[Cerebum]

I used the Bellini version, Euro110 and it was brilliant, so I assumed the Kodak original would be just as good. Based on my experience, it isn't. All the negatives developed in the Kodak were significantly thinner than the equivalent film in the Bellini. The Kodak is a new formula that is supposed to be identical to the original. Has anyone here used it and do you have a magic formula? Or do I need to keep adding 10% until I get a result I like

[JohnMc]

You should always plan on testing new material/combinations to get what you like. A color checker or color separation guide or the like as standard reference and 3/5 shot snip tests is what I did. If you have a good darkroom it's easy to get 5 or more snips off a 36exp roll, and HC110 is fairly robust so one tanks worth will hold well for the tests.

[Cerebum]

You should always plan on testing new material/combinations to get what you like. A color checker or color separation guide or the like as standard reference and 3/5 shot snip tests is what I did. If you have a good darkroom it's easy to get 5 or more snips off a 36exp roll, and HC110 is fairly robust so one tanks worth will hold well for the tests.

Snip tests would be the best idea
but I don't have a dark room, just a dark bag and a kitchen sink. What I amplanning on doing is making short rolls and adjusting my times. The thin negatives are quote scanable so nothing is lost, it is just a bit disappointing when it comes out of the tank

[disconnekt]

The "new new" version should show "Made in Germany for Sino-Promise" on the label, which from what Ive read is the same/nearly identical to the older version made by Tentenal. No idea who makes the Bellini verison or if they just rebadge Kodak's HC110 bottles into smaller bottles

[tuco]

Do you use Kodak's development agitation profile?

[JohnMc]

Snip tests would be the best idea
but I don't have a dark room, just a dark bag and a kitchen sink. What I amplanning on doing is making short rolls and adjusting my times. The thin negatives are quote scanable so nothing is lost, it is just a bit disappointing when it comes out of the tank

It's good when there's still some magic in the can. You could do it with a changing bag should you desire and have a large bag and good eye hand coordination. Only thing additional really would be a template for measuring. Rolling you your own shorts is good too. Just do an adequate series with a reliable reference and lighting conditions you aim to shoot with.

[Cerebum]

Do you use Kodak's development agitation profile?

Oh, I haven't come across that. I have used the standard 10 seconds per minute and the Rollei recommended five seconds every thirty. What's the Kodak one?
Edit: good old Google. I read the data sheet for tri-x. Increasing the number of agitations is going to be a good place to start as the impact will be less dramatic, and I don't want drama it is strange how it suggests you tap first and how it suggests vigorous agitations. Thanks Tuco

---------- Post added 08-12-22 at 12:09 AM ----------

The "new new" version should show "Made in Germany for Sino-Promise" on the label, which from what Ive read is the same/nearly identical to the older version made by Tentenal. No idea who makes the Bellini verison or if they just rebadge Kodak's HC110 bottles into smaller bottles

The Bellini version is clear. They claim it is reformulated to behave the same as the original. I found it worked beautifully with the recommended development times off the data sheets. It also gave tremendous results with long expired film. The down side is it is 25% more expensive than the Kodak. My HC110 is made in Germany for sino promise as you suggested so its the new stuff

---

Last edited by Cerebum; 12-08-2022 at 12:28 AM.

[Cerebum]

Well @Tuco you seemed to have found the answer. The Kodak agitation scheme gave me a nice, dark leader and the negatives look more contrasty. This is XP2 shot at 200 & developed for 7mins at 20°c. The first one was standard agitation, 10secs every minute, the second was five inversions every thirty seconds. It certainly keeps you busy.

[tuco]

Well @Tuco you seemed to have found the answer. The Kodak agitation scheme gave me a nice, dark leader and the negatives look more contrasty.

Tapping the tank part is to release possible air bubbles on the film. T-Max films have yet a recommended slightly more vigorous agitation profile too (extra inversion per cycle). The 10 seconds every minute is Ilford's agitation profile. Kodak and Ilford published development times are derived from their particular agitation profile, of course. The difference between Kodak and Ilford's profile is about 10-15% in the end results. Also note published development times can target the contrast index of a diffusion enlarger, condenser enlarger or in between. That is, if you have a condenser enlarger and the posted development time is for a diffusion enlarger, you would reduce your development time by about 15%

A one-degree spot meter and a densitometer are the tools of the trade that can help you master your exposure and development times. Given a development time that is in the ballpark, your metered exposure will determine the deepest shadow you will capture and your development time will place how high in density the highlights will be (within limits of course).


EDIT: I'd note Fuji has yet a another variation for their agitation profile. Next time you consult the Massive Dev Chart, note if the person bothered to document what agitation profile they used.

