"It's not just about the grain or sharpness; XTOL will give you better midtones (to

the expense of highlights), whereas HC-110 will give you snappy highlights (to the
expense of midtones)"

I think that just as can be done with Rodinal, HC-110 offers the opportunity to use
it at higher dilutions and reduced agitation to reduce the highlight density and
improve midtones and shadows. As I have noted about Rodinal, it is the specific
combination of dilution and agitation that controls density in the three areas
since dilution reduces the developer's highlight activity through exhaustion and
agitation increases it. XTOL also offers a bit greater opportunity at dilution, but
it has not been tested at the very high dilutions that are often used with Rodinal
and HC-110. It also has issues with stability due to oxidation problems-- the
reason I no longer use it after one disaster too many.

Yes, I've found that to be more or less true with HC-110. It's tougher to get good
shadow detail with HC-110 when using the film at box speed. An extra 1/3 to 1/2
stop exposure over box speed helps there, but the curve coming up out of the
shadows will be more steep than it would be with XTOL. At the same time, HC-110
seems to work more vigorously in the highlights. Mind you, my observations are from
using HC-110 @ dilution B (1+31) and Xtol 1+1 or (rarely) stock strength. Higher
dilutions of HC-110, along with a more gentle development cycle, may be helpful in
taming the hot highlights. I don't know since I haven't really investigated it. I'm
very happy with either D-76 or XTOL, reserving HC-110 for tray processing small
runs of sheet film because of the short processing times.

I found HC-110 to be difficult to control with TMY-2. It gave me a EI of 250, and I

couldn't get density down where I wanted it with my workflow, even with dilution H.
XTOL on the other hand, works beautifully. I get an EI of 400 (box speed) and
easily controllable density with TMY-2.
As to metering and shooting, it's all the same for any film / developer
combination: "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights." After you
determine your personal EI of course.

Tri-X and Neopan 1600 look great with XTOL 1:1. I have also found that I can easily

dissolve the entire 5 liter package in 2 liters of distilled water at 85F taking
care while
stirring not mix in a lot of air. I then store the solution in four 500ml amber PVC
coated
bottles from PhotoFormulary. It's a simple 100ml of concentrated stock to 400ml of
water
for the 1:1 working solution. My only disappointment using XTOL has been with
Neopan
400 which has resulted in very noticeable and unattractive grain. I keep meaning to
try
Neopan 400 with D76 to see if i'ts any better, but I am kind of lazy and I doubt my
results
will be better than with Tri-X.

-----------------------------------------------------------
1:3 or 1:4; 1:7 or 1:8. The problem is people have different ways of interpreting
the mixing shorthand. Most instructions have replaced the colon with a plus sign
(+) to stop the ambiguity that persists in photography. After the Second World War
there was a world wide standardization that defined how to indicate dilutions. In
many countries before the standardization 1:4 meant 1 part stock + 4 parts diluent.
After the standardization 1:4 meant 1 part stock + 3 parts diluent and now the
solution is 1/4 strength. If you make multiple dilutions it becomes very easy to
calculate how dilute the solution has become. A good example is HC-110, according
to Kodak they suggest you dilute the concentrate 1+3 for a stock solution and then
make working solutions from the stock. Many films use Dilution B which is 1:32 from
concentrate. If you dilute to make the stock solution you have a 1:4 dilution (1+3)
and to make dilution B you divide 32 by 4 = 8. You need to dilute the stock
solution 1:8 (1+7). If you used the old nomenclature your stock would have been 1:3
and Dilution B would have been 1:31 (from concentrate). It is not intuitive how to
make Dilution B from stock using the 1:3 to 1:31 dilution shorthand, yet in
photography the old shorthand persists. I suggest when discussing dilutions to use
the plus (+) sign which everybody understands and there is no confusion about how
much concentrate and how much diluent to mix.

