Frustrating Issues with HC-110

[btaylor]

I’m a long time Freestyle customer and I have used the LP L110 concentrate for years (same bottle). I keep waiting for it to go bad, but it doesn’t. I use dilution H, 1:63 straight from concentrate, one shot.

 

[dkonigs]

The other thing is, modern HC-110 isn't the legendary long-lived variety any more. The formula was changed (in 2019?) to a much less viscous mixture that gives reason to believe its longevity has been greatly curtailed.

I keep hearing this, often stated in the form of a hunch. Has there been any published documentation, or any manufacturer statements, or has anyone run any tests, to show whether the longevity has actually changed with the new formulation?

(The old stuff lasts so long, that it may be years before many of us who actually still have bottles of it exhaust our supply and need to even consider the new version.)

 

[BradS]

That the new stuff is different is easily observed to be true. That the new stuff doesn’t keep as long as the old is speculation at this point. Maybe it does maybe it doesn’t. We do not know...yet.

 

[dourbalistar]

A very quick check at the B&H web site shows...

Legacy pro 110 $15/pint = $31.70/liter
Kodak HC-110 $35.00/liter

not really a huge price difference.

I agree, by volume, there's not much price difference. But if you develop infrequently and can't use up the HC-110 bottle before it goes bad, then you won't have saved any money. Of course, nobody knows the long term shelf-life of the new HC-110 formula, so it may or may not be moot.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I keep hearing this, often stated in the form of a hunch. Has there been any published documentation, or any manufacturer statements, or has anyone run any tests, to show whether the longevity has actually changed with the new formulation?

That the new stuff is different is easily observed to be true. That the new stuff doesn’t keep as long as the old is speculation at this point. Maybe it does maybe it doesn’t. We do not know...yet.

Here's why I think the new stuff won't last the way the old does: the longevity of the old HC-110 syrup is generally attributed to the fact the concentrate contains no water. The working stuff is dissolved in (I've read) glycerol, anhydrous, which means the phenidone doesn't ionize and break down. Any developer that has phenidone dissolved in water will break down in a fairly short period of time (a few months, generally).

The new HC-110 concentrate is far less viscous; by report, it's similar to a water based concentrate in that regard, as opposed to the syrupy consistency of a concentrate carried in a waterless, water-soluble solvent. If it were dissolved in 90% alcohol (which has been used in the past to store phenidone as a solution) users would have reported the odor of the alcohol. Most other suitable solvents are much more viscous than water, like the one that was used originally (and until a couple years ago).

Hence the (unproven) conclusion that the new HC-110 likely won't last like the old syrup did -- if it's a water solution, it can't.

 

[Wallendo]

Looking at the latest KA datasheet on HC-110 : https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j24.pdf

The shelf life of HC-110 stock solution is 6 months in a full bottle, but only 2 months in a partially filled bottle.

There is also this warning: https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/photographers-photo-printing/resources/chem-tech-info

Update: HC-110 precipitate; August 14, 2020

We’ve had reports of precipitate forming in the bottom of unopened bottles of HC-110 developer
Our investigation has shown that crystals form with freezing. As a result, our supplier is making minor change to make the formulation more robust to cold temperatures. Testing indicates this will resolve the issue.
New / improved batches will begin shipping by the end of August
If you have additional questions, please contact ProPaperChem@kodakalaris.com

I have used Legacy Pry L110 and it seems to work as well as HC-110. I used up my bottle in one year, but it was still working well at the end.

 

[Saganich]

I have a nice pipette system so I can pull small volumes for quick one shots at any dilution. Working solutions of HC110 don't keep well.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Lifetime of stock solution has nothing to do with lifetime of the concentrate. Original HC-110 stock solution was the same. So is Xtol, shipped as dry chemical. Once the phenidone is in water, the countdown starts. Kodak's timeline is probably conservative; Xtol stock is known to last longer than six months in impermeable bottles with good seals and no trapped air, for instance.

But nothing said about stock solution has any bearing on the shelf life of the concentrate.

 

[dourbalistar]

Unless you are storing unused HC-110 for the apocalypse (which I admit feels more and more likely these days), I never quite understood the fascination with its supposedly decades-long shelf life. Isn't developer meant to be used, not stored on a shelf? And if you did happen to keep it for decades on a shelf, why risk it? Our time and equipment are expensive, and some images are irreplaceable, but developer is cheap. I mean, $30 for 1L of undiluted stock compared to the hundreds and thousands of dollars we spend on our equipment to get the best image quality? Maybe it's just me, but judging a developer solely on its shelf-life seems seems to be missing the point.

