Yes, there has been much discussion about the web concerning the new HC-110. I believe Tetenal made the original product, among many other products for many different buyers, and once Tetenal was gone, well... As you found, and I've not heard anyone say anything different, the new HC-110 works and performs just like the old. The only thing we don't know, at this point, is the long-term keeping properties of the new stuff. Thanks for posting your findings.
Same dilutions?
I’m sure this isn’t news to the folks who frequent these forums.
Craigus,
The consistency definitely threw me off but what stumped me was the graphic on the bottle that looked to be new dilutions at first (it wasn’t...I had just misinterpreted it). Then the fact that there didn’t seem to be any definitive answers online as to the concentration of the new product left me totally confused.
AgX,
I read that thread and it was heavily focused on the new formulation’s chemical makeup, the reasons for the change, and unfortunately a lot of snarky remarks back and forth. After reading every post I was just as confused as when I started. Thus I reached out to others and ran my test roll. Hopefully this thread can serve as a concise reference to others to treat the new formulation the same as the old.
Cholentpot,
I just received word from Michael Seaberg at Kodak Alaris. Here’s what he wrote:
Hello,
HC-110 has a new formula with the same great results! The bottle contains a liquid concentrate which is less thick than the old concentrate. The mix dilutions to make a stock or working solution are unchanged. Please refer to the attached tech pub.
Thank you,
Michael Seaberg
(Beneath he attached the data sheet for HC-110 dated December 2017)
Maybe, but excluding issues of longevity, it is certainly possible that the new HC-110's functionality means that it is a perfect replacement for the old.Let’s just say that you can kiss the good old hc-110 goodbye. It’s gone.
Finally ran some film through the new H110. Miss the syrupy yellow stuff, and the new version is runny as snot during a bad cold, but the film comes out looking the same. Strictly visual determination, no wedges or densitometer readings.
As perfect as absolutely any other developer rebranded as “new hc-110”.Maybe, but excluding issues of longevity, it is certainly possible that the new HC-110's functionality means that it is a perfect replacement for the old.
No - a functional replacement that requires no change in operational parameters, other then a need to pay more attention to the "Best Before" date.As perfect as absolutely any other developer rebranded as “new hc-110”.
Isn't the visual result the ultimate purpose of a developing solutions? If you can't tell the difference without running a regimen of scientific tests, then I think it must be pretty spot on to the old stuff.A Strictly visual confirmation can’t discern a summicron shot from a nikkor plastic 50mm f1.8 without extensive analysis.
A visual analysis can’t discern a negative developed with horse piss vs rodinal. And I am being light yet serious.
For what I know, the new hc110 could be D76 and we couldn’t tell.
as long as it gives me the same results, I'm happy. But yeah, the jury is out re: longevity of the concentrate.Let’s just say that you can kiss the good old hc-110 goodbye. It’s gone.
Isn't the visual result the ultimate purpose of a developing solutions? If you can't tell the difference without running a regimen of scientific tests, then I think it must be pretty spot on to the old stuff.
.
No - a functional replacement that requires no change in operational parameters, other then a need to pay more attention to the "Best Before" date.
Hi NB23, that is what I am asking. I am not being a troll, I really am curious. If the photo ends up looking the same, then why does it matter? If Ilfosol produces identical results with the same development procedures, then I might buy it. Does HC110 have better archival qualities or something? I am genuinely interested.And what tells you it isn’t a solution of Ilfosol-3? Nothing.
Any developer will be spot on.
Hi NB23, that is what I am asking. I am not being a troll, I really am curious. If the photo ends up looking the same, then why does it matter? If Ilfosol produces identical results with the same development procedures, then I might buy it. Does HC110 have better archival qualities or something? I am genuinely interested.
If it can't be "discerned by the naked eye," why does it matter? Your photos are amazing! I would never enjoy them with a microscope.
Thank you!NB23’s point is while it may give the same results under normal conditions, the appeal of classic HC-110 was its versatility under abnormal developing conditions — dilutions, temperatures, developing old films at cold temps to control age fog, using HC-110 well beyond the official expiration date, etc etc.
Hopefully Kodak Alaris didn’t dismiss the *true* appeal of HC-110 to its fan base when they switched formulas. Because really, under normal conditions just use D-76 or ID-11 or any other general purpose developer.
TBH they should have called it something else.
Well, a lot of what you just said can't be determined by deep scientific tests either. Seems like you want people to think new HC-110 is entirely different in how it affects film development, at the same time providing absolutely zero evidence to support it. But as you just stated, BS it is. If you have a proof of your claims, show them, or just fall in line of hear say. Visual examination, which could be also under a loupe on a light table, can certainly be good enough for vast majority of applications. And side by side comparisons to film developed in old formula would also help making correct assessment.That’s just BS. You can’t certify, just by looking at the negatives, that it gives same same results.
Over or under development by a half stop cannot be discerned by the naked eye. Therefore it’s all bs.
And again, where is your evidence it is NOT the same? If it was for Kodak why isn't it?All I was saying is that they should have called it HC-50, HC-109, HC-220, HC-MAX-111 or whatever they wanted.
This “new hc-110” is not the same as the original. And close enough is not enough. For what I know, ilfosol-3 is close enough.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?