New HC-110 Formula

[MattKing]

We make use of the minimum method, so 1ml syrup per 4x5" sheet and we keep it slowly rolling for an hour. Love it!

That is a fairly small amount of concentrate - it strikes me that it wouldn't take much to contaminate it.
I would test it again - maybe with a more traditional approach of 6 ml per roll/ 1.5 ml per 4x5 and normal inversion agitation.

 

[NB23]

I understand very well but you dont. You clearly have not read what I have written.

the developer was good. What else is there to know?

 

[MattKing]

It is certainly possible that a contaminant might have increased the activity of the developer, resulting in overall fog.

 

[MattKing]

Any chance that your friend accidentally grabbed a bottle of PolyMax T instead?

 

[BradS]

It is certainly possible that a contaminant might have increased the activity of the developer, resulting in overall fog.

...but, he states that the entire surface of the film was black. Assuming that includes the sprocket holes are and spaces between frames, parts of the film that would normally be unexposed, it seems quite likely that the whole film was exposed to light some where in the process.

It seems entirely wrong to blame the developer in this case.

 

[Lachlan Young]

the developer was good. What else is there to know?

There's nothing else to know in this case, other than that operators rarely want to admit to their errors, especially when their position is founded in bad technique to begin with.

 

[Vaughn]

Not anything to do with the developer is my take on the dark negative situation. No exposure -- no developed silver...unless some contaminate got in the developer -- you probably would not have any chemical fogging agents around, anyway. So, what happened to the darkesty shadows on the negative? If they are not clear on the neg, then the film was fogged somewhere along the way (unless grossly over-exposed in the camera, I suppose..like leaving the aperture wide open accidently).

 

[Donald Qualls]

Are you shooting imaginary film Donald, or did you just give us something close to the thickness of the emulsion, not the entire package?

I was estimating and didn't have a good figure for thickness of the film. Since the one I used is apparently too thin, multiply by an appropriate factor to get a slightly larger level of irrelevant displacement. Even if it's 5 ml instead of just over one, it's hard to see much effect out of 250 ml in a single reel tank.

Edit: however, watch your units. That figure was giving in cm to keep the final answer in milliliters (= cubic centimeters); it's actually about .007" to .008", and I grabbed that figure recalling sheet film being on a base that thick.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry Donald - I was trying for the tongue-in-cheek emoticon!
The .007" figure is correct for sheet film. 120 film is about .005" and 35mm film is about .0036", which equates to close to .09 millimetres. or .009 cm
And you are correct about the total effect - trivial or close enough.

 

[Donald Qualls]

And now I realize I made an old slide rule error -- misplaced decimal. I should have used .02 cm (= 0.2mm) for the estimate, meaning it's closer to 11 ml displacement, which is almost starting to matter.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

So I did a test today and the 15 year old Ilfotec HC worked perfectly at 1+49 dilution in a Jobo processing a single roll of Plus-X at 50 E.I. I've attached an image showing the colour of the concentrate. I should point out that I did have to spend a while cleaning the top of the developer container as a significant amount of "gunk" had accumulated.

 

[BradS]

So I did a test today and the 15 year old Ilfotec HC worked perfectly at 1+49 dilution in a Jobo processing a single roll of Plus-X at 50 E.I. I've attached an image showing the colour of the concentrate. I should point out that I did have to spend a while cleaning the top of the developer container as a significant amount of "gunk" had accumulated.

Thank you for doing the test and reporting the results....seems like good news.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

That Ilfotec developer is nowhere near as dark as HC-110 would be if it were 15 years old. I've seen this developer get very dark and bright red. I plan on switching to Ilfotec HC when I need to restock some developer. No more HC-110 for me.

Thank you for your post.

The roll was developed using only 5ml of concentrate and there was no sign of insufficient activity.

 

[MattKing]

Old, bright red HC-110 has always worked fine for me
I guess we will have to wait for ten years to see how the new current HC-110 fairs when ten year old.

 

[oldche]

I broke my HC-110 (the "old" formula) 1L bottle down to smaller bottles. The smallest bottles hold about 1.5 oz, and I measure concentrate from them with either a syringe or a 10ml graduated cylinder when making a working solution for developing. When all of my 1.5 oz bottles are empty, I use one of the next larger bottles to refill them all up to the brim, emptying the larger bottle entirely. When I run out again, I empty entirely the next larger size bottle into a medium bottle and the smallest bottles, etc. In this manner th only HC-110 concentrate I ever have in a part full bottle is only in a small 1.5 oz. bottle. I only ever see discoloration occur in the small working 1.5 oz bottle. The larger "full to the brim" bottles have been the original color. https://flic.kr/p/2dd5Cbm

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Since in my limited testing, the Legacy L110 worked just the same, if push comes to shove, I'll switch to it.

And it's half the cost!

If the new HC-110 will continue to work well over something like a two year period when the concentrate is stored in a half empty original container, the loss of legendary longevity will be sad, but not of much consequence to people who actually buy and use the stuff.
If the longevity is reduced to something like a couple of months when half empty, it will be much less desirable.

Really, if it will last a year it would be fine for me. $32 for an entire year of development. Even if I only develop two rolls a month, that's $1.34 per roll, and whatever isn't used could be chunked and I'd feel I got my moneys worth.

