Comparing Rodinal & Kodak HC110 - Which Produces Better Grain?

I have been a little obsessed with grain and gritty images lately. I love the texture and grit of darkroom prints when they fit the vision and subject.

So this has had me a bit on the hunt for the best film & developer combination to create very gritty yet pleasing grain in my images when I intend to.

In this test, I was trying to see the differences in grain that Rodinal and Kodak HC110 will produce. I went with a pretty grainy film that I generally love the look of in this regard. Fomapan 400.

Kodak Hc110 has been a developer I use quite a bit and occasionally use Rodinal as well. I have never done a direct comparison so was interested to see the differences in film grain between the two!

I have come across other Hc110 vs. Rodinal videos but none focused on the darkroom and specifically the film grain. There were also just to many variables in the film tests so wanted to cut that down to a minimum.

Hope you enjoy the developer and film test!

=============================
Relevant Links //
=============================

=============================
Go to black and white film photography setup (Large Format) //
=============================

=============================
Go to black and white film photography setup (medium Format) //
=============================

=============================
Go to film photography setup (35mm) //
=============================

=============================
Affiliate Links:
=============================
Some of the links in my video descriptions are affiliate links, which means at no extra cost to you, I will make a small commission if you click them and make a qualifying purchase. If you have a different purchase in mind, please consider using these links as it helps create more free content for this channel!

=============================
You can also find me here:
=============================

Thank you so much for watching!

=============================

#distphotofilm #darkroom

[Distphoto]

Most people stop at the scan. You don’t have to.

[themike_]

your channel is quickly becoming one of my favorites because you dont just scan your negatives, you actually make prints. I'm getting started doing darkroom printing and seeing how different process effect the final result of a print is something that few other people are doing.

[jsshayes]

Great video! Rodinal for me is amazing for Tmax 100 and Fomapan 100 (and other slower speed films), but never worked well for Tri-x (or HP5). I felt HC-110 made Tri-x come alive and also worked very well with Shanghai GP3 (even though it is 100 speed). I will also say I normally find a film and developer and stick to it, don't like to jump around a lot so I can gauge results but I am far from anyone who knows what they are doing, haha.

[mjgreeneaudio]

Great comparison and I love your approach and thoughts on this. Very helpful.

[TheRobertpainter]

Thank you. I do like grain. I use Rolleiflex TLR’s, I develop in Rodinal. But I slipped down a rabbit hole recently when I saw a friends images that seemed almost grainless. He uses HC-110 and he claimed that’s how he gets the finer look. I did see a finer image but not as well as his. No idea why. But after all, I’ve decided I love the grain because it’s FILM! lol, if I want super fine I’d just go back to my Nikon digital.
So thank you for reminding me why I love grain.

[jacopotassinari]

great video! My personal preferences goes to Rodinal/R09. I had hc110 but I always got back to Rodinal. Used from 1+25 to 1+100 it has always amazed me. And it last ages once opened if stored at ambient temperature and in darkness

[constantinestewart]

As a practicing chemist for over 30 years I really appreciated your scientific approach to comparing these two developers. By-the-way I preferred the final darkroom print with the HC110 developed film also.

Hi, after developing 76 rolls of films in a period of 18 months (as part of a never ending experimentation) I moved from Rodinal to Lc29 that is basically HC110. I always want to define 8:06 which one is going to be my home standard but after a few rolls I always switch back to the other one. As you said it depends on the subject that I agree with, but in my case the I realized that my perception and judgement keeps changing that is a good thing. The one thing I've never done is stand dev in LC29 so will test it some day.Thank you.

[lindustries]

These are two top developers I use. Anything 100 speed and below I generally use Rodinal in anything higher I use HC-110.

[ryanbhangdia]

great video, I really appreciate this especially as a long time rodinal user. I'm probably sticking to rodinal and agree with all of your points in favor of rodinal for both the prints and the scans.

[jamesjacocks]

I use both developers. If I shot gritty street snaps I would use Rodinol but, for me, landscapes and architecture want smooth passages, so HC-110. Rodinol is useful for stand development. The solvent action is quite constrained in HC-110 and non-existent in Rodinol so both developers are capable of giving high sharpness but for my work sharpness is something the lens/film choice dials in.

[canoedoctor]

I've been doing a deep dive into Rodinal recently. I was very surprised in the results of different dilutions! I had been using it 1:50 with OK results, but using FP4 in Rodinal 1:25, box speed, the results were very different than 1:50. Not only was the grain finer, but the whites were whiter and the blacks were blacker. Even more importantly, there was a three dimensional rendering that I was not getting before. This effort is with the intention of easier darkroom printing and this is now my standard against which all other developers will be compared. Also, 1:200 stand for 3 to 4 hours completely leveled out any differences in exposure. I did a FP4 sample exposed at ISO 60, 125, and 250 and each frame was very consistent to the other.

