New HC-110 Formula

[MattKing]

I am sick of Kodak always changing the darn formula or something at the drop of a hat

The near bankruptcy of their manufacturer is a "drop of a hat"?
By the way, Harman is lucky that Tetenal was actually pulled back from the brink, because Tetenal is their manufacturer as well.

 

[37th Exposure]

The near bankruptcy of their manufacturer is a "drop of a hat"?
By the way, Harman is lucky that Tetenal was actually pulled back from the brink, because Tetenal is their manufacturer as well.

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...

 

[MattKing]

Every Ilford product I grew up with is still with me now or in a new clearly defined form.

Ilford came incredibly close to disappearing entirely - only the purchase by a few of their employees (Harman) of the black and white line from the receiver kept it in existence.
They too had to contract out all of their chemical manufacturing.
Their biggest market is in the USA but they were severely damaged when their USA distributor went bankrupt.
Their colour business - Cibachrome/Ilfochrome - came out of receivership limping and has since gone bankrupt - it is gone.
Kodak actually went bankrupt and were forced to sell the still film, chemistry and colour paper business to a pension plan.
Agfa left the business except in indirect ways.
Myriad other suppliers are gone.
The ones that remain do so because they have adapted in an incredible variety of ways. Harman has been fortunate in some ways, which has allowed them stability of product (mostly). They are considerably smaller though than Kodak Alaris.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I might have missed a difference in bottle size when I compared price between L110 and Neo-HC-110. I clearly saw L110 selling for about $17, but it might have been a half liter. Also might have been different vendors (i.e. one at B&H or such, the other at Freestyle).

 

[oldche]

The following was my conclusions when I looked into this after the new formula was released: The new HC-110 has a major change in composition when compared with the old formula - the near elimination of the diethanolamine, which used to be the major component. Developing dilutions and times are the same as the old version (they still are calling it HC-110, after all). I compared the old and new formulas from the SDS sheets. The old formula has as the major components diethanolamine (a base) and sulphur dioxide (which would form a sulfite salt in solution with the base). The new formula has greatly reduced amounts of diethanolamine (~30X less, old version was 30% DEA, and the new 1% DEA), but now has potassium sulphite (for antioxidant properties, somewhat for basic pH), some sodium hydroxide (strong base) and also sodium tetraborate (Borax - a base). Other active ingredients (hydroquinone, etc.) are similar in the two formula. I think they formulated out the diethanolamine, perhaps for toxicity and/or cost reasons, and substituted a different assortment of alkali activators/stabilizers (borax, NaOH, sulfite). Looking at the health warnings in the two SDS documents, the new formula is a bit less hazardous (though the main concern, hydroquinone, is still there as it is the major developing agent.) Also, I see this Ilford patent, which may describe their own HC-110 alternative (Ilfotec HC), is now expired, which means anyone is now free to use the formula. Perhaps Kodak decided to switch to a formula like the Ilford clone? Or maybe they even source the new HC-110 from the same manufacturer? The Ilford patent teaches an alternative concentrated formula similar to this new HC-110. So I wouldn't be surprised if we find the new HC-110 looks very similar to Ilfotec HC. As the patent points out, both the old and new formula (Examples A and B in the patent) give equivalent developing performance. https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0514070A1

 

[Disconnekt]

I might have missed a difference in bottle size when I compared price between L110 and Neo-HC-110. I clearly saw L110 selling for about $17, but it might have been a half liter. Also might have been different vendors (i.e. one at B&H or such, the other at Freestyle).

The Legacypro L110 is $14.99 for a 1-pint bottle (same price on both B&H & Freestyle), and when diluted to 1:31 (Dilution B) makes 4 gallons.

 

[alanrockwood]

... I see this Ilford patent, which may describe their own HC-110 alternative (Ilfotec HC), is now expired, which means anyone is now free to use the formula. Perhaps Kodak decided to switch to a formula like the Ilford clone? Or maybe they even source the new HC-110 from the same manufacturer? The Ilford patent teaches an alternative concentrated formula similar to this new HC-110. So I wouldn't be surprised if we find the new HC-110 looks very similar to Ilfotec HC. As the patent points out, both the old and new formula (Examples A and B in the patent) give equivalent developing performance. https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0514070A1

I wonder if undiluted Iford HC has similar shelf life to undiluted HC-110, which I guess is more or less forever.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I wonder if undiluted Iford HC has similar shelf life to undiluted HC-110, which I guess is more or less forever.

I have some 15 year old Ilfotec HC which I could mix up and try as an experiment.

 

[BradS]

I have some 15 year old Ilfotec HC which I could mix up and try as an experiment.

I’d be interested! Please.

 

[rubbernglue]

My friend just recently experienced a dead hc-110 which had worked just the week before. This was from a bottle which until about 8-9 months ago had been kept unopened and was now 15-20years old. He had used maybe 1/5 of the bottle and now the negatives turned black with the hint of an image still.

Personally I have experinced this with Rodinal aswell, since when opening the bottle every time to take some at the same time replacing all air in the bottle which seems to slowly kill the chems. Now I have all my rodinal and hc-110 in smaller bottles, and use them one by one.

 

[K-G]

My friend just recently experienced a dead hc-110 which had worked just the week before. This was from a bottle which until about 8-9 months ago had been kept unopened and was now 15-20years old. He had used maybe 1/5 of the bottle and now the negatives turned black with the hint of an image still.

