New (2019 version) HC-110 developer not the same?

[subsole]

... except for ilfotec-HC?

Who produces Ilfotec-hc can produce hc-110. The truth was probably like all the rest of Kodak’s weird moves: saving money (while cheapening their products).

Ilfotec HC is also made by Tetenal in Germany.

 

[pentaxuser]

HC-110 was made in a way that demanded a particular and demanding set of manufacturing techniques. It is those techniques that remain proprietary. Tetenal was set up to make HC-110 for Eastman Kodak's first, and then Kodak Alaris. It may be that no one else is able to do so without substantial capital investment - capital that Kodak Alaris doesn't have.

Would I be right in assuming from the above Matt that there was a period when the "old" HC110 was made by Tetenal? If that was the case then the change is either deliberate for reasons we can only speculate on or some change to the "new" Tetenal means that the means needed to produce the old HC110 has gone

I wonder what it was about the old HC110 that prevents any existing chemical company from reproducing it?

If it was a deliberate decision by KA to stop the old HC110 then let's hope that the changes which appear to be causing issues does not come back to bite KA

Unless there is still a unique selling point about the new HC110 and there wouldn't appear to be, then it has to compete on simple price grounds with Ilford's Ilfotec HC.

With most consumers these days and that includes Henning's new young, film revivalists the fact that Kodak is American will I think cut no ice

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

Not just the young folks, either. I've used film for fifty years. I don't care if my materials are made on Mars, as long as they do what they're supposed to do.

Changes like this, however, are why I've been headed for mix-my-own chemistry for the past fifteen years. Caffenol derivatives, Parodinal, Mytol, hombrewed D-23, D-76, and D-72, etc. If I'm mixing them myself, some corporation with eyes only on their dividends and annual report can't change them just to make them cheaper -- and in the process, I save a bunch of money.

As long as I can buy metol, phenidone, and a few other fairly simple chemicals (many of which are so common I get them at the grocery store), I'm not dependent on any incarnation of Kodak for my chemicals, only for the film (and there, we have Fuji, Ilford, Foma, Efke, Shanghai, etc. to keep them honest).

 

[MattKing]

Would I be right in assuming from the above Matt that there was a period when the "old" HC110 was made by Tetenal? If that was the case then the change is either deliberate for reasons we can only speculate on or some change to the "new" Tetenal means that the means needed to produce the old HC110 has gone

I wonder what it was about the old HC110 that prevents any existing chemical company from reproducing it?

If it was a deliberate decision by KA to stop the old HC110 then let's hope that the changes which appear to be causing issues does not come back to bite KA

Unless there is still a unique selling point about the new HC110 and there wouldn't appear to be, then it has to compete on simple price grounds with Ilford's Ilfotec HC.

With most consumers these days and that includes Henning's new young, film revivalists the fact that Kodak is American will I think cut no ice

pentaxuser

For a number of years before and after the bankruptcy almost all (all?) of the Kodak black and white darkroom chemicals were manufactured in Germany - that almost certainly meant Tetenal.
Eastman Kodak stopped making those chemicals themselves when they sold off the applicable division to what became the independent entity, Eastman Chemicals.
My understanding is that the equipment used to make HC-110 is both unusual and expensive to construct and operate. Quite likely, Tetenal was/is the only remaining manufacturer with that equipment, and it would be extremely expensive for another manufacturer to duplicate it. With the size of the market being what it is, there probably is now no good economic argument for someone else to do that - Kodak Alaris certainly doesn't have the capital to make that happen.
As to why Kodak Alaris elected to move a substantial amount of its manufacturing from Tetenal, I expect that had more to do with the danger of having to rely on a single international source that had already experienced severe financial problems than it did with price alone. That being said, my understanding is that there are/were many complicating factors about the relationship between Tetenal and Kodak Alaris - Tetenal had been a large distributor of Kodak colour photographic paper in the EU, there were supply problems (which could be due to Kodak Alaris, or might be due to Tetenal not being able to pay their bills), and who knows how much Kodak Alaris has in unpaid and uncollectable accounts owing to it by the former version of Tetenal.

 

[NB23]

But then again, ilfotec-HC is still being easily produced.

Let’s please stop with the “hard/impossible to manufacture” nonsense. Kodak cheaped out and that is all.

