• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

New HC-110 Formula

rubbernglue said:
We make use of the minimum method, so 1ml syrup per 4x5" sheet and we keep it slowly rolling for an hour. Love it!
Click to expand...
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.
 
rubbernglue said:
I understand very well but you dont. You clearly have not read what I have written.
Click to expand...

the developer was good. What else is there to know?
 
It is certainly possible that a contaminant might have increased the activity of the developer, resulting in overall fog.
 
Any chance that your friend accidentally grabbed a bottle of PolyMax T instead?
 
MattKing said:
It is certainly possible that a contaminant might have increased the activity of the developer, resulting in overall fog.
Click to expand...


...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.
 
NB23 said:
the developer was good. What else is there to know?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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).
 
MattKing said:
Are you shooting imaginary film Donald, or did you just give us something close to the thickness of the emulsion, not the entire package?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

The roll was developed using only 5ml of concentrate and there was no sign of insufficient activity.
 
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.
 
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
 
Fujicaman1957 said:
Since in my limited testing, the Legacy L110 worked just the same, if push comes to shove, I'll switch to it.
Click to expand...

And it's half the cost!



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.



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?
 

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.
 
ChristopherCoy said:
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?
Click to expand...
BradS said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Ayrton Senna said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
abruzzi said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ayrton Senna said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
I repeat, they've designed, tested and there is user feedback.
 

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
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register