Rapid fixers are usually Ammonium Thiosulfate which has a very fast fixing time.
The reason to use the rapid fixers is you want to minimize the time your paper is
in the fixer. The bi-products from the fixing process soak into your paper the
longer the papers is in the solution and that is what you want to avoid. The modern
T-grain films need to be fixed longer than classic films and the rapid fixer keeps
film fixing as short as possible. A T-grain film will need 5 minutes in a rapid
fixer and 10 minutes in a traditional Sodium Thiosulfate fixer. Over fixing film is
not as harmfull as over fixing paper. The bi-products of the fixing process do not
dissolve back into the film as readily as they do in paper, and they wash out of
film much more efficiently than paper. It is best to dilute the concentrated rapid
fixers as suggestd by the manufacturer for film and paper and follow the
recommended times for the type of film and paper you are using. Resin coated paper
fixes in 1/2 the time as fiber based paper.

1: 3 o 1: 4; 1: 7 o 1: 8. El problema es que las personas tienen diferentes formas

de interpretar la taquigraf�a de la mezcla. La mayor�a de las instrucciones han
reemplazado los dos puntos con un signo m�s (+) para detener la ambig�edad que
persiste en la fotograf�a. Despu�s de la Segunda Guerra Mundial hubo una
estandarizaci�n mundial que defini� c�mo indicar las diluciones. En muchos pa�ses
antes de la estandarizaci�n 1: 4 significaba 1 parte de acci�n + 4 partes de
diluyente.

Despu�s de la estandarizaci�n 1: 4 significaba 1 parte de stock + 3 partes de

diluyente y ahora la soluci�n es 1/4 de fuerza. Si realiza diluciones m�ltiples, es
muy f�cil calcular c�mo se ha diluido la soluci�n. Un buen ejemplo es HC-110, de
acuerdo con Kodak, sugieren que diluya el concentrado 1 + 3 para una soluci�n madre
y luego haga soluciones de trabajo del stock. Muchas pel�culas usan Dilution B que
es 1:32 del concentrado. Si diluye para hacer la soluci�n madre, tiene una diluci�n
1: 4 (1 + 3) y para diluir B divide 32 por 4 = 8. Debe diluir la soluci�n madre 1:
8 (1 + 7). Si utiliz� la antigua nomenclatura, su stock habr�a sido 1: 3 y la
diluci�n B habr�a sido 1:31 (del concentrado). No es intuitivo c�mo hacer Dilution
B desde stock usando la taquigraf�a de diluci�n de 1: 3 a 1:31, pero en la
fotograf�a la vieja taquigraf�a persiste. Cuando se discuten diluciones, sugiero
que se use el signo m�s (+) que todos entiendan y no haya confusi�n sobre cu�nto
concentrado y cu�nta diluyente mezclar.

Los fijadores r�pidos suelen ser tiosulfato de amonio que tiene un tiempo de
fijaci�n muy r�pido. La raz�n para usar los arreglos r�pidos es que desea minimizar
el tiempo que su papel est� en el fijador. Los productos biol�gicos del proceso de
fijaci�n se impregnan en su papel cuanto m�s largos son los papeles en la soluci�n
y eso es lo que desea evitar. Las pel�culas modernas de grano T deben fijarse m�s
tiempo que las pel�culas cl�sicas y el fijador r�pido mantiene la fijaci�n de la
pel�cula lo m�s corta posible. Una pel�cula de T-grain necesitar� 5 minutos en un
fijador r�pido y 10 minutos en un fijador de tiosulfato de sodio tradicional. La
fijaci�n excesiva de la pel�cula no es tan da�ina como la fijaci�n excesiva del
papel. Los productos biol�gicos del proceso de fijaci�n no se disuelven en la
pel�cula tan f�cilmente como en el papel, y se eliminan de la pel�cula de manera
mucho m�s eficiente que el papel. Lo mejor es diluir los fijadores r�pidos
concentrados seg�n lo sugerido por el fabricante para la pel�cula y el papel y
seguir los tiempos recomendados para el tipo de pel�cula y papel que est�
utilizando. El papel recubierto de resina se repara en 1/2 vez como papel a base de
fibra.
------------------------------------------------------------