 

[MattKing]

Of course if Tetenal goes under again, Ilford/Harman will be in a much worse situation than Kodak Alaris when it comes to their manufacturing sources.
As far as I am aware, Ilfotec-HC has never exhibited the same extra-ordinary longevity as the older versions of HC-110.
And maybe NB23 is right - maybe Kodak Alaris just balked at Tetenal's new price for continuing manufacture. Maybe it would have led a shelf price of two, three, four times the $55.00 CDN that I am currently seeing.

 

[NB23]

There are tons of chemical manufacturers in the world. Hc-110 is easy peasy stuff

There’s nothing magical in manufacturing a product that has been out for close to a century.

And please don’t go into sensationalism, it wouldn’t have doubled or tripled. All it takes is a disconected management with its customer base, and from there, all the decisions are bad ones. And they trickle down until, in the end, a company becomes unrecognizable.

Of course if Tetenal goes under again, Ilford/Harman will be in a much worse situation than Kodak Alaris when it comes to their manufacturing sources.
As far as I am aware, Ilfotec-HC has never exhibited the same extra-ordinary longevity as the older versions of HC-110.
And maybe NB23 is right - maybe Kodak Alaris just balked at Tetenal's new price for continuing manufacture. Maybe it would have led a shelf price of two, three, four times the $55.00 CDN that I am currently seeing.

 

[MattKing]

The waterless nature of old HC-110 is what made it unique. The way it was made was kept proprietary, and involved an entirely separate production line, using equipment that was dedicated to its manufacture.
If someone else could make it, why didn't someone else do so?

 

[Donald Qualls]

"If the question starts with the word 'why', the answer is most likely 'money'." Slight misquote from Robert A. Heinlein. No, not a photographer, as far as I know.

 

[MattKing]

"If the question starts with the word 'why', the answer is most likely 'money'." Slight misquote from Robert A. Heinlein. No, not a photographer, as far as I know.

Well, I am a long time Heinlein fan (at least his early to middle work) and so was Ron Mowrey.
Money is really important, because the remaining film manufacturers (with the possible exception of Fuji) really don't have a lot of it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

At no point have I claimed money is unimportant. It's the driving force behind everything, once you've got a source of clean water, shelter, and at least one square meal stored up.

And although money can't buy happiness, it is possible to rent it by the hour...

 

[pentaxuser]

For a number of years before and after the bankruptcy almost all (all?) of the Kodak black and white darkroom chemicals were manufactured in Germany - that almost certainly meant Tetenal.
Eastman Kodak stopped making those chemicals themselves when they sold off the applicable division to what became the independent entity, Eastman Chemicals.
My understanding is that the equipment used to make HC-110 is both unusual and expensive to construct and operate. Quite likely, Tetenal was/is the only remaining manufacturer with that equipment, and it would be extremely expensive for another manufacturer to duplicate it. With the size of the market being what it is, there probably is now no good economic argument for someone else to do that - Kodak Alaris certainly doesn't have the capital to make that happen.
As to why Kodak Alaris elected to move a substantial amount of its manufacturing from Tetenal, I expect that had more to do with the danger of having to rely on a single international source that had already experienced severe financial problems than it did with price alone. That being said, my understanding is that there are/were many complicating factors about the relationship between Tetenal and Kodak Alaris - Tetenal had been a large distributor of Kodak colour photographic paper in the EU, there were supply problems (which could be due to Kodak Alaris, or might be due to Tetenal not being able to pay their bills), and who knows how much Kodak Alaris has in unpaid and uncollectable accounts owing to it by the former version of Tetenal.

If the "new" Tetenal is operating from the "old" Tetenal factory then it sounds as if the means of producing the "old" HC110 is still there so why not simply commission the new Tetenal to produce the old HC110 on its existing machinery? Then everyone of HC110 old customers remain happy and new users get to enjoy the experience of buying a developer with almost unlimited life.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I repeat:
"As to why Kodak Alaris elected to move a substantial amount of its manufacturing from Tetenal, I expect that had more to do with the danger of having to rely on a single international source that had already experienced severe financial problems than it did with price alone. That being said, my understanding is that there are/were many complicating factors about the relationship between Tetenal and Kodak Alaris - Tetenal had been a large distributor of Kodak colour photographic paper in the EU, there were supply problems (which could be due to Kodak Alaris, or might be due to Tetenal not being able to pay their bills), and who knows how much Kodak Alaris has in unpaid and uncollectable accounts owing to it by the former version of Tetenal."

 

[DREW WILEY]

I do know someone who replicated the traditional HC-110 formula, and he had access to a major research lab, as well as advanced training; and he called it tricky to do. So if NB-23 thinks it's so darn easy to make, maybe he should market his own version and see what kinda of flack comes back his direction.

