Ilfotec HC is also made by Tetenal in Germany.
... 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).
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 goneHC-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.
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.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
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.
Well, I am a long time Heinlein fan (at least his early to middle work) and so was Ron Mowrey."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.
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.
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.
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.So your friend made it? You asked him, he made it. Just like that.
What’s the big deal, then?
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.
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.
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.
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?