New HC-110 Formula

[pentaxuser]

Just a piece of speculation on my part but if there are genuine changes that adversely affect its longevity and possibly other well know and trusted aspects of HC110 then Kodak may well lose sales to its "veterans" but has factored this in in the equation that says the vets are small enough in number and getting smaller each year for them not to outweigh the sales to its younger newcomers to film who never knew the "old HC110

I assume in all of the above rationale that I am attributing to Kodak as a possible explanation for the change that there has to be a reason or reasons why Kodak has not persisted with the tried and tested HC110

I am assuming that low viscosity is a symptom of what makes HC110 long lasting and not the essence since in other developer formulas longevity does not seem to be related to low viscosity. As another poster has pointed out, Rodinal is of "normal" viscosity and yet has great longevity

pentaxuser

 

[abruzzi]

Did Tentenal produce the old HC-110 for Kodak? If so, I can see that during the Tentenal bankruptcy, Kodak May have pursued an alternate supplier to maintain availability, not knowing that the new Tentenal would be reborn from the ashes. Now the may be locked into a contract with the new supplier.

 

[AgX]

We had this argument already days ago in context of changing Kodak order numbers.
The reason for HC 110 given by Kodak, as a newer version being less toxic, does not seem valid to me.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Viscosity has nothing to do with keeping at all and in any way regarding HC110. It is the lack of water, and the lack of inorganic salts such as NaBr and Na2SO3. Rodinal is another matter entirely, and keeps well based on its formulation which is very high pH and very high in Sulfite ion. Two different types of beast.

PE

 

[Grim Tuesday]

We had this argument already days ago in context of changing Kodak order numbers.
The reason for HC 110 given by Kodak, as a newer version being less toxic, does not seem valid to me.

Did Kodak give that reason? That was literally just a speculation (that launched lots of debate) early on in the thread.

 

[markjwyatt]

Viscosity has nothing to do with keeping at all and in any way regarding HC110. It is the lack of water, and the lack of inorganic salts such as NaBr and Na2SO3. Rodinal is another matter entirely, and keeps well based on its formulation which is very high pH and very high in Sulfite ion. Two different types of beast.

PE

The high viscosity [old] HC110 is a clue that there is no water. It does not have to be that way (there are lower viscosity organic solvents), but we just know from history that it was that way. Now that the viscosity has changed it makes sense to wonder.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Mark, there are no low viscosity basic solvents that would suffice for the purposes of HC110, and therefore the viscosity is predetermined by the need for alkalinity, solvency, and ability to form adducts or "salts" with HBr and SO2. This was Dick Henn and Bill Lee's magnum opus.

It took a lot of thought and is echoed in several other Kodak formulas with less keeping and less viscosity.

PE

 

[NB23]

I saw the new bottle in question of the “Kodak fixer”: no dilution instructions except “film to make 3.8L” and “paper to make 7.8L”. Now that’s really lame.

No other dilutions specified. No fixing times.

And the label is really badly printed on some cheap plastic paper.

All in all, this is very unkodak-like. I was not impressed.

 

[AgX]

Did Kodak give that reason? That was literally just a speculation (that launched lots of debate) early on in the thread.

You said it seems less toxic.

But I thought you were referring to some remark from Kodak somewhere.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You said it seems less toxic.

But I thought you were referring to some remark from Kodak somewhere.

No, sorry, that was speculation from reading on the MSDS that it was category 2 instead of category 4 on some hazard statements. All I've heard from Kodak is that their claim there is no differences between the usage of old and new hc-110. I also asked B&H to ask Kodak and they got back to me yesterday. This was their response to my question about Dektol:

I contacted Kodak concerning your inquiry about the Kodak Professional DEKTOL Paper Developer (To Make 1 gal, 2019 Version), B&H # KODEKTOLDEV • MFR # 1058296. According to Kodak, there is no difference in the makeup of the Dektol Paper Developer. Kodak states that they made a catalog number change only due to Kodak’s worldwide consolidation of their item numbers. All of their products are tested and certified. As such, you may be confident that the results will turn out excellent and identical to the results you have become used to with the same product with its previous MFR number.

 

[BradS]

This (HC-110) was Dick Henn and Bill Lee's magnum opus.
...
PE

...and now, it seems, it is gone forever. It is a sad, sad day.

