~40 Year Old HC-110 and Rodinal-use or toss?

[Ben Hutcherson]

I'd sort of forgotten about these two bottles of developer. I bought them maybe 5 years ago with a bunch of other darkroom stuff in a local camera store(and probably for a pittance-I was about the only one coming into the store buying darkroom stuff then, so the owner would make up whatever price he felt like and I'd usually pay it). Usually I'd buy lots that had stuff I wanted-Hewes reels, Gralab or other timers, but he'd only sell it to me if I took everything.

Among other things in this particular lot that I remember were some B&W Fujifilm that expired in the late 80s. Those rolls and the developer all had price tags from a Japanese store.

Both of these are sealed, and I know that these have a reputation of basically being immortal. I'm still using the only other bottle of HC110 I bought in ~2017 or so, and it's fine(nowhere near as dark as this). Given that both of these are sealed, I'm inclined to think they're worth at least trying, but part of me also thinks they're worth more as a curiosity(not financially worth more, worth more in the sense of "this is old developer with the rest of my old photo stuff" curio). I'm not terribly inclined to have full plastic bottles of developer sitting on the shelf though.

The Rodinal is interesting to me too as the only version of the developer I've used is one I mixed from acetominophen+sodium hydroxide. I keep meaning to buy a new commercial bottle, but I have so many other developers(and generally prefer at least mild solvent developers) that I haven't been overly motivated to buy one.

What would you all do with these if you had them?

 

[Kino]

I would use them. Otherwise, sell them; there are plenty of people on this site who would buy them without hesitation.

 

[Paul Howell]

My guess is that in well sealed bottle both are likely to be good.

 

[NiallerM]

You can always run a test strip. But, yes, I'd use them in a jiffy.

 

[Adam W]

Otherwise, sell them; there are plenty of people on this site who would buy them without hesitation.

Like me. I'd buy them.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

Thanks everyone.

I'm not super inclined to sell, especially without testing, but then I don't want to mess with them by opening either.

The HC110 is where I really struggle, since as I mentioned I do have a much newer mostly full 1L bottle(syrup, not the current formula). I'm not a big HC110 user, but it's also another tool in the tool box, and sometimes it's the right choice, and at least for the time being I can't get the syrup anymore...

The Rodinal most likely will stay regardless, since I don't have any of it on hand...

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Why risk it? Toss them.

 

[gordrob]

The older plastic bottles of HC110 was supposed to have a long shelf life even if the syrup was changing to a darker colour. If you want to keep it, decant it to glass bottles with a tight fitting cap. That is what I have done with the two 1 liters plastic bottles I had to reduce any chance of the plastic bottles starting to leak.

 

[MattKing]

Their efficacy probably depends on the integrity of the bottles.
With the HC-110, I would do a test - two short rolls exposed identically, one developed in the really old stuff, and the other developed in the newer stuff, at the same temperature and for the same time and with the same agitation.
I would then compare the results.
Be sure to mark the films in a way to prevent confusing which is which - a hole punch before development is good for that.

 

[loccdor]

I'd take a test film (or 2 films of the same type), develop half of it in the old HC-110 and half in the new and make a thread on it.

Everything I've read says both these developers last decades. Some of that may be hyperbole. It'd be a good experiment.

There's no use keeping stuff around that you don't use. And to know if you can use it you need to test it.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'd sort of forgotten about these two bottles of developer. I bought them maybe 5 years ago with a bunch of other darkroom stuff in a local camera store(and probably for a pittance-I was about the only one coming into the store buying darkroom stuff then, so the owner would make up whatever price he felt like and I'd usually pay it). Usually I'd buy lots that had stuff I wanted-Hewes reels, Gralab or other timers, but he'd only sell it to me if I took everything.

Among other things in this particular lot that I remember were some B&W Fujifilm that expired in the late 80s. Those rolls and the developer all had price tags from a Japanese store.

Both of these are sealed, and I know that these have a reputation of basically being immortal. I'm still using the only other bottle of HC110 I bought in ~2017 or so, and it's fine(nowhere near as dark as this). Given that both of these are sealed, I'm inclined to think they're worth at least trying, but part of me also thinks they're worth more as a curiosity(not financially worth more, worth more in the sense of "this is old developer with the rest of my old photo stuff" curio). I'm not terribly inclined to have full plastic bottles of developer sitting on the shelf though.

The Rodinal is interesting to me too as the only version of the developer I've used is one I mixed from acetominophen+sodium hydroxide. I keep meaning to buy a new commercial bottle, but I have so many other developers(and generally prefer at least mild solvent developers) that I haven't been overly motivated to buy one.

What would you all do with these if you had them?


View attachment 388272

I wouldn't be able to resist trying them, and I hate to throw things out that still work.

 

[Don_ih]

I have a similarly old bottle of Rodinal that still works - or did the last time I tested it, about 5 years ago.
I had a similarly old sealed bottle of HC110. That, however, didn't work - not even a little.

 

[NiallerM]

I have a similarly old bottle of Rodinal that still works - or did the last time I tested it, about 5 years ago.
I had a similarly old sealed bottle of HC110. That, however, didn't work - not even a little.

