HC-110 New Formula

[Omid_K]

Hi all,

I recently picked up a bottle of HC-110 and noticed that in addition to the new packaging the product itself looked very different. It’s a liquid instead of a syrup. I’m sure this isn’t news to the folks who frequent these forums.

However, I was very confused as to what this new formula was exactly. I had read posts about how it’s a different formulation due to supply chain issues and/or environmental concerns. However, much more murky was whether this bottle contained HC-110 as a concentrate or as a stock solution. Extensive google searches weren’t helpful nor was the Kodak Alaris Data Sheet. Neither were calls to Samy’s, B&H, or Kodak Alaris (haven’t replied yet). Finally, I spoke to the wonderful people at Freestyle who confirmed that the contents of the bottle would behave exactly as the syrup I previously knew as HC-110. Dilutions and development times would be identical I was told. So I ran a test roll followed by another 5 rolls (latter 5 rolls together) after the test proved to be successful. Although my results aren’t very detailed or scientific, I feel I can safely concur that this product is in fact the concentrate and not a diluted stock solution. I can’t certify that it’ll behave exactly as HC-110 once did but I feel comfortable enough that I’ll use my existing times/concentrations as well as those published on data sheets and Massive Dev.

Hopefully this will alleviate any confusion the next person has when they go to restock their HC-110

For anyone who cares I processed a test roll of HP5 at Dulition B (1:31) 20*C for 5:00 and the other rolls were HP5 +1 Dilution B 20*C for 7:30.


Cheers,
Omid

 

[Craigus]

Thanks for the information. What lead you to believe that it may have been a stock solution rather than concentrate? Was it just the different consistency or was there something on the label that was misleading?

 

[Alan9940]

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.

 

[Cholentpot]

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?

 

[Alan9940]

Same dilutions?

Yes

 

[AgX]

I’m sure this isn’t news to the folks who frequent these forums.

We have a >300 posts thread on this new HC-110 issue here:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/new-hc-110-formula.169322/

 

[Omid_K]

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)

 

[Cholentpot]

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)

Cool, thanks.

When I heard and saw the switch I headed down to my local supplier and nabbed the last bottle of the old stuff. Should keep me going for another 4-5 years.

 

[canuhead]

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.

 

[NB23]

Guys, your conclusions are very unscientific.

Results that “look the same” means nothing in a forum where people recommend stand development, or add a dash of rodinal into their hc-110 solution in order to add more grit to their negatives.
I could go on, but I won’t. There’s just too much general nonsense overall, and at large, in these forums.

Let’s just say that you can kiss the good old hc-110 goodbye. It’s gone.

 

[MattKing]

Let’s just say that you can kiss the good old hc-110 goodbye. It’s gone.

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.

 

[NB23]

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.

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.

 

[NB23]

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.

As perfect as absolutely any other developer rebranded as “new hc-110”.

 

[MattKing]

As perfect as absolutely any other developer rebranded as “new hc-110”.

No - a functional replacement that requires no change in operational parameters, other then a need to pay more attention to the "Best Before" date.

 

[Ariston]

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.

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.

I am worried about the life of it, though. I have a bottle setting in the cabinet right now, and it was bought right when they changed the formula.

 

[canuhead]

Let’s just say that you can kiss the good old hc-110 goodbye. It’s gone.

as long as it gives me the same results, I'm happy. But yeah, the jury is out re: longevity of the concentrate.

 

[NB23]

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.
.

And what tells you it isn’t a solution of Ilfosol-3? Nothing.
Any developer will be spot on.

 

[NB23]

No - a functional replacement that requires no change in operational parameters, other then a need to pay more attention to the "Best Before" date.

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.

 

[Ariston]

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.

 

[Nodda Duma]

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.

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.

 

[Ariston]

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.

Thank you!

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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.

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.

It is entirely possible what seems different on surface, isn't in the end. Ask divorcees who remarried, if you can't accept this fact.

Scientific tests are mostly for the over curious anyways.

 

[MattKing]

HC-110 was and is designed for commercial processing labs. It is also convenient for individual users.
There aren't a lot of commercial processing labs left, but the ones that are left are both important to Kodak Alaris' business and exacting customers with respect to quality and predictability of results.
I'll let you decide what the likelihood is of Kodak Alaris just throwing something into the bottle and calling it new HC-110.

 

[NB23]

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.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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.

And again, where is your evidence it is NOT the same? If it was for Kodak why isn't it?