Kodak HC-110 to Ilfotec HC dilution mapping

I use Ilfotec HC. I'm in Scotland. It is easier to get and cheaper than HC-110. I usually use it straight from the bottle at 1:29 ('cause I can't do the mental math for 1:31!) and am happy.

But ...

I far more frequently see dilutions for HC-110 than for Ilfotec HC. So when I want to try a new film or dev time recommended on-line it would be really nice to look up, for example, that HC-110 dilution F is equivalent of Ilfotec HC at 1:?? or dilution B is the equivalent of etc.

Does anyone have a little table of comparative dilutions? I'm surprised I can't find one by searching but I get so many results searching for these developer names compared they swamp what I'm actually looking for. Or perhaps it is my personal search bubble. Google isn't perfect - yet!

[Perfectionists please note that I appreciate these are not strictly identical developers and I should probably invest a few months doing extensive testing but I'm after rough equivalents that can be used as starting points or good-enoughs or are perhaps the product of someone else's extensive testing efforts ]

For the large part they are supposed to be functional equivalents - the main thing to consider is that HC's times for 'box' speed are usually geared to Ilford's preferred G-Bar of 0.62 (give or take) and Kodak's for HC-110 to a CI of 0.55-0.58. Zeroing out these (and a few other differences of what they decide to measure to define timings etc - and agitation patterns) will likely bring them to close to unity (within reasonable margins for operator error influence). As for the seeming oddity of the 1+31 etc - it makes much more sense when it's considered in US Fluid Ounces...

Working in milliliters, I changed 1+47 to 1+49 for the same reason: simplicity. I have used HC-110, Ilfotec HC and Legacy Pro L110 interchangeably and had the expected results each time (except for once when I poured the fixer in first! )

So is the consensus to just use the exact same dilutions!? Life can't be that simple - but I'm not complaining

A (1:15)
B (1:31)
C (1:19)
D (1:39)
E (1:47)
F (1:79)
G (1:119)
H (1:63)

RogerHyam said:

So is the consensus to just use the exact same dilutions!?

Click to expand...

It uses exactly the same dilutions as HC-110 - Occam's razor would suggest that Ilford intended it as a drop-in equivalent.

Lachlan Young said:

It uses exactly the same dilutions as HC-110 - Occam's razor would suggest that Ilford intended it as a drop-in equivalent.

Click to expand...

In particular, an equivalent in the context of commercial labs, using standardized, manufacturer's recommendations.
So if you tend to use non-standard developing procedures - for example reduced agitation, or unusually warm or cold temperatures - than it would probably be necessary to test.

Keep in mind there are different dilutions for HC110 for European concentrate vs. America. I think the presumption here is that Ilfotec HC follows the US concntrations. It sounds like that is the case.

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

@markjwyatt the pre-diluted HC-110 was a Kodak-Pathé product as far as I am aware - even more confusingly, there was a Kodak Pathé Photo Flo that's Photo Flo 600, not 200, though there's no clear mention of this on the bottle...

Ilford's LC-29 seems to aim towards roughly the same sort of idea as a pre-diluted HC - I think.

Photo-flo 600 was the product sold to large commercial labs in various parts of the world. While Kodak Pathe probably distributed from France, I would be surprised if it wasn't also distributed through Kodak Ltd. (UK), Kodak Australia, Kodak South Afrika, etc., etc. I believe it was also made and distributed in the US.
The half strength HC-110 was a European product, and may have originated from Kodak Pathe's plant, but it too would have been distributed through Kodak Ltd.

@MattKing There were plenty of products sold in the UK which could come from all three of EK, Ltd, and Pathé - likely depending on stock levels & relative demand. Chalon apparently had significant wide-roll finishing/ packaging capacity & was one of the main chemical manufacturing/ packaging sites.

And Chalon made movie film that resulted in images that were easily identifiable as being on Kodak Pathé film stock.
One of the many job responsibilities that my Dad had was to be the contact person at the Kodak Canada lab he was customer service manager for with respect to any of the motion picture customers who had arranged to have Eastman Color film stock shipped there for pickup. One of the many film shoots he dealt with were actually completing a film that had been partially shot on Kodak Pathé film stock before shooting was interrupted - most likely because money ran out.
A new production company got ahold of the old stock, raised financing, and made a plan to finish shooting near our area on the west coast of Canada. Intriguingly, they also got Rochester (Eastman Kodak) to sell to them some US produced Eastman Color negative stock that, with the appropriate colour timing, could be made to intermix reasonably seamlessly with the Kodak Pathé stock already shot. My recollection from conversations with my Dad was that Rochester approached this as a challenge, and were happy at how well they had met the challenge.
I think a lot of people under-estimate how much of a combination to the world of `Kodak` the many international subsidiaries actually made. Just as how much of Kodak Alaris came from those subsidiaries, rather than from Eastman Kodak itself.