I saw a video recently made by a guy who uses Rodinal with stand development for his LF work. He was using 1ml per litre - a bit like peeing in a swimming pool. His results were excellent. He points out that the minimum amount which is generally recommended in order to have active chemical is 2.5ml, but he had found that 1ml works for him. Goes to show that the stuff can be used in a way which guarantees a long life on the shelf.

 

[Chuck_P]

I would have to try it as well, I would have to satisfy my curiosity, so what if it fails and some negatives prove worthless...............you would then know.

 

[Don_ih]

He was using 1ml per litre

That's 1/10th the general minimum recommended amount. I really doubt he got results he could enlarge.

 

[NiallerM]

That's 1/10th the general minimum recommended amount. I really doubt he got results he could enlarge.

Yup. One tenth the general minimum amount. Also less than the amount deemed to be an absolute minimum for any chemical activation. He may have been choosing his subject matter in a clever way. The examples I saw were very low light. That might mean less chemical interaction is required. I can't say. I'm relatively new to developing (just three years experience) and only of late getting to the stage where I can sort of "feel" the process working.

He wasn't making a big deal of it, by the way. Of all things photographic Rodinol is probably one that you can be most liberal with - if cost is an issue.

 

[retina_restoration]

I saw a video recently made by a guy who uses Rodinal with stand development for his LF work. He was using 1ml per litre - a bit like peeing in a swimming pool. His results were excellent. He points out that the minimum amount which is generally recommended in order to have active chemical is 2.5ml, but he had found that 1ml works for him.

In my opinion, the credibility of such a report is highly questionable. I'd want to see his negatives before declaring them "excellent".

 

[NiallerM]

In my opinion, the credibility of such a report is highly questionable. I'd want to see his negatives before declaring them "excellent".

Well, it was a YouTube video. Very hard to judge quality on that medium. His results looked fine, though. You have to sort of take things at face value, but avoid using them as a method - and, I repeat, he wasn't recommending it, nor making any sort of thing about it. The video was about shooting LF in very poor light with an extreme exposure time.

ETA: Should have said: stand development. Over an hour.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

Time permitting tomorrow(I have a whole bunch of things lined up for the darkroom, and a bunch of color processing being among them) I'll test the HC110.

I was originally going to shoot two rolls of Arista 400 in 120 in a Hasselblad, swapping backs between shots and then developing the rolls as similarly as possible using this old HC110 along side my 2018 bottle(which I know to be good as of a month or so ago).

While digging in the freezer for some other things too, I ran across a box of 4x5 FP4+. It's a few years expired and I don't remember how many sheets are in it(I should be better about marking this stuff) but I'd not ever think to use it for anything important.

With that said, it should work fine for this test. I can load up a holder, shoot two identical shots back to back, then develop one sheet from each batch of developer.

I'll save Rodinal testing for later.

As for the claim of 1mL/L rodinal for LF-is the person doing that wet printing or scanning? Of course you can't print or scan what isn't there, but I find that I can often "recover" a thin negative better by scanning than by printing.

 

[mshchem]

This would be a no brainer in regards to the HC-110, I would mix it up as Dilution B and use it! That bottle was handy made 3.5 gallons for your Kodak hard rubber tanks. Too bad you're not holding the replenisher, you'd be set for life.

 

[MattKing]

This would be a no brainer in regards to the HC-110, I would mix it up as Dilution B and use it! That bottle was handy made 3.5 gallons for your Kodak hard rubber tanks. Too bad you're not holding the replenisher, you'd be set for life.

I believe the US pint (16 oz) bottles were designed to make 32 pints = 2 actually 4 US gallons of 1+31 dilution B .
Which may be a revelation for those throughout the world who understandably find the Kodak bottle sizes strange.
{moderator Matt note - post edited to correct silly mistake]

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

I believe the US pint (16 oz) bottles were designed to make 32 pints = 2 US gallons of 1+31 dilution B .
Which may be a revelation for those throughout the world who understandably find the Kodak bottle sizes strange.

The label on the bottle says 2 gallons Dilution A.

I admit I'm not up on HC110 dilutions, and when I do use it I tend to use the "unofficial" ones.

It also says a half gallon of stock solution, which I've never made as it's easy enough to just make the working strength directly from concentrat.

 

[MFstooges]

My previous HC-110 was dark like that and still performed consistently well.

 

[Don_ih]

I ran across a box of 4x5 FP4+. It's a few years expired and I don't remember how many sheets are in it(I should be better about marking this stuff) but I'd not ever think to use it for anything important.

Why wouldn't you use it for something important? A few years expired and frozen should equal fine.

 

[MattKing]

The label on the bottle says 2 gallons Dilution A.

I admit I'm not up on HC110 dilutions, and when I do use it I tend to use the "unofficial" ones.

It also says a half gallon of stock solution, which I've never made as it's easy enough to just make the working strength directly from concentrat.

You are, of course, correct.
There are 8 pints to the gallon, not 16.
So the correct answer is 4 US gallons of dilution B, not 2.
And now I'll take slightly unfair advantage of my moderator powers and edit my initial post to make it less ridiculous!