 

[Pioneer]

I used to experiment with a lot of different developers but over the years I have really settled into a pattern of use that seems to work pretty well, for me at least. Obviously your mileage (do you say kilomoterage in other countries?) may differ because you are using different films or are looking for a different look out of your negatives.

My primary developer is D-23. I mix it in 2 liter batches and it is usually used up in a month or less so it is always very fresh. It actually seems to work pretty well with every film I use but I use. But there are a couple of other developers I mix up myself including Beutler and Crawley's FX-37 but they are mixed in smaller batches because I use them more infrequently. Beutler is my go-to developer for Streetpan 400 and I always use FX-37 for TMAX100 99% of the time. When it comes to developers my own mixes are my preference since I know the developers that I am using are always mixed with the same amount of and type of ingredients so I am not worried about changes in development occurring because of changes in manufacturing.

However, I do keep a couple of bottles of Adox Rodinal (500ml concentrate) and Legacy Pro 110 (16oz concentrate) because they are very handy for specific purposes. They also last a very long time in concentrate. I mix each at the time of use and toss them once they have been used. I have never actually tried to mix up a large batch and then store it long term.

My most recent bottle of L110 was opened in June 1998 and is still working well as of a couple of days ago. I have no idea how long it will last but I know for a fact that the bottle of concentrate I am currently using has lasted over two years at this point and I am not taking any special storage precautions with the concentrate. I open the bottle, withdraw the amount of concentrate I need and then close the bottle. I have not decanted smaller portions into other bottles nor have I introduced any inert gas into the bottle. It is stored in a darkened cupboard and I bring all my liquid developers indoors in the winter to prevent freezing. That is about the limit of my storage precautions. There is about 150ml or so left in my bottle of L110 at this stage and it has darkened quite a bit since I started using it. It also seems to have gotten a bit more viscous over the last couple of years, but that may only be my imagination. I do know that it does not seem to be losing potency at all.

I really can't comment on how well the new Kodak HC-110 will last since I haven't used any of the new concentrate since I discovered Legacy Pro's version of the developer. Without having any proof however I kind of feel that the two developers (HC110 & L110) are probably prepared the same way or they may even be made by the same supplier.

 

[btaylor]

Unless you are storing unused HC-110 for the apocalypse (which I admit feels more and more likely these days), I never quite understood the fascination with its supposedly decades-long shelf life. Isn't developer meant to be used, not stored on a shelf? And if you did happen to keep it for decades on a shelf, why risk it? Our time and equipment are expensive, and some images are irreplaceable, but developer is cheap. I mean, $30 for 1L of undiluted stock compared to the hundreds and thousands of dollars we spend on our equipment to get the best image quality? Maybe it's just me, but judging a developer solely on its shelf-life seems seems to be missing the point.

Yes. In my case, I unfortunately develop infrequently so I like knowing that I have developer in the quantity I need immediately available. I also like the Freestyle clone as a developer. But I agree, it is easy to get into the weeds on small details of cost. That’s why I always think it is odd to complain too much about film costs- I spend so much more on travel and gear.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I[/U]Without having any proof however I kind of feel that the two developers (HC110 & L110) are probably prepared the same way or they may even be made by the same supplier.

Glad to hear that. I’ve been using it for over 30 years. When the announcement that the old stuff was being discontinued, I bought 4 bottles. I use it replenished with old stock replenisher. My friend gave me a bottle of Rodinal and it’s good, but my film ends up grainier than if I use HC-110.

 

[BradS]

Here's why I think the new stuff won't last the way the old does: the longevity of the old HC-110 syrup is generally attributed to the fact the concentrate contains no water. The working stuff is dissolved in (I've read) glycerol, anhydrous, which means the phenidone doesn't ionize and break down. Any developer that has phenidone dissolved in water will break down in a fairly short period of time (a few months, generally).

The new HC-110 concentrate is far less viscous; by report, it's similar to a water based concentrate in that regard, as opposed to the syrupy consistency of a concentrate carried in a waterless, water-soluble solvent. If it were dissolved in 90% alcohol (which has been used in the past to store phenidone as a solution) users would have reported the odor of the alcohol. Most other suitable solvents are much more viscous than water, like the one that was used originally (and until a couple years ago).

Hence the (unproven) conclusion that the new HC-110 likely won't last like the old syrup did -- if it's a water solution, it can't.

Speculation based upon reasoning is still speculation.

I have a feeling that the new stuff will keep "long enough" for practical purposes. Will it last 15 years past date like the old stuff? Maybe not but...maybe that's not really worth bitching about.