[matthewbushey]

It’s pretty understandable that you’d prefer the Rodinal in this head-head, as accurate developers really deliver that “pop” that all of us B&W junkies love to see in negs/prints! HC110 is a nice fine grain developer, but all constraints being equal, I’d take Rodinal any day for its perceptible effectiveness.
Testing and liking Rodinal could also lead you down the rabbit hole of trying Perceptol, Pyro, Obsidian, and Xtol . . . But I digress. It all starts looking the same w/accutance developers at nominal dilutions, save for Pyro and that lovely stain.
If you want to smooth out the grain a bit at any Rodinal dilution, you can add a pinch of borax to mixed solution (or sodium sulfite), and maintain that “accutance” look while gaining some subtle grain smoothness in the scan or print.
BTW, fellow professional MKE photog here . . . And aside my daily Pro work, I’ve got 20+ years in the darkroom, and just ditched my 4x5 for 5x7 ✌🏻

[rinusborg]

Yes, great video about grain indeed.
I had a commercial lab with both color and B/W.
Back in the time condenser enlargers were the norm for the amateur and for the pro labs we used both with diffused light carrying most of the load.
Graded paper was normal and processing B/W for the amateur was geared to #2 on a condenser enlarger. D76r replenished developer was fantastic but for many we did Rodinal or May and Baker Promicrol. Eventually Promicrol was all we used as a single shot developer.
HC-110 was used for larger formats like 4x5 only.
The use of Multigrade paper became a hit and miss system as the contrast curves did not come close to graded paper. Large print for exhibition were done on AGFA or Gevaert Clorine Bromide paper but production prints in our lab mostly for news paper advertising was done on Multigrade.
With that we started printing with color enlarger diffused light (Chromega) heads to get a better matched contrast. the images were never really razor sharp due to low acutance of diffused light with Ilford Multigrade.
Commercially that was fine as it gave us consistency and reliable contrast suitable for advertising in news media.
So, in your comparison the two multigrade prints with different filters, that can make a difference.
Away from that, grain rips apart fine detail. Shooting soft images wide open does not provide enough edge sharpness to see that occurring.
The transfer edge between dark and light is not sharp as super fine grain film will show.
The benefit of grain lies in it creating contrasty edges by eliminating the transfer edge. Easy to compare with fine grain film that shows a clear soft transition from white to black containing 10 to 20 silver halide particles. whereby course grain film goes from white to black in just three particles. It creates sharpness even if there wasn't any.
As I intend to then make 16x20" enlargements I may prefer a smoother Rodinal grain rather than a chunky HC-110 grain.
And as a blanket comparison between two developers, your side by side is enough to make people think there is much more to explore.
For me listening to you is very entertaining as you bring up valuable points regarding darkroom practices.
It is a step back (50 years) for me but so heart warming to see people embrace this original form.
Rinus B

[JORGE]

Gracias por compartir este comparativo, yo use mucho el HC-110 me acabe dos botellas enteras revelando, ahora como ya no lo encuentro en mi pais empece a desarrollar con el Rodinal, y me va bastante bien también.

[michaelb]

Good comparison. I've ended up using Ilford developers and got great results with HP5+ in DDX and Foma200 n ID11 or Microphen but want to try some other makes

[theblackandwhitefilmproject]

Great video. I develop HP5+ in DD-X when pushing to 800 or ID-11 for 400. I use Rodinal when I want a more edgy look. I don't print and I scan using Epson V800 and Silverfast. I am now making an effort to unsharp the scanning process as much as possible so the grain is softer rather than looking like sand. On Silverfast I use Less AutoSharpness (-) to have the least digital effect on my images and I store my photos on Mac Photos taking care not to make any Light adjustments in Mac Photos as I feel there is an AI element to Mac Photos which seems to add sharpness with any adjustment made which I want to avoid. Cheers!

[b]

It is really a matter of taste. For black and white, those two are the developers I use almost exclusively. I don't want to mix powders, because I print mostly color (RA-4), and do black and white work just occasionally. I think that HC-110 os the one I use most often, but I do use Rodinal when I want the look this classic developer produces. I am not afraid of grain in general. My absolute favorite b&w film is Ilford's FP-4. HP-5 is OK, but i prefer FP-4 because of its slightly higher contrast. It is not grainy, but as a classic film, it is still visible.

[BokBokBuGok]

This was awesome, thanks for putting this video together. I'm definitley going to start paying more attention to what developer(s) my lab uses. Is it just my screen or does the HC110 have more contrast, or at least brighter whites?

[miguelito_]

In my opinion, grain is the soul of a photo on film and I find it beautiful. If I wanted the cleanest image possible, I would simply shoot digital. Rodinal 4 ever