I've got less than 150ml left in my botle of HC-110, dated Nov-2007.
I think I'll switch back to homebrew D-23 or D-76.
At least we still have Tri-X !

 

[dynachrome]

This is only slightly off topic - I have a plastic bottle of Agfa Studional liquid developer. I am under the impression that it is similar in some ways to a previous version of HC-110. Might it still be good?

 

[markjwyatt]

Mark, there are no low viscosity basic solvents that would suffice for the purposes of HC110, and therefore the viscosity is predetermined by the need for alkalinity, solvency, and ability to form adducts or "salts" with HBr and SO2. This was Dick Henn and Bill Lee's magnum opus.

It took a lot of thought and is echoed in several other Kodak formulas with less keeping and less viscosity.

PE

Thanks, PE. Water would help with the alkalinity I suppose, but may defeat the other needs.

Is it the case that there are three basic HC110 formulations?

1. Classic/original (possibly with slight modifications over the years) with really high viscosity (really syrupy)
2. Second state, still high viscosity, but maybe lower viscosity than "classic" (light syrup)
3. Current Legacy L110-like low viscosity formula? (watery)

I bought a bottle in March, wondering it f it is "1" or "2". I noticed an expiration of August 2020 on it when this thread started. It could be old, or maybe "2", or perhaps the expirations are extremely conservative.

Note: As a viscosity indicator, I turned the full 1 liter bottle upside down, and a secondary bubble formed and took about 1 second to float to the top.

 

[markjwyatt]

This is only slightly off topic - I have a plastic bottle of Agfa Studional liquid developer. I am under the impression that it is similar in some ways to a previous version of HC-110. Might it still be good?

I won't know the answer, but as a reference to people that do, when was it manufactured/purchased?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Thanks. Water would help with the alkalinity I suppose, but may defeat the other needs.

Is it the case that there are three basic HC110 formulations?

1. Classic/original (possibly with slight modifications over the years) with really high viscosity (really syrupy)
2. Second state, still high viscosity, but maybe lower viscosity than "classic" (light syrup)
3. Current Legacy L110 low viscosity formula? (watery)

I bought a bottle in March, wondering it f it is "1" or "2". I noticed an expiration of August 2020 on it when this thread started. It could be old, or maybe "2", or perhaps the expirations are extremely conservative.

Note: As a viscosity indicator, I turned the full 1 liter bottle upside down, and a secondary bubble formed and took about 1 second to float to the top.

I think you have #2 but the expiration sounds really early. Has anyone else gotten a thin German HC-110? I got one in May but I threw away the bottle after decanting into amber glass bottles and didn't consult the expiration date because everyone knows Hc-110 never expires...

 

[markjwyatt]

I think you have #2 but the expiration sounds really early. Has anyone else gotten a thin German HC-110? I got one in May but I threw away the bottle after decanting into amber glass bottles and didn't consult the expiration date because everyone knows Hc-110 never expires...

Mine is German made, and is of a light syrup like viscosity. I have never used the Classic, so not sure what it is like exactly.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Mine is German made, and is of a light syrup like viscosity. I have never used the Classic, so not sure what it is like exactly.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/hc-110-viscosity.168413/

Here is a thread I made about it in June. I ended up concluding that I was the outlier and my house was just hot but I think that this current thread makes it clear that the phenomenon is real. My first bottle (German, from 2017) was never much thinner than honey and the new one is much more like maple syrup.

 

[dynachrome]

I must have found the Studional at a camera show. It is marked Agfa Studional Liquid B & W Film Developer. There are two numbers on the label which might be product codes: 13 136 197-3079 and 13 157 000-9039. There is also what might be a batch or date code: 82055 N. It isn't anything made recently.

 

[AgX]

I won't know the answer, but as a reference to people that do, when was it manufactured/purchased?

After AgfaPhoto as manufacturer went under their chemicals plant went on with photochemicals for two years or so under new ownership. Agfa however then made Studional themselves under a different product name.

 

[john_s]

This is only slightly off topic - I have a plastic bottle of Agfa Studional liquid developer. I am under the impression that it is similar in some ways to a previous version of HC-110. Might it still be good?

It is the same developer as Rodinal Special although it's very different to Rodinal. It's more conventional than HC-110, having water soluble ingredients in water, and a lot of thiethanolamine. Whether it's good or not now will probably be a function of how good the plastic bottle is. I have found that Agfa concentrates, like Neutol-WA, have kept very well unopened.