 

[bnxvs]

Friends, can I ask you? If any of you have both the old and the new HC-110, could you do a development kinetics test at the same concentrate dilution? For example, dilution "B" or "H"?
Just take two pieces of the exposed film, place them in the solutions and time the time with a stopwatch until they are medium black.
Thank you in advance!

 

[NB23]

I do know someone who replicated the traditional HC-110 formula, and he had access to a major research lab, as well as advanced training; and he called it tricky to do. So if NB-23 thinks it's so darn easy to make, maybe he should market his own version and see what kinda of flack comes back his direction.

So your friend made it? You asked him, he made it. Just like that.

What’s the big deal, then?

 

[bobsteele]

So your friend made it? You asked him, he made it. Just like that.

What’s the big deal, then?

Did you even bother to read Drew's post? Access to a major research lab and advanced training, and the caveat from the person who replicated HC110 who had the advanced training and access to to a major research lab saying that the process was tricky should clue you in that replicating HC110 is hard. Although Drew gives no details about the amount of HC110 his acquaintance was able to replicate, I have no doubt that replicating HC110 in commercially viable quantities is difficult. I'm sure, with your apparent command of the subject, you could mix up all you want in your kitchen.

 

[wyofilm]

Of course if Tetenal goes under again, Ilford/Harman will be in a much worse situation than Kodak Alaris when it comes to their manufacturing sources.
As far as I am aware, Ilfotec-HC has never exhibited the same extra-ordinary longevity as the older versions of HC-110.
And maybe NB23 is right - maybe Kodak Alaris just balked at Tetenal's new price for continuing manufacture. Maybe it would have led a shelf price of two, three, four times the $55.00 CDN that I am currently seeing.

B&H has Ilfotec HC listed for $72 per quart. Freestyle has it for about $65 per quart. At these prices it would cost a bit under $1 for develop on roll of 120 unreplenished using 1:31 dilution. Kodak's version is 1/2 the price. Of course I don't know what all this means because I have no idea about the respective formulas. Shocking difference in price, though.

 

[NB23]

All and any respectable labs in the world are advanced with trained people. And there are millions of labs in the world.

Stop make it sound like producing a 100 years old formula is equal to landing on the moon.

What has this forum come to? A bunch of wannabe chemists and wannabe economists? I don’t want to insult any wannabe, please believe me, but trying to make us believe that old hc- 110 is as rare and hard to produce as Red Diamonds is even a bit insulting in the end.

Did you even bother to read Drew's post? Access to a major research lab and advanced training, and the caveat from the person who replicated HC110 who had the advanced training and access to to a major research lab saying that the process was tricky should clue you in that replicating HC110 is hard. Although Drew gives no details about the amount of HC110 his acquaintance was able to replicate, I have no doubt that replicating HC110 in commercially viable quantities is difficult. I'm sure, with your apparent command of the subject, you could mix up all you want in your kitchen.

 

[DREW WILEY]

NB-23. What kind of smart alec remark was that? I know someone who replicated the classic HC-110 formula for their OWN use because they relied on it specifically, for a variety of very tight process control that would be a big headache to recalibrate, who can't conveniently acquire any form of HC110 in their own country. By nature, it was a moderately large-volume batch, and by no means the kind of thing that could be done in a home darkroom, or even analyzed by the common individual. It would be prohibitively expensive to ship out from there, due to hazmat duties, just as it is prohibitively expense to ship most such products in as an individual. The only kind of people who know how to avoid a mountain of complicated paperwork and licensing in chemical import and export are called drug cartels, and I doubt the potential profits on bootleg HC-110 would have much interest to them ! Now as per millions of labs around the world ... Yes, I know any number of labs that could dissect a product like this if they had any actual financial incentive, both at a research and industrial levels. They also have tens of million of dollars worth of analysis equipment alone and annual budgets in the tens of millions, at a minimum.
Actually, I'm pretty well surrounded by facilities so equipped in nearby cities. I used to work within walking distance of some.
But everyone of them had budgets in the tens and even hundreds of billions per year, not millions. So if you happen to have a friend in one of those kinds of places willing to do you a favor in his spare time with company equipment, have at it. They're probably overworked already, for real pay.

 

[NB23]

You are driving your idea in a path on which I won’t go.