Fair enough. But how about “new” Tri-X? AFAIK in nearly forty years of using Kodak and Ilford I cannot help but notice Ilford products are more or less the same until the name on the package changes. HP5 is HP5 until they added the “Plus”? Kodak leaves me wondering what I’m getting this time around provided I get something at all. Plus-x? Polymax paper developer? FP4 and then FP4 plus always await me at B&H and so does PQ Universal and MG. Has not prepacked D-76 changed without notice as well as pre Tetenal HC-110 as has been mentioned in every edition of the Film Developing Cookbook? Kodak just has bad luck with their supply chain? Every Ilford product I grew up with is still with me now or in a new clearly defined form. What is their secret to success? But really all I want to know is if I just wasted 30 bucks...

This is my biggest gripe with anything Kodak as well. It seems that Kodak is always the subject of discussion on item discontinuation or changes. I remember being paranoid about 8 or 10 years ago, after discussions here on APUG that Tri-X was going away. I think that's when I decided to give Ilford films a try. And even though there wasn't a Camaro built after 67/68/69 as someone posted, I still drive a 2018 Camaro and enjoy it. I'm hoping I can find the right product combination soon, because Tri-X/TX whatever it's called today is what I always go back to like a horse running for a burning barn.


And in my own words:
I've briefly read the first two or three pages of this thread, skipped the majority of the middle arguments about world wars, pollution, political concerns, and bulk negativity, and picked up on the last two or three pages. If we take all these away, to include personal opinions, does the fact remain that HC-110 is still a good, competent, capable developer that can produce the excellent results that it's been known for?

 

[BradS]

.....
I've briefly read the first two or three pages of this thread, skipped the majority of the middle arguments about world wars, pollution, political concerns, and bulk negativity, and picked up on the last two or three pages. If we take all these away, to include personal opinions, does the fact remain that HC-110 is still a good, competent, capable developer that can produce the excellent results that it's been known for?

Probably the most significant and useful comments in this thread came from user "Photo Engineer" (RIP). Much of the rest can be safely passed over.

 

[MattKing]

If we take all these away, to include personal opinions, does the fact remain that HC-110 is still a good, competent, capable developer that can produce the excellent results that it's been known for?

Probably the most significant and useful comments in this thread came from user "Photo Engineer" (RIP). Much of the rest can be safely passed over.

Actually I think Bill Troop's comments are probably more germane to Christopher's question.
It seems clear it won't keep as long, but both Kodak and a number of users are saying that the fresh stuff works like the old stuff did, so I would say that the answer to Christopher's question is yes - at least for a reasonable length of time.

 

[Wallendo]

I know of lightleaks, nothing I haven't seen before, but this turn the whole negative was just veeery dark. You see a picture was there, so it was developed but something in the developer truly screwed up the film. We made another two test shots with fresh developer and they were fine.

I'm somewhat late to this thread ... but is there any chance your friend gave you C-41 film? Your description descibes what I see when developing C-41 (and Kodachrome) film as B&W.

 

[abruzzi]

Seems to me that just about any developer can produce good results. HC-110 went from being something special to now being just another mundane developer. If I want a developer that has 1-2 year shelf life my options are vast.

Do we have any evidence that new HC-110 has a limited shelf life? Or is this all just unfounded speculation based on armchair chemistry?

 

[BradS]

Do we have any evidence that new HC-110 has a limited shelf life? Or is this all just unfounded speculation based on armchair chemistry?

We actually have some (admittedly sketchy) evidence that suggests that the new HC-110 does keep fairly well. Based upon the **assumption** that the new HC-110 is roughly the same as the existing Ilford Ilfotec HC, and the recent experiment by a member here that showed (sample size=1) that 15 year old bottle (stored partially empty), used normally produced excellent results. Even if it is **only** 15 years, I'd call it good enough.

I've not heard anybody anywhere complain that the results produced by the new HC-110 were any different from those produce by the prior HC-110.

There has been a lot of unsubstantiated fear mongering and armchair speculation though.

 

[MattKing]

Given that there has been a very significant change to the HC-110 formulation, it is up to Kodak to provide the evidence that there has been no change to the performance.

How would you suggest they do that - prove a negative?
They have made the representation that it performs in the same way, presumably after testing.
I have certainly seen anecdotal reports that heavy users have detected no change in performance.
It is a developer designed for commercial lab use - why would they risk that (now much smaller) market?

 

[MattKing]

I repeat, they've designed, tested and there is user feedback.

 

[pentaxuser]

Proving a positive is what is required, not a negative. The drastic change in formula, in my opinion, requires a lot more than just slapping the old name on the bottle. I also would say the same about the new Acros from Fuji. The label may be the same, but the fact that a different manufacturer makes the film tells me this product is substantially different than the original one.

What would you suggest, HC110 -2? The problem here is that it might suggest a bigger change than it is in reality, assuming there is a real change. Can you say what the drastic change?

This is a diversion that I do not recommend we follow as this thread is about HC110 but I believe that the new Acros has changed and to be fair Fuji does called it Acros II which some may say reflects its resurrection. However the change may be in terms of price only

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Those details are not unimportant, but they are details about how the developer is put together, not details about how it performs.
HC-110 is a very ordinary developer, except for two important features.
1) historically, it lasted much longer than Kodak ever promised. That feature probably cannot be relied upon any more; and
2) at different dilutions, HC-110 gives different performance, with the different dilutions providing performance that mirrors various Kodak commercial developers, almost all of which haven't been in commercial production for several years.
If you are expecting the new HC-110 to mirror something like DK-50 when used at the appropriate dilution, I will concede that you will need to check to see if there is consistency between old and new, although it wouldn't surprise me.
But if you are worried about it's performance differing from old HC-110 using dilution B - or even unofficial dilution H - I would ask you the question - why would they do what they have done? They could have advertised it as new, improved HC-110 II, now made again in USA. Instead they have designed it to be a functionally direct replacement for the old version.