New hc110, is it as strong as the original

I am still persevering with the HC110 but I am yet to be impressed. I have added 10% to my development times and am using the agitation scheme recommended for Tmax (3-4 inversions every 30 seconds). The results are better but not a patch on ID-11. I think, once this bottle runs out I will try the ilford HC. I love ID-11 but lost a film to its shelf life so I am looking for good, long lasting, one shot liquid developers. Anyway, here are two separate negatives from two different cameras

Based on the edge printing - which is a not particularly reliable indicator - I would say those look more like under-exposure than under-development.
Are you perhaps not allowing enough for the small loss of speed that using HC-110 causes?

MattKing said:

Based on the edge printing - which is a not particularly reliable indicator - I would say those look more like under-exposure than under-development.
Are you perhaps not allowing enough for the small loss of speed that using HC-110 causes?

Click to expand...

I was talking to a friend of mine and saying to him that we need to go out soon because I need a lesson in correct exposure. I always mean to err towards over, yet frequently under expose. I think that is something I need to address with my next roll. I am mostly self taught and am beginning to think my teacher is rubbish Thanks Matt. I have foma200 in the camera. I may continue with the added 10% developing time but first, sort out my exposure

One thing I just read in the Bellini HC description, it has a higher acutance than HC110. Maybe that is what I have missed with the Kodak version

Cerebum said:

Thanks Matt. I have foma200 in the camera. I may continue with the added 10% developing time but first, sort out my exposure

Click to expand...

I've never used Foma 200, but from reading hear here I have the clear impression that it is closer to an ISO/EI 100 film than an ISO/EI 200 film.
And if you combine that with the 1/3 stop loss of speed that HC-110 delivers with a lot of films - e.g. Tri-X at 320, rather than 400 - this may indeed be your issue.
But speaking more generally, I would suggest that any time you see something in the information about a developer that says it is the "same" as another developer, approach that claim with a healthy dose of skepticism.

MattKing said:

I've never used Foma 200, but from reading hear here I have the clear impression that it is closer to an ISO/EI 100 