Hc-110 “old” has been discontinued and replaced by a “new” formula for economical reasons, I am sure, as with anything else on the market. New supplier, new distribution channels, blabla... that’s all there is to it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

NB23 - you seem to be assuming that everything involved is all about casual use rather than technical applications, in which case total repeatability, and KNOWN keeping properties, and hence session to session fully predictable reliability of classic HC-110, are key. It's not about finding a marketable workaround, of which there are several. In this case, nearly equal and truly equal are equivalent to saying your aim "almost" shot a charging grizzly bear. I won't go into details. The question is about fully replicating HC-110, which is a difficult task. Whether you or I need precisely the same thing as before is a different issue. I still have enough of the classic product that it might be awhile before I even try the substitutes; and maybe by then there will be a consensus opinion about how well opened concentrates of the newer versions hold up.

 

[NB23]

NB23 - you seem to be assuming that everything involved is all about casual use rather than technical applications, in which case total repeatability, and KNOWN keeping properties, and hence session to session fully predictable reliability of classic HC-110, are key. It's not about finding a marketable workaround, of which there are several. In this case, nearly equal and truly equal are equivalent to saying your aim "almost" shot a charging grizzly bear. I won't go into details. The question is about fully replicating HC-110, which is a difficult task. Whether you or I need precisely the same thing as before is a different issue. I still have enough of the classic product that it might be awhile before I even try the substitutes; and maybe by then there will be a consensus opinion about how well opened concentrates of the newer versions hold up.

Any lab in the world can, and will, replicate good old hc-110 in exchange of proper money.

We are in 2020. You know, the era where they cram 40 million little dots on a 1 inch sensor, produce vaccines in billions within a few days, create and supress all kinds of illnesses. We are in the era where they modify the DNA!

And you are trying to tell us that hc-110 is the mother of all this? The staple by which all modern research is measured?

I will tell you how easy to produce hc-100 is (new and old): as easy as spreading peanut butter on your morning toasts.

 

[DREW WILEY]

For all the "proper money" any of us could scrape together, it wouldn't be enough to get any more than a chuckle out of any manufacturing lab I know about. The tiny little personal lab my wife had in the DNA quality control department of a biotech film she once worked for had ten million dollars worth of instrumentation just in it, and the designer vaccines she handled averaged around $40,000 per cc. And that was just for prototyping. At scale-up volume, it was around 6 million dollars per gallon, depending. But after markup due to FDA, R&D, paying more phD's than my cat has fleas ... you get the point. They're in it for the money, and not peanuts. But what you don't seem to get is that if someone has spent a couple months to calibrate a very precise workflow where every single negative has to come out within about plus/minus .01 density matched over the entire curve scale, every little variable has to be pinned down - temperature within 1/10th F, film almost perfectly consistent batch to batch, or else a large single batch purchase of 8x10 TMax, and completely predictable developer activity. They can't risk a substitute for HC-110 made in uncle Henry's lead-soldered moonshine vat back in the Tennessippi woods. And even he wouldn't batch it for you unless someone was willing to drink it.

 

[pentaxuser]

If there are technical reasons why "old" HC 110 cannot be reproduced then can someone give reasons why that is? It would appear from Matt's reply to an earlier post of mine that it may be connected to the scare that the "old Tetenal's" demise gave Kodak. The "new Tetenal " operates from the same factory as did the "old " Tetenal where the "old" HC110 was made so clearly it could make the "old " Tetenal but for better or worse it would appear that Kodak, according to Matt has decided to bring back its production to the U.S. on what I assume to be a "just in case" basis.

Setting aside whether there is any reason to believe that this makes production of HC 110 any more reliable, it surely has to be the case that either the new source of HC 110 does not have the facilities/expertise to produce the "old" HC 110 currently. While presumably it could reproduce the old HC 110 if Kodak was prepared to fund the investment required I can only assume that Kodak does not believe that such investment would return a benefit that is higher than the cost. I'd assume that Kodak's reasoning might be as follows: The "new HC 110" may not last as long but that's a price worth paying to ensure that we, Kodak, can continue to ensure it is made and we can sell it at its current price.

So essentially it is a money saving move on Kodak's part based on a projected lack of viable return on its investment. This might be a prudent move on Kodak's part and only time will tell. However whether you are a believer in Kodak's good intentions in the long term in the film market or not, I see no reason why we all of us should not draw the same conclusion that in the broadest sense of the phrase it is a money saving move by Kodak

In short it seems to me that NB23 has a valid point

pentaxuser