Arista EDU Ultra 100 in Acufine or Arista L 110?

[gone]

I need to test a 35mm camera, but don't want to mix up a batch of Microdol-X developer just for that. What's left here is Acufine and Arista L 110 (which is apparently the same as the Kodak HC 110). I've used Acufine, but not w/ this film, and the L 100 I have never used, period. Does anyone have experience w/ this film in either developer? For what its worth, my preference is for somewhat contrasty negs vs flat, but no big grain.

The massive development chart says 3.5 minutes in Acufine at stock solution, but I don't like to use such short times. I'm assuming that it needs to be metered at 50 in these developers? I tried this film at 100 in some other developers at box speed and it looked almost like lith film. The only way I can shoot it at box speed (and above) is in Mic-X at full strength.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

http://foma-cz.cs4.cstech.cz/en/fomapan-100

And this recent thread might help you: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Gerald C Koch]

For the umpteenth time L-110 IS NOT THE SAME FORMULATION AS HC-110. While the two developers share some similarities they are different. If Arista makes this claim then they are being dishonest. One need only look at the MSDS's for the two developers to see the difference. HC-110 is a rather unique formula which would be extremely difficult for Arista to duplicate without expensive manufacturing equipment. Even Kodak had to manufacture some of the ingredients as they were otherwise not available.

 

[silverhalideaddict]

I have used Edu Ultra 100 in Acufine with 5x7 and 8x10 sheet film. Very nice combination, and pushes well. I used the Acufine development chart recommendations for Delta 100, if memory serves. Cannot remember which 100 speed film time is printed on the can.

 

[alanrockwood]

For the umpteenth time L-110 IS NOT THE SAME FORMULATION AS HC-110. While the two developers share some similarities they are different. If Arista makes this claim then they are being dishonest. One need only look at the MSDS's for the two developers to see the difference. HC-110 is a rather unique formula which would be extremely difficult for Arista to duplicate without expensive manufacturing equipment. Even Kodak had to manufacture some of the ingredients as they were otherwise not available.

Arista (actually LegacyPro) does not claim the same formulation as HC-110. In fact, in one place they note that the color and viscosity is different from HC-110, which can only mean that they are not chemically identical. However, their description does say "L110 is a high energy and economical B&W film developer that produces equivalent results as Kodak HC110.Use exactly as Kodak HC110." In other words, they are claiming it to be a functional equivalent to HC-110 without claiming it to be chemically identical.

I'm glad we cleared up that issue.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Arista (actually LegacyPro) does not claim the same formulation as HC-110. In fact, in one place they note that the color and viscosity is different from HC-110, which can only mean that they are not chemically identical. However, their description does say "L110 is a high energy and economical B&W film developer that produces equivalent results as Kodak HC110.Use exactly as Kodak HC110." In other words, they are claiming it to be a functional equivalent to HC-110 without claiming it to be chemically identical.

I'm glad we cleared up that issue.

There is an important difference between L-110 and other HC-110 "equivalents" (Ilford makes one) and that is with respect to shelf life. HC-110 stock has a proverbially very long life. The reason for this is very straight forward. Water is necessary for oxidation to occur. Put a piece of iron in a completely moisture free environment and it will not rust. The HC-110 formulation contains no water. A mixture of glycols is used as a solvent for the developing agents and other chemicals. All the other developers that claim to be equivalent contain water and this is evident in their relatively shorter shelf like.

Since Kodak developed HC-110 to produce results as close as possible to those of D-76 there is nothing remarkable in Legacy's claim. Read Kodak's publication or http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110. One could merely use D-76.

 

[alanrockwood]

There is an important difference between L-110 and other HC-110 "equivalents" (Ilford makes one) and that is with respect to shelf life. HC-110 stock has a proverbially very long life. The reason for this is very straight forward. Water is necessary for oxidation to occur. Put a piece of iron in a completely moisture free environment and it will not rust. The HC-110 formulation contains no water. A mixture of glycols is used as a solvent for the developing agents and other chemicals. All the other developers that claim to be equivalent contain water and this is evident in their relatively shorter shelf like.

Since Kodak developed HC-110 to produce results as close as possible to those of D-76 there is nothing remarkable in Legacy's claim. Read Kodak's publication or http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110. One could merely use D-76.

I am familiar with the concept of glycols as being protective. I do know L110 contains glycols. I do not know if L110 contains water. Do you know specifically what the water content of L110 is?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I am familiar with the concept of glycols as being protective. I do know L110 contains glycols. I do not know if L110 contains water. Do you know specifically what the water content of L110 is?

http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/msds/LegacyPro_L110_Liquid_Film_Developer_MSDS.pdf

If you add up all the maximum percentages listed you get 45% is of known composition. Since water does not have to listed the assumption is about 50% water.

Glycols do not work unless they or some other organic solvent like an amine replace all the water. A mix of water and glycol does not prevent oxidation.

 

[alanrockwood]

http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/msds/LegacyPro_L110_Liquid_Film_Developer_MSDS.pdf

If you add up all the maximum percentages listed you get 45% is of known composition. Since water does not have to listed the assumption is about 50% water.

Glycols do not work unless they or some other organic solvent like an amine replace all the water. A mix of water and glycol does not prevent oxidation.

I wonder if the other 55% could be propylene glycol. It is generally regarded as non-toxic, and I don't think that non-toxic components need to be listed on an MSDS, though I could be wrong.

Interestingly, T-MAX developer lists water at 50-60%, and it is generally regarded as a long-lived developer concentrate, so possibly some amount of water might be tolerated in a developer with a solvent base of glycol.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I wonder if the other 55% could be propylene glycol. It is generally regarded as non-toxic, and I don't think that non-toxic components need to be listed on an MSDS, though I could be wrong.

HC-110 keeps for many years far longer than T-Max developer. Any amount of water in the concentrate will shorten its life.

Even though propylene glycol is non-toxic it is a fire hazard and would be listed if present. The only chemical that really can be left off an MSDS without possible legal difficulties would be water. If you read an MSDS carefully then you will find even possible allergens must be listed. So once you remove all possible trouble makers the only thing left is water.