 

[BradS]

Unless you are storing unused HC-110 for the apocalypse (which I admit feels more and more likely these days), I never quite understood the fascination with its supposedly decades-long shelf life. Isn't developer meant to be used, not stored on a shelf? And if you did happen to keep it for decades on a shelf, why risk it? Our time and equipment are expensive, and some images are irreplaceable, but developer is cheap. I mean, $30 for 1L of undiluted stock compared to the hundreds and thousands of dollars we spend on our equipment to get the best image quality? Maybe it's just me, but judging a developer solely on its shelf-life seems seems to be missing the point.

Exactly!

Its like searching for any excuse to throwing mud at the Kodak.

 

[dourbalistar]

I have a feeling that the new stuff will keep "long enough" for practical purposes. Will it last 15 years past date like the old stuff? Maybe not but...maybe that's not really worth bitching about.

Exactly this. Probably the better comparison is whether the resulting image quality is the same between the old and new HC-110. By most accounts that I've seen, it is, but each person has to judge for themselves I guess. Anyway, I'm happily using LegacyPro L110, so I don't have a dog in the old vs. new HC-110 fight.

 

[Pioneer]

Exactly!

Its like searching for any excuse to throwing mud at the Kodak.

I don't think anyone is trying to throw mud at anyone or any company.

In my case the issue of longevity is more a concern because of my very infrequent use of the developer. Under my current use pattern I would likely go through a 16 oz bottle of L110 (or HC-110) in 3 to 5 years. If it lasts that long with no visible loss of potency then I am satisfied.

It would seem that is the underlying reason for most of the discussion here.

 

[BradS]

I don't think anyone is trying to throw mud at anyone or any company.

In my case the issue of longevity is more a concern because of my very infrequent use of the developer. Under my current use pattern I would likely go through a 16 oz bottle of L110 (or HC-110) in 3 to 5 years. If it lasts that long with no visible loss of potency then I am satisfied.

It would seem that is the underlying reason for most of the discussion here.

Maybe slinging mud is not quite the right metaphor. I'll try to be more precise....

Negativity based upon speculation about the new product's keeping properties inevitably influences people. It sows fear and doubt and people don't buy the new product...simply based upon internet apocrypha. How is that helping? Spreading negativity, based entirely upon speculation, is non-helpful, not useful, it is destructive. It's like teen aged girls spreading rumors..."she's a whore".

...and yes, of course, everybody, everybody, myself included, wants the product to last long enough for them to finish the bottle but if it takes ten or fifteen years to finish the bottle...maybe, that's not really of a practical concern.

All I am saying is we ought to give the product a chance instead of constantly regurgitating negativity based upon speculation. I see no reason to expect that the new HC-110 will last any less long than any of the existing 'look-alike' products....and I have never heard or read anybody bitching about the longevity of Ilfotec HC or Ilfotec LC29 or Legacy Pro L110.

 

[NB23]

Unless you are storing unused HC-110 for the apocalypse (which I admit feels more and more likely these days), I never quite understood the fascination with its supposedly decades-long shelf life. Isn't developer meant to be used, not stored on a shelf? And if you did happen to keep it for decades on a shelf, why risk it? Our time and equipment are expensive, and some images are irreplaceable, but developer is cheap. I mean, $30 for 1L of undiluted stock compared to the hundreds and thousands of dollars we spend on our equipment to get the best image quality? Maybe it's just me, but judging a developer solely on its shelf-life seems seems to be missing the point.

Basically, indefinite shelf-life is there for total piece of mind. Far too many times I have used a developer that was dead (and wasn’t supposed to be). One time is all it takes, imagine a dozen.

 

[PhotoJim]

Basically, indefinite shelf-life is there for total piece of mind. Far too many times I have used a developer that was dead (and wasn’t supposed to be). One time is all it takes, imagine a dozen.

Peace of mind, and reducing waste.

I just went back to the darkroom after at least six years away. I trusted my HC-110 syrup, and it was fine. Sure, I could have pitched it, but it's a lot more environmentally sensible to use it and discard it than to just discard it unused.

To be fair, the powdered D76 I had that expired a decade ago was fine, too. But I used that the next day, because it needed at least a few hours to cool.

 

[grat]

Exactly!

Its like searching for any excuse to throwing mud at the Kodak.

Some people just like being negative.

 

[Alan Johnson]

As outlined in my posts 80 and 82 here, I am more positive about the old version but I may be in a minority:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/new-hc-110-developer-not-the-same.176138/page-4

 

[bnxvs]

The working stuff is dissolved in (I've read) glycerol, anhydrous, which means the phenidone doesn't ionize and break down. Any developer that has phenidone dissolved in water will break down in a fairly short period of time (a few months, generally).

