• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Kodak HC-110 Questions

turnorb

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
5
Format
Multi Format
Hello. I am relatively new to film processing, and I am in the process of choosing chemicals for developing film. I have chose Kodak HC-110 as a film developer. I chose it because I won't be developing much film and I want the shelf life that comes with HC-110. I do have a few questions about it, though. Why is it so hard to find? It seems that everybody either doesn't have it or they don't have much in stock. Why isn't anybody keeping it in stock? Is Kodak thinking about stopping production? Also, what happened to the smaller bottles of HC-110? All I can find now is a one liter bottle of it. I also heard a rumor that they changed the formula of HC-110. I don't know if this is true or not, but I don't think it is. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks!
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
55,273
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Kodak sold the rights to manufacture their darkroom chemistry several years ago. In much of the world that manufacturing was done by Champion Photochemistry (the 16 ounce bottles). Champion was one of the largest unpaid creditors in the recent Kodak bankruptcy, and as a result are no longer involved in the manufacture of anything Kodak.

Kodak Alaris is the entity that is now responsible for marketing Kodak darkroom chemistry. Like before, the manufacturing is done by others.

Best guess is that Tetenal is now manufacturing HC-110. The new 1 litre bottles are consistent with their bottling style, and labelled "Made in Germany".

Some say they see differences between the old and new versions. Many say they see no change in how HC-110 works. The new HC-110 does appear slightly lighter, and slightly less viscose.

Kodak distribution continues to be somewhat disrupted by the bankruptcy, and by what led up to it.

In addition, it may be that the new, larger size of the HC-110 bottles causes them to be subject to different Hazardous Product shipping rules. That may also be disrupting availability.

If you have access to a 1 litre bottle, the 320 or so rolls that it will develop will probably give you some time to wait while the distribution situation settles down.
 
OP
OP

turnorb

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
5
Format
Multi Format
Thanks! I hope that Kodak films and chemicals stay around for my generation.....
 

trythis

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
1,208
Location
St Louis
Format
35mm

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
55,273
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

There is no longer any "European" HC-110.

Just a "one size fits all" size and concentration for the entire world.

There may, however be old stock available in some places of the old, restricted to Europe packaging/concentration.
 

CJBo001

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
41
Format
35mm
Thanks to various posters for the useful info, particularly the link to LegacyPro 110 which I was not aware of.
 

Gerald C Koch

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,131
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format
CJBo001 said:
Thanks to various posters for the useful info, particularly the link to LegacyPro 110 which I was not aware of.
Click to expand...

Legacy L-110 is advertised as being the same as HC-110. It is not! In order to make a developer like HC-110 requires a large investment in equipment. Most companies even Ilford could not afford the cost. Compare the HC-110 MSDS with the formula given in the US Patent, see references in the Covington website.

The main stumbling block for a company to make HC-110 is the fact that HC-110 contains no water. It is a solution of several chemicals in a mixture of glycols and amines. By avoiding a water solution the developer is very resistant to aerial oxidation of the concentrate. L-110 contains water and will not have the famed storage life of HC-110.If you want HC-110 then buy HC-110.

HC-110 was designed by Kodak to be an easy to use substitute for D-76 and DK-50 for machine processing. The various dilutions are designed to produce a working developer which will have the same developing times as an equivalent D-76 or DK-50 solution so that developing equipment need not be reprogrammed. It was somewhat later that photographers saw the convenience of using this concentrate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JW PHOTO

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,148
Location
Lake, Michig
Format
Medium Format
Old HC-110 or new HC-110? I read a customer review(I believe it was on B&H's site) where this user stated that the newer Kodak HC-110 was not the same as the old Kodak made HC-110(or whoever made the old stuff). I haven't used HC-110 since the 80's for any serious development so I couldn't say one way or the other. JW
 

ntenny

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
2,520
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Format
Multi Format
Gerald C Koch said:
L-110 contains water and will not have the famed storage life of HC-110.
Click to expand...

Can you share how you know this? I know it's much less viscous, but the suggestion I've seen in past discussions is that it just uses a much lower-viscosity glycol as the solvent. Adding water seems like a strange thing for the manufacturer to do; it seems like its only effects would be to make shelf life shorter and shipping more expensive!

(People have speculated in the past that L-110 might be a relabeled or cloned version of Ilfotec HC, which is supposed to have an eternal shelf life like HC-110. I've never used the stuff so I can't compare.)

-NT
 

Gerald C Koch

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,131
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format

Kodak seems to have made changes to this developer over the years. However they were careful not to change how it works or the results produced. The current change by the manufacturer is only in the size of the bottle and the elimination of the European version.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gerald C Koch

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,131
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format

It's very obvious when you look at the MSDS for L-110. This developer contains potassium sulfite instead of the diethanolamine sulfur dioxide adduct as used in the Kodak formula for the source of sulfite ions in the working developer. Potassium sulfite is not soluble in organic solvents so water must be present. You can also add up the percentage values of the various ingredients in L-110 and come to the same conclusion. The Kodak formula also uses the adduct of diethanolamine and hydrogen bromide as a source of bromide ions.

but the suggestion I've seen in past discussions is that it just uses a much lower-viscosity glycol as the solvent. Adding water seems like a strange thing for the manufacturer to do
Click to expand...

