I should have chucked it out………
    Is D-76 not available in 1 litre packs over there? It is in the UK.
    Oh, and did you rate the film at 200?

    Reply
    1. Jim Grey Avatar
      Jim Grey

      One clue about the fixer came when I was looking up stuff in response to Andy Umbo’s comment above. It’s possible I might not have the ratio of fixer to water right. Kodak says to mix Kodafix to water 1:3 and I think my solution is more dilute than that. I’m not sure where I got the info from when I mixed my solution. I’ll double check the recommended dilution and mix a fresh batch of fixer to it when I next develop a roll.

      D-76 is, frustratingly, not available in 1L packs in the US. The Film Photography Project’s store does offer a D-76 clone in 1L packs though.

      I did rate the film at 200. Next time I’ll rate it at 125.

      Reply
      1. P Avatar
        P

        I know this conversation has been ongoing for decades, but the usage of “:” by film companies when what is meant is “+” causes unneeded confusion. When Kodak says 1:3, they mean 1+3, or one part chemical plus three parts water for a total of four parts. 1:3, mathematically, and in the field of chemistry, would usually indicate a ratio of one to three, or 1/3, or 33%, which is really the equivalent of 1+2. There’s just no need for the confusion caused by manufacturers of film chemistry using a semicolon like they do. All that said, with Kodafix, if you’re mixing up a full gallon, you just dump the entire quart bottle of Kodafix concentrate into a gallon jug and fill the rest with water. If you’re mixing a quart, you use 8 ounces (one part) of Kodafix plus 24 ounces (three parts) of water for a total of 32 ounces (four parts total), which of course is a quart. And so on…

        Reply
        1. P Avatar
          P

          Oops, that should say “colon,” not “semicolon.”

          Reply
        2. Jim Grey Avatar
          Jim Grey

          For reals, when Kodak says 1:3 they mean 1+3? Argh!

          At a dilution like 1+63, doing a true 1:63 instead probably doesn’t matter. But a true 1:3 is very different from 1+3!!

          I tend to mix fixer 500ml at a time.

          Reply
        3. P Avatar
          P

          Yeah, it’s a mess. If you see “:” just replace it in your mind with a “+”.

          Yep, so if you’re mixing up 500 mL at a time, you’ll obviously want 125 mL of Kodafix plus 375 mL of water, for 500 mL total of 1+3 (1:3 as confusingly written by Kodak) working solution.

          Reply
        4. Andy Umbo Avatar
          Andy Umbo

          This is where I pop-in and say, I’ve been processing films since I was 14 (sometime in the late 60’s), and no one ever confused what the colon meant. It’s always meant “one part to three parts”. Or one part to whatever. What’s happening is there’s multiple generations of “lost lore” associated with photographic learning, and there are “newbies” that are trying to apply information from other disciplines to analog photography. The colon has been there since time immemorial.

          For about 6 months after I retired, I tried to chime in and correct the almost unstoppable misinformation associated with old cameras, and old processes, that is promoted by enthusiastic youngsters that are making this stuff up as they go along, and drawing correlations to information that turns out wildly incorrect. After a 50 year professional career, using virtually any camera you ever heard of, and sometimes mixing all sorts of chemicals from scratch, there’s only so many times you can be told by a twenty-something that you don’t know what you’re talking about!

          I thought I could work forever, but I am soooo-so glad I’m retired!

          Reply
        5. Jim Grey Avatar
          Jim Grey

          Andy, I’m educated as a mathematician, and in that world 1:3 means one in three parts, or 1+2. So I’ve been confused by this all along.

          Reply
        6. P Avatar
          P

          Jim, yes, there’s no doubt, that’s what it means. In the maths, sciences, and engineering that’s what it’s always meant. The field of chemistry is not excluded. And when dealing with film chemistry, well, we’re dealing with chemistry… So Andy, we’re not mixing disciplines. It’s the same discipline. Chemistry is chemistry. Math is math. The literature from Kodak and many others who opt to use a colon is very misleading, and pointlessly so. I’ve seen tons of people who have been thrown off by this. It is possible some of the “lost lore” and deep-rooted traditions of the past in the world of film were just plain wrong. And I’m sure tradition is exactly why we still have a colon being used today. That doesn’t make it correct.