[Cerebum]

Tapping the tank part is to release possible air bubbles on the film. T-Max films have yet a recommended slightly more vigorous agitation profile too (extra inversion per cycle). The 10 seconds every minute is Ilford's agitation profile. Kodak and Ilford published development times are derived from their particular agitation profile, of course. The difference between Kodak and Ilford's profile is about 10-15% in the end results. Also note published development times can target the contrast index of a diffusion enlarger, condenser enlarger or in between. That is, if you have a condenser enlarger and the posted development time is for a diffusion enlarger, you would reduce your development time by about 15%

A one-degree spot meter and a densitometer are the tools of the trade that can help you master your exposure and development times. Given a development time that is in the ballpark, your metered exposure will determine the deepest shadow you will capture and your development time will place how high in density the highlights will be (within limits of course).


EDIT: I'd note Fuji has yet a another variation for their agitation profile. Next time you consult the Master Dev Chart, note if the person bothered to document what agitation profile they used.

Brilliant info. I don't think I have ever seen named agitation profiles. All my saved hc110 times will now have Kodak agitation profile added. Is it quite obscure? Until you mentioned it I had never heard of it

[Pioneer]

If I am not mistaken this information is part of their film data sheets. If you have never read them then you are missing out on some of the best insomnia treatment available.

Just joking. Those data sheets are valuable information and should always be available. I have a whole binder of Kodak, Ilford and other company's film data sheets. I also have the instructions for all my Jobo equipment and other developing gear. Very useful.

[Cerebum]

If I am not mistaken this information is part of their film data sheets. If you have never read them then you are missing out on some of the best insomnia treatment available.

Just joking. Those data sheets are valuable information and should always be available. I have a whole binder of Kodak, Ilford and other company's film data sheets. I also have the instructions for all my Jobo equipment and other developing gear. Very useful.

Hahahahaha, yeah, gripping aren't they I have data sheets for every film I have used but I only used them for dev times. I started shooting film eighteen months ago and I feel like every day has been an intense school day. My digital work has dropped off a cliff in favour of working out how to shoot expired orwo. It was expired film that led me to HC110. Data sheets have a whole host of details that I need to get my head round. Regarding agitation profiles, don't they tend to be more about the film? I have read Rollei data sheets and they tend to give one set of agitation profiles for all the developers. I haven't bought much Kodak (1 roll of short dated t-max 120) so don't have those data sheets in my collection. Soon rectify that! Its study time! (Its actually 7am but I have a dog with dementia and his body clock is all over the place )

[JohnMc]

They (exposure/speed rating, chemical used, time/dilution/agitation/temp...) are all suggestions based on conditions you may, or may not be encountering. I was a very early adopter of the unicolor film drum thanks to a generous sales rep giving me one and a dozen reels. After I did some testing I was able to make the thing produce excellent results for my immediate needs which was macro and micro of eyes and melanoma stains for some researchers. What they had to have was reliable consistency. That necessarily involves reducing/controlling variables. That film drum handled temp and agitation well, eliminated the possible difference between top and bottom reels and was very efficient in using less chemistry. I used mostly HC-110, Rodinal, and some others on request. The former's were chosen for shelf life and ability measure with syringes. Below is a link with a description of another clip test you can easily handle, and other good info that may be useful.


Kodak HC-110 Developer - Unofficial Resource Page

[Cerebum]

They (exposure/speed rating, chemical used, time/dilution/agitation/temp...) are all suggestions based on conditions you may, or may not be encountering. I was a very early adopter of the unicolor film drum thanks to a generous sales rep giving me one and a dozen reels. After I did some testing I was able to make the thing produce excellent results for my immediate needs which was macro and micro of eyes and melanoma stains for some researchers. What they had to have was reliable consistency. That necessarily involves reducing/controlling variables. That film drum handled temp and agitation well, eliminated the possible difference between top and bottom reels and was very efficient in using less chemistry. I used mostly HC-110, Rodinal, and some others on request. The former's were chosen for shelf life and ability measure with syringes. Below is a link with a description of another clip test you can easily handle, and other good info that may be useful.


Kodak HC-110 Developer - Unofficial Resource Page

I will have a read of that, thanks. Shelf life was a big factor in my wanting to adopt HC110 as my regular goop. I have Rodinal too but I think the best results have come from stock ID-11

[titrisol]

HC110 was changed in 2018/9 forever by Alaris.
All the old recommendations are somehow vauable but Anchell guesses that they got rid of the DEA-sulfur complex which besides the almost infinite shelf life it changed the developer completely and should not be called that anymore.