I can't understand Fuji. They discontinued the original Acros, citing insufficient demand to keep production going. And then later, bring it back and twice the price and somehow think there will be more demand?
Yes we are as one on this. Both you and I are puzzled about this but we are largely in the minority according to others. I do wish that all the questions that your line of reasoning invokes could be answered but I also wish that Covid -19 would disappear tomorrow. I fear that neither wish will be fulfilled
That's it. I promise that on this thread about HC110 I have uttered my last words on Acros II
pentaxuser
Well, the Spanish Flu of 1917 - 19 may very well have originated in the US.Thinking... hc-110 new coincides bizarrely with covid-19... New Lab...
I can't understand Fuji. They discontinued the original Acros, citing insufficient demand to keep production going. And then later, bring it back and twice the price and somehow think there will be more demand?
Yes, I gave details on the composition changes in an earlier post in this thread.Somebody detailed the differences as disclosed in the SDS in this thread. I can't search all 18 pages to find the specifics, but I do recall that the differences found were not trivial.
Shrewd marketing, NOT !You are correct, they did call it Acros II. I had forgotten that, never having seen a roll in my hand. The price keeps me from having any interest in it. I can't understand Fuji. They discontinued the original Acros, citing insufficient demand to keep production going. And then later, bring it back and twice the price and somehow think there will be more demand?
Even if Kodak hadn't sown seeds of doubt by changing the formulation of HC-110, I would still be moving over to Ilford chemistry on account of cost. I want to support Alaris in their efforts to keep the brand viable, but the pricing is way too expensive for me. I love Tri-X, but I have learned to love HP5+ as its equivalent. HC-110 was the last Kodak product that I held on to in my regular usage, but Ilfotec HC is functionally the same and retains the longevity and the viscosity at 2/3 the price. Its a no brainer.
... Ilfotec HC [as HC110] is functionally the same and retains the longevity and the viscosity at 2/3 the price. Its a no brainer.
Yes, I can't understand the disparity. In the UK, Tri-X was cheaper than HP5+ for longer than I can remember, but price hikes have reversed that. Ilford also supply direct.At my favorite online vendor in the US Iflord HC is almost twice the price of Kodak HC110. ($65 vs. $35 for one liter of concentrate.)
Indeed !Dude, Ilford makes papers while Kodak dropped papers about 20 years ago or so.
What else needs to be said?
My bottle with the "NEW FORMULA" label just arrived. It's less like motor oil, and more like lemonade than I expected. This viscosity is very water like and not syrupy at all.
Yes, it's a completely different formula with a whole new set of physical properties. You need to forget what HC-110 used to be and now deal with it as it is since the product is radically different in composition.
I think there are two issues (well, maybe two and one half issues) that are of concern. The first is whether fresh New-Formula-HC-110 gives the same results as fresh Old-Formula-HC-110 under most usage conditions. The second is whether the new formula has a long shelf life like the old formula had. The third (or maybe one could call it the second and one half) is whether New-Formula-HC-110 gives similar results to Old-Formula-HC-110 under non-typical usage, such as stand development or "tortured" HC-110 where one might alter the formula, such as changing the pH or adding ascorbic acid.Except that nobody, NOBODY has found that the new stuff works differently from or produces result different from those of the old stuff.
So, no. We absolutely do not need to forget what we already know about HC-110 !!!!
I think there are two issues (well, maybe two and one half issues) that are of concern. The first is whether fresh New-Formula-HC-110 gives the same results as fresh Old-Formula-HC-110 under most usage conditions. The second is whether the new formula has a long shelf life like the old formula had. The third (or maybe one could call it the second and one half) is whether New-Formula-HC-110 gives similar results to Old-Formula-HC-110 under non-typical usage, such as stand development or "tortured" HC-110 where one might alter the formula, such as changing the pH or adding ascorbic acid.
I think there is enough anecdotal information (combined with the claims of the manufacturer) to conclude that fresh New-Formula-HC-110 gives similar results to fresh Old-Formula-HC-110 under most usage conditions, but the other two questions are not yet resolved, and probably won't be resolved anytime soon.
Whenever somebody mentions "the environment", I've got their number in an instant. It's part of the prism these people look through at everything. Ho hum. MSDS is and always was a basic list for medics or firemen. But we still have laws of patent and copyright. Consider Coke syrup. I wouldn't give it another thought.
I think you are absolutely right. Some experiments with the “new” formula allowed me to be convinced that without the introduction of polyvinylpyrrolidone into the composition, the viscosity composition is only slightly different from water.AFAIK, the syrupy appearance of HC-110 is due to the presence of polyvinylpyrrolidone, which can be sometimes found as a jellylike precipitate at the bottom of old HC-110 packages. Apparently, it has no effect on development speed. The true originality of HC-110 formula was to get rid of water entirely, but for practical reasons 30% potassium sulfite also makes a concentrated developer with a very long shelf life. My HC-110 also clearly contains some catechol, most likely as an additional preservation agent. I think what the original user is trying to say that it is possible to compose an active phenidone-hydroquinone developer which will come very close, imagewise, to HC-110.
Henry,
Chemical combinations are not protectable by copyright. HC-110 is nearly sixty years old, so the patent protection expired about 40 years ago, and the te teachings therein are now public domain. HC-110 is not covered by either scheme. Note that is a high art in legal construction of patent claims to broadly cover what you want to protect, without revealing EXACTLY how your product is made.
Terry
de w4aon
Retired Registered Patent Attorney
Reg. No. 30291
Has anyone attempted to make a DIY of this formula or of the similar Ilford HC?
This is probably a minor point to anyone pissed off about the reformulation, but still worth noting that HC-110 has been through various iterations since the original release.
True, this version is less viscous than older versions. Perhaps true a bottle might keep for only 10 years instead of 20.
Other than that I’m confident nobody would be able to tell the difference between this HC-110 and other versions.
when PE was still alive he did mention that the way the original formula was made, the intermediate ingredients were hard to synthesis, and at least one of them was explosive at one point in the process. Only a major chemical company would be in position to duplicate the stuff.
....Or just buy Ilford’s equivalent.
Any recommends for a comparable concentrate solution that does not need to be made in a lab?
You will need a Bunsen flask, a large amount of toluene (or other volatile solvent). You will also need good ventilation as volatile solvent vapors are explosive and toxic.Any recommends for a comparable concentrate solution that does not need to be made in a lab?
Ilfotec HC concentrate probably doesn’t have the shelf life previous versions of HC-110 were reputed to have. Only time and anecdotes will tell how long the new version of HC-110 keeps.
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?