          Reply
        7. Andy Umbo Avatar
          Andy Umbo

          P, you are arguing against commonly understood notation about a working system that has been in place for decades because it doesn’t match the agreed on notation you’ve known from another system (I have photographic lab books from the 30’s that use this notation). Nobody ever trained or mentored in analog photo chemistry ever had any problem understanding it. I appreciate the fact that you’ve come along and said we’ve been doing it wrong for over 100 years now, and you are correct and we better change.

          Reply
        8. Andy Umbo Avatar
          Andy Umbo

          BTW P, Wolfram’s Math World has seven different meanings for the colon, the first being ratio or odds voiced as “two to one”.

          https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Colon.html

          Reply
          1. Jim Grey Avatar
            Jim Grey

            I can’t believe we are arguing about this.

            Reply
        9. P Avatar
          P

          Jim, neither can I. The funny thing is Andy just proved my point by citing what he did. The use of a colon as a ratio as shown in the link he provided is saying exactly what I’ve been saying this entire time, as well as yourself and countless others over the decades that found Kodak’s literature to cause unnecessary confusion.

          Andy, click on the word ratio in that first definition at your link and you’ll discover the following:

          “The ratio of two numbers r and s is written r:s, where r is the numerator and s is the denominator. The ratio of r to s is equivalent to the quotient r/s.”

          Andy, that’s precisely what Jim and I stated it meant. It is not in agreement with the notation you’re advocating.

          I never told anybody they had to change. Everyone is free to use whatever notation they want. But at the end of the day, a “:” is at the very least confusing (and yes, I would say it’s actually wrong), while a “+” is entirely explicit and has no chance of causing confusion.

          I hope that clears things up, Andy.

          Take care, everyone.

          Reply
      2. Nigel Kell Avatar
        Nigel Kell

        Love the comment on forums (fora?). I tend to think if everyone is doing something different, there probably isn’t a “right way” to do it. Just pick one method and stick to it!
        They look pretty good at 200. A tad more exposure might not be a bad thing, though.
        Never used Kodafix; you didn’t use the paper dilution, did you? I’ve done that with another fixer, though in my defence the package labelling wasn’t very clear……. (Makes one litre! For papers in very small letters. Film 750ml)

        Reply
        1. Jim Grey Avatar
          Jim Grey

          I might have used the paper dilution. I’ll pitch my current batch of fix and make more next time, at label directions for film.

          Reply
  4. tbm3fan Avatar
    tbm3fan

    You should have shown one or two that didn’t work out so we could see what you are talking about. The good and the bad are both things that can be learned from. Since you tried a clone of HC-110 why not try a clone of D-76 called FFP76 and you can make it 1000ml at a time. I agree 1 gal. of D-76 can be hard to get through which is why I liked the 1 quart bags which I bought all I found on eBay some years ago. Have even written Kodak about the need for 1 quart bags.

    My one experience with HC-100 and Tri-X was very grainy while D-76 never was. So I am sticking with D-76 for all my Kodak films. Might try Microdol-X one day as I have some stock of that just to experiment. The only other developer in my bag is now Rodinal which worked well with supposedly old Agfa clone and I have 67 rolls of original Agfapan and APX. Fixer I have on hand is Ilford Rapid Fixer.

    Reply
    1. Jim Grey Avatar
      Jim Grey

      I got a lot of blocked up shadows and faded edges, like this:

      Tree and Shadow

      I could try the FPP76. I’m not excited about having to keep air out of the bottle to keep it from dying fast. But one envelope will give me the experience I seek.

      I have one roll of original Agfa APX100 left. I’m planning on developing it in Rodinal. I hear the two were made for each other.