I wish that people would not speculate without reading the pertinent documentation. Actually formulating a developer that does not use water is the strange thing.

Now L-110 may produce results very sililar to HC-110 but then so does D-76. However L-110 and HC-110 are different in several respects.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

StoneNYC

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format

You mention that Ilford couldn't afford the cost, but they have ilfotec HC which I thought was also basically the same minus the pyro-type-poison ingredient.

PS I'm asking not making a statement.
 

ntenny

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
2,520
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Format
Multi Format

Makes sense; thanks. It still seems like a weird decision to me, but then I'm not the chemical engineer staring down a list of requirements and trying to cook up something that meets them all.

-NT
 

Mark_S

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
563
Location
Portland, OR
Format
4x5 Format
FWIW,
Last time I needed developer, I had a hard time finding HC-110 and bought a bottle of Ilfotec-HC. I've been pretty happy with the Ilfotec-HC, I develop a bit longer than I did in HC-110 to get similar contrast, and use Dilution B. The Liter of Ilfotec-HC that I bought about 3 years ago is running low. I store the HC-110 in 250ml Glass Reagent Bottles, since I find it easier to suck the stuff up in a syringe from those, and I am down to my last bottle of the Ilfotec so I should probably start thinking of buying more developer - to be honest, I am tempted to stick with Ilfotec-HC rather than HC-110 since it is probably going to be around for longer.

Somebody earlier in this tread stated that HC-110 has no water in it, but according to the covingtoninnovations site, the HC-110 MSDS incudes water as an ingredient.
 

Gerald C Koch

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,131
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format
StoneNYC said:
You mention that Ilford couldn't afford the cost, but they have ilfotec HC which I thought was also basically the same minus the pyro-type-poison ingredient.

PS I'm asking not making a statement.
Click to expand...

The Ilford developer is a closer match but still not the same. If you mean by "pyro-type poison ingredient" that Kodak uses catechol in its formulation it appears that its presence seems to come and go with different versions of HC-110. When used It is always present in a much lower concentration than hydroquinone.
 

Gerald C Koch

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,131
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format
Mark_S said:
FWIW,
Somebody earlier in this tread stated that HC-110 has no water in it, but according to the covingtoninnovations site, the HC-110 MSDS incudes water as an ingredient.
Click to expand...

Not according to the patent formula." The term "Water to make" is an obvious error in the A&T book as pointed out on the Covington site and does not appear in the patent formula. One need only add up the ingredients to find that there is no volume left to make up with water.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

StoneNYC

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format

Gotcha!

And yes, I couldn't remember the name off hand, I know it's a minuscule amount, and I've seen others say in such a small dose it shouldn't have any effect, putting into question why it's even in there.

I'm no chemist. So I wouldn't know.

Do you know, does the ilford HC contain water? It seems to last for a very long time and Simon told me it will last for years.
 

Gerald C Koch

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,131
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format
StoneNYC said:
Do you know, does the ilford HC contain water?
Click to expand...

Hard to say as the percent spread of the ingredients is so large. If you add up all the upper limits then no, if you add the lower limits then yes. One could measure the specific gravity of the concentrate to settle the question. Another possibility is to check the British patents mentioned at the Covington site.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ntenny

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
2,520
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Format
Multi Format

Remember that just because the example in the patent says something, it doesn't mean it can *only* be practiced that way. If you look at the actual claims for the 1971 HC-110 patent (US3552969), all you have to do to infringe it is use a developing agent, an organic activator, and PVP, with a certain concentration of "inorganic salt" (I'm not sure what the last refers to). The dependent claims specify it down to a PQ-type developer in liquid concentrate, an organic amine solvent, etc., but under even the narrowest of the claims there's still a lot of room for variation in formulae that would be covered. In fact claims 16 and 17 cover the possibility of including water in the developer---which does NOT mean that HC-110 contains water, but it means that you couldn't have gotten around the coverage of the patent by concocting a version of it that contained water.

Unless the UK patent is really badly written, it wouldn't tell you if there's water in Ilfotec HC or not.

-NT
 

Axle

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
543
Location
Milton, ON
Format
Multi Format

Gerald C Koch

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,131
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format
ntenny said:
Remember that just because the example in the patent says something, it doesn't mean it can *only* be practiced that way.
Click to expand...

True. But the formula does prove that it is possible to formulate a developer concentrate that contains no water. The use of amine adducts rather than inorganic salts like potassium sulfite or potassium bromide stresses this point. If the concentrate contains water then the adducts are not necessary.

Remember that besides the patent we also have additional information from the MSDS and the private communication between Bill Troop and Dick Henn the developer of HC-110 at Kodak. The consensus of people that have studied the developer is that the actual formula is close to that in the patent. As with any developer formulation the amounts of the ingredients are constrained to certain limits.

Unless the UK patent is really badly written, it wouldn't tell you if there's water in Ilfotec HC or not.
Click to expand...

In US patent law the formulas in such a patent are used as a proof of concept for the claims made. In other words they must describe a working developer. I don't know if British patent law uses the same principle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register