Using glycerol will not save you from the presence of water in the solution, at all. Any "anhydrous" glycerol will be so for a very short time, as it will actively absorb moisture from the environment. It is very hygroscopic. Therefore, it is glycerol that is almost never used for the preparation of long-lived concentrates.
As for the viscosity of the "old" HC-110. Its increased viscosity is due, first of all, not to the fact that there is "no water" in its composition, but to the fact that more than a third of its volume is occupied by a complex of sulfur dioxide with diethanolamine. It is this substance that is highly viscous and gives the concentrate a characteristic rich yellow color.
We cannot, without special research, be guaranteed to talk about the composition of the new HC-110. The MSDS doesn't fully disclose this issue. Both propylene glycol and ethylene glycol, and some other organic and inorganic solvents have fairly low viscosities. And they don't contain water or dissolved oxygen, don't have any characteristic smell or color. Presence of these substances in solution can be determined only by analytical chemistry methods.
And finally, the amount of sulfite in the concentrate should be assessed not from the point of view of "where is more", but from the point of view of "where is enough". And in this particular case, 20% potassium sulfite is quite enough, in my opinion, to ensure a very long shelf life of the concentrate.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Are you suggesting that the solvent is all propylene glycol?
It is not mentioned in msds.
Appears rather unlikely to dissolve HQ and sulfite in msds percentages.
Would be a new discovery, the first use of PG as a solvent for a metal sulfite in a film developer.
Would not act to preserve against air oxidation if it contained any water.

 

[bnxvs]

Would be a new discovery, the first use of PG as a solvent for a metal sulfite in a film developer.

Alas, I'll disappoint you. There will be no "new discovery". Sulfite dissolves in water. But...!
Check out Ilford's patents and MSDS for the same DD-X. And I think everything will become clear to you. A 65% solution of potassium sulfite, based on 20% by weight of the concentrate, is rather small. Approximately 1/3 of the total. Moreover, I will give you an interesting problem - try to dissolve 15-20 grams of hydroquinone in 100 ml of cold water! ))) Just for fun. And then try to dissolve the same amount of hydroquinone in 100 ml PG or EG ...
I think it will be easy to understand my further logical constructions. )))

 

[Alan Johnson]

Of course. All those things are well known.
They would produce a PQ developer with normal properties of the type, ie, not excessively long life.
You appeared to suggest that use of PG solvent would result in better preservation vs air oxidation and that is what I disputed.

 

[bnxvs]

I just urge you to look at the problem comprehensively. To draw conclusions about the properties of a developer by just one sign of the presence of water in - it is a too simplistic view of things. In my opinion, there is so little water that the influence of oxygen dissolved in it should be negligible. We have a good example of such a developer as Rodinal, which has a noticeably long shelf life (if it is made correctly, of course). At the same time, Rodinal contains much more water.
p.s. I don't know for sure why Kodak abandoned the old formula (apart from a lot of assumptions), but I think that the new formula is very good, in terms of balance of simplicity and acceptability of properties.
Naturally, it is a pity that the old composition is no longer produced. It would be nice to have both versions on sale, for every taste. But unfortunately "ç'est la vie".

 

[Donald Qualls]

Rodinal, however, does not contain phenidone. HC-110 does (or one of the dimezone twins, which are similar to phenidone in all ways that matter). The issue with longevity of phenidone-based developers after dissolving in water has been well known for decades. H&W Control is a formula from the 1960s (for Tech Pan and document films), phenidone based, and was well known for needing either to have the phenidone kept separate in 91% isopropanol, for addition immediately before processing, or to be mixed the same day as used, because the shelf life of stock solution was quite short.

Rodinal's developing agent, p-aminophenol, is a close relative of metol (which is n-methyl p-aminolphenol sulfate), and has very similar keeping properties (says the man who has recently used Dektol stored as double strength stock solution for more than a decade). Rodinal concentrate keeps well because a) it's highly concentrated, enough so that various components will precipitate out and thus help maintain a reserve of chemical to redissolve when needed, and b) in concentrate form it has high enough sulfite level to do a very good job of protecting the developing agent.

The latter of these qualities likely also applies to HC-110 in all incarnations -- but phenidone and water don't make a long-lasting combination. Phenidone becomes highly vulnerable to oxidation if there's any water present (as witness HC-110 stock solution, 1:4 even from the old syrup, going off in a matter of months).