      Reply
      1. P Avatar
        P

        Jim, I meant to mention it and forgot — If you ever do just really, really want to try D-76 but don’t want to mix up a full gallon, then FPP76 isn’t your only option in smaller one liter packets. Ilford ID-11 is effectively D-76 (for all intents and purposes it works identically), it comes in both one and five liter options, and you may be able to find it cheaper than the FPP clone, especially if you have a local camera shop that sells Ilford chemistry (perhaps Roberts?), which would allow you to eliminate shipping costs. Even though for your low volume use I think mixing up a powder developer only to have it be dead soon after would only cause you frustration, I did want to mention this just in case you decide you want the experience.

        Still, if you’re after the results you’ve previously received from labs, I’d just recommend getting a bottle of Clayton F76 Plus and calling it a day. After all, it is the exact developer in use by virtually all of the primary labs you’ve been using for B&W work the last couple of years, and I’d say it’s at least as good as D-76 in terms of image quality, if not better. It was designed to nearly identically mimic the qualities of D-76, even though it’s a PQ developer, not an MQ developer. But that actually makes it safer since metol is known to cause serious issues for a lot of people. And being a liquid concentrate it’s obviously far less grief, and safer still. I can’t say for sure, but it’ll probably last a little longer than stock D-76 too.

        By the way, it’s my observation that most labs these days are not using Kodak D-76 as their primary developer. Instead, if they’re using Kodak chemistry at all, it seems they’ve switched to replenished XTOL (which I think is a far better developer than D-76, by the way; obviously they agree). But most labs that I’m aware of have opted for liquid concentrates from other manufacturers and stopped mixing powders altogether.

        Reply
        1. Jim Grey Avatar
          Jim Grey

          Thanks for the tip about ID-11 and Clayton F-76. I’ll make a mental note to have a look later, after I’ve used up the L-110.

          A software engineer who works for me used to run a film lab in Utah. As you can imagine, we have fun conversations. He used XTOL in it, and it remains his personal go-to developer. Hm, I wonder if he’d sell me prepared XTOL in small quantities!

          Reply
        2. P Avatar
          P

          Sure thing, Jim. If I can possibly be of any help with anything else, just let me know. I’m by no means an expert, but at this point I have done a fair amount of my own research/testing and maybe I can save you some of the grief I’ve dealt with in the process.

          I bet you guys do have fun conversations! That’s really cool that a previous film lab operator works for you. Considering XTOL is only sold in packets to make five liters he may very well let you take some of it off his hands, especially if he’s not running a replenished system. Five liters is a lot of developer, and that’s the stock solution. Most people who use it one shot actually dilute it 1+1, so those five liters become ten liters of working solution (some even use it 1+2 or 1+3)! In my stainless tanks, that’ll develop forty rolls of 35mm or twenty of 120! And XTOL is very, very good stuff. Let me know if you work something out and get your hands on some.

          Reply
        3. Jim Grey Avatar
          Jim Grey

          Yes, my colleague says that XTOL really is marketed to labs, who will go through it fast enough. Thank you for your perspective and advice! It is helping me make shortcuts to a repeatable and predictable development process.

          Reply
  5. seatacphoto1951 Avatar
    seatacphoto1951

    I use collapsible storage bottles which help somewhat in keeping developers fresh.

    Reply
    1. Jim Grey Avatar
      Jim Grey

      Do those work well for you? I’ve heard mixed reviews.

      Reply
      1. seatacphoto1951 Avatar
        seatacphoto1951

        Mine are from Samigon which is not the best brand but I have had no problems with them. The only downside is that the bottle can only collapse to 500ml (1 litre bottle) but that is still good.

        Reply
  6. bodegabayf2 Avatar
    bodegabayf2

    I was lucky when I started out many many years ago. The guy I bought my darkroom gear from gave me brown glass jugs with masking tape on each bottle: “D-76 Developer 1+3″ or Dektol Developer 1+2”, etc. The plus signs stuck in my head.