Personally I have experinced this with Rodinal aswell, since when opening the bottle every time to take some at the same time replacing all air in the bottle which seems to slowly kill the chems. Now I have all my rodinal and hc-110 in smaller bottles, and use them one by one.

If the negatives turned black, the developer obviously worked. It sounds more like some type of light leakage somewhere in the film handling,

Karl-Gustaf

 

[rubbernglue]

If the negatives turned black, the developer obviously worked. It sounds more like some type of light leakage somewhere in the film handling,

Karl-Gustaf

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.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I’d be interested! Please.

I'll try and do a test reasonably soon.

 

[pentaxuser]

rubbernglue, so this was your friend's film. Have you seen it and if so can you show us a picture of the negative. As K-G has said a very dark negative where you can just about see the picture that is there suggests that (a) the developer is OK and(b) it was both severely overdeveloped and possibly over exposed. Has your friend been able to tell you what his film was, the dilution and time he used and what he set his film speed at on the camera.

I cannot work out how an exhausted developer is able to turn the negative very dark.

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

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.

this is a sign that the film exposed to ambient light. Happened to me a few times. A 1 or 2 seconds exposure to ambient light will cause a negative to be black with a faint image in it.

There is nothing chemically that will cause a negative to suddenly over develop...

At last, if anything, the black negative demonstrated that the developer is indeed still highly potent.

 

[K-G]

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.

Was the entire film surface black or was it only the image frames ?

Karl-Gustaf

 

[markjwyatt]

I am preparing to develop two roll 35mm FP4 with HC110. I have a small (2@35mm roll) SS tank. I tested tank + 2 empty reels with 275ml per roll- way too much. 250ml still too much. Can nail it like this, but doe the film absorb more than it displaces? I imagine if it absorbs it just swells the emulsion which just displaces. Any rules of thumb here to determine the volume (maybe cover 2 empty reels + leave a few mm airspace)? I have a larger tank, but the lids do not fit it well (small leak), and I like to invert partially when I agitate. Note: I have not done this in some decades.

 

[MattKing]

cover 2 empty reels + leave a few mm airspace

Works well for me.
Some tanks need a bit more air space than others to allow for the correct amount of "tumbling" when you invert.

 

[NB23]

That's an enormous change to the formula. I'm more than a little shocked Kodak kept the HC-110 name on this product. This is not a trivial change.

The american way.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Any rules of thumb here to determine the volume (maybe cover 2 empty reels + leave a few mm airspace)?

On some tanks, the capacity to cover one or two 35mm or a single 120 spiral is stamped or engraved in the bottom of the tank. Assuming that's not the case with yours, for stainless tanks and reels, your rule will work well. If you have a plastic tank (like a Paterson) make sure any core that goes inside the plastic reels is in place when you check volume (but my Paterson has the required capacities for what it can hold molded onto the bottom). We can estimate the displacement of a roll of 135-36 pretty easily -- it's 159 cm long (with the loading leader clipped off), 3.5 cm wide, and .002 cm thick (or just a little less) -- that's just over 1 ml displacement (= trivial).

 

[MattKing]

.002 cm thick

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

 

[rubbernglue]

Was the entire film surface black or was it only the image frames ?

Karl-Gustaf

Entire surface.

 

[rubbernglue]

rubbernglue, so this was your friend's film. Have you seen it and if so can you show us a picture of the negative. As K-G has said a very dark negative where you can just about see the picture that is there suggests that (a) the developer is OK and(b) it was both severely overdeveloped and possibly over exposed. Has your friend been able to tell you what his film was, the dilution and time he used and what he set his film speed at on the camera.

I cannot work out how an exhausted developer is able to turn the negative very dark.

pentaxuser

Me neither.
I was there as he developed the film and we both develop it the same way every time and have done so for the last 2½ years. Still we both argued what might have caused this of course and could only set aside the old developer which worked well until then. As mentioned, the film was developed and you can see an image, it was well exposed and not light leaked but the entire frame is very dark indeed. Unfortunately I have no saved picture of the film you should just take my word for it.
We make use of the minimum method, so 1ml syrup per 4x5" sheet and we keep it slowly rolling for an hour. Love it!

 

[NB23]

Me neither.
I was there as he developed the film and we both develop it the same way every time and have done so for the last 2½ years. Still we both argued what might have caused this of course and could only set aside the old developer which worked well until then. As mentioned, the film was developed and you can see an image, it was well exposed and not light leaked but the entire frame is very dark indeed. Unfortunately I have no saved picture of the film you should just take my word for it.
We make use of the minimum method, so 1ml syrup per 4x5" sheet and we keep it slowly rolling for an hour. Love it!

I already told you: the developer is fine. It DID develop the film. It takes high potency to develop a film to black.

The problem was the film. It got exposed to light.

A weak developer will make a film go clear, not black!

Clear film means black, once you realize it’s a negative. And Black film means white, exposed to light.

Again, to make film black, the developer has to be strong. Just think about it.

 

[rubbernglue]

I already told you: the developer is fine. It DID develop the film. It takes high potency to develop a film to black.

The problem was the film. It got exposed to light.

A weak developer will make a film go clear, not black!

Clear film means black, once you realize it’s a negative. And Black film means white, exposed to light.

Again, to make film black, the developer has to be strong. Just think about it.

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