 

[pentaxuser]

So, if I have understood the "chemistry" of HC110 at least 2 or more well respected contributors, one of whom is PE, are stating that with HC110 being more viscose = more water = shorter life. The new HC110 can thus be expected to have a shorter life although we cannot expect Kodak to say this. However if the question to Kodak were to be phrased in the correct way it might be difficult for Kodak not to answer directly. If it does not give a direct answer then it would appear that we can draw our own conclusions.

If Kodak has knowingly sacrificed the longevity of HC110 there has to be a reason but I doubt that we will ever know what that reason was. Asking Kodak about the change strikes me as no less intrusive than asking CATLABS about the origins of its new 80 and 320 films but no-one seems to want to defend Kodak on the grounds of its right say nothing on the grounds of commercial sensitivity and right to resist "intrusiveness" by consumers.

pentaxuser

 

[kingbuzzie]

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/hc-110-viscosity.168413/

Here is a thread I made about it in June. I ended up concluding that I was the outlier and my house was just hot but I think that this current thread makes it clear that the phenomenon is real. My first bottle (German, from 2017) was never much thinner than honey and the new one is much more like maple syrup.

I've had the same experience. My older "German" hc-110 is thicker than the new German hc-110.

 

[Photo Engineer]

So, if I have understood the "chemistry" of HC110 at least 2 or more well respected contributors, one of whom is PE, are stating that with HC110 being more viscose = more water = shorter life. The new HC110 can thus be expected to have a shorter life although we cannot expect Kodak to say this. However if the question to Kodak were to be phrased in the correct way it might be difficult for Kodak not to answer directly. If it does not give a direct answer then it would appear that we can draw our own conclusions.

If Kodak has knowingly sacrificed the longevity of HC110 there has to be a reason but I doubt that we will ever know what that reason was. Asking Kodak about the change strikes me as no less intrusive than asking CATLABS about the origins of its new 80 and 320 films but no-one seems to want to defend Kodak on the grounds of its right say nothing on the grounds of commercial sensitivity and right to resist "intrusiveness" by consumers.

pentaxuser

I think that there is a typo here. More viscous = older version and less viscous = newer version. I hesitate to comment on keeping.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Thanks, PE. Water would help with the alkalinity I suppose, but may defeat the other needs.

Is it the case that there are three basic HC110 formulations?

1. Classic/original (possibly with slight modifications over the years) with really high viscosity (really syrupy)
2. Second state, still high viscosity, but maybe lower viscosity than "classic" (light syrup)
3. Current Legacy L110-like low viscosity formula? (watery)

I bought a bottle in March, wondering it f it is "1" or "2". I noticed an expiration of August 2020 on it when this thread started. It could be old, or maybe "2", or perhaps the expirations are extremely conservative.

Note: As a viscosity indicator, I turned the full 1 liter bottle upside down, and a secondary bubble formed and took about 1 second to float to the top.

Water has nothing to do with alkalinity in any case. In fact, some of the most alkaline solutions I have ever seen were made with no water at all. So, this is a false assumption.

The three assumptions appear to be correct, but without 3 MSDS sheets that show some sort of difference, we have nothing more than speculation. And nothing is known about keeping except speculation as well.

Nothing is known about performance either.

PE

 

[BradS]

So, if I have understood the "chemistry" of HC110 at least 2 or more well respected contributors, one of whom is PE, are stating that with HC110 being more viscose = more water = shorter life. The new HC110 can thus be expected to have a shorter life although we cannot expect Kodak to say this. However if the question to Kodak were to be phrased in the correct way it might be difficult for Kodak not to answer directly. If it does not give a direct answer then it would appear that we can draw our own conclusions.

If Kodak has knowingly sacrificed the longevity of HC110 there has to be a reason but I doubt that we will ever know what that reason was. Asking Kodak about the change strikes me as no less intrusive than asking CATLABS about the origins of its new 80 and 320 films but no-one seems to want to defend Kodak on the grounds of its right say nothing on the grounds of commercial sensitivity and right to resist "intrusiveness" by consumers.

pentaxuser

I was under the impression that all of the talk about shelf life was speculative...wailing and gnashing of teeth but, purely speculative.