    Reply
    1. Jim Grey Avatar
      Jim Grey

      I wish I had a connection for a small bottle of D-76 1+3. I’d think there’d be a market for that.

      Reply
      1. tbm3fan Avatar
        tbm3fan

        I use Bloxygen to display air on the surface by leaving an inert gas. Same principle with paint in cans. A little water on top of water base or some mineral spirits on top of oil based then you can prevent skinning caused by air. I also definitely need it for hardener catalysts for urethane automotive paint.

        Reply
    2. P Avatar
      P

      Plus signs are undoubtedly the way to go.

      Reply
  7. Richard Novak Avatar
    Richard Novak

    Jim – several comments. The pictures you posted are very nice. I’ve used HC-110 with TMAX and I think it works just fine with tabular emulsions. I use HC110 for most development now (dilutions B through H), though I didn’t get good results with the one roll of Fomapan I did. I used to note dilutions as “X:Y” but because of the confusion that can cause I always use the notation “X+Y” as it is clearer to most people. If you want to mix smaller amounts of things like D76 or Xtol, consider making your own formulas, it is not that hard. I make my own phenidone – vitamin C – borax formula now to play with when I’m not using HC110. Of course, I am a chemical engineer, so I’m used to doing chemistry. Finally, I developed my own method of using rapid fixer concentrate (like Ilford Rapid Fixer) that is a one-shot system. With this method, you never have to worry about your fixer becoming unexpectedly exhausted and affecting your results. Some people just mix fresh fixer solution for every roll and then toss it, but I thought that was wasteful. Other people suggest doing clip tests to monitor the bath capacity, but I thought that was tedious. So I developed this method that gives the consistent assured results of one-shot solutions combined with the economy of the traditional “reuse until exhausted” approach. The trade off is my method requires fixing in two baths in sequence, for a total time of 10 or 15 minutes (cubic or tabular grain films), rather than the 3-5 minutes in a single reusable bath of rapid fixer. If you want to see how to do it, read the “1-2-Fix” document I posted here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10r6jWmzFcsXlgu5-PNeSU39tWMJqhU6z?usp=sharing

    Reply
    1. Jim Grey Avatar
      Jim Grey

      Richard, the more I use L110 the more I like it. It may replace Rodinal as my developer of choice.

      The more I home develop Fomapan 200 the more I think I might have to pass this film by. The labs I use do great work with it, which says to me that this film probably responds well to D-76. But I’m not terribly interested in using D-76 for a few reasons.

      I, too, feel that mixing and tossing fixer for each roll is wasteful. But I’m not at all interested in strip testing. What I’m doing right now is using each batch of fixer five times and then tossing it. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

      Reply
      1. Richard Novak Avatar
        Richard Novak

        I’m not sure what a “batch” is for you, but it sounds like reusing 5 times you are confident that the fixer has plenty of capacity left, so yes that sounds like a good compromise. The method I developed is less of a compromise, but it is a bit more complicated and takes more time. There are many roads to the same destination. Back in the days when I had a darkroom and made wet prints, I always used fresh fixer just once for film, then poured that fixer solution into another jar for use as print fixer. That way every film was fixed in absolutely fresh fixer, and it was not wasteful since I used the fixer to exhaustion in making prints (where you could monitor results under the safelight). Even then I always used a two-bath fixing system for prints to insure adequate fixing. I think that was an even better practice, but I no longer do prints so came up with something new. Enjoy your blog, look forward to more, thanks very much.

        Reply
        1. Jim Grey Avatar
          Jim Grey

          I generally process one roll at a time. I might do two at a time, in 35mm, if I happen to shoot two of the same film in a row. So five developing sessions is all I’m currently giving my fixer — seems like a reasonable compromise. It’s unlikely to exhaust in that time, but I’ve also gotten enough use out of it that it is not a total waste to throw it out.

          Your method of using fixer once for film and then to exhaustion for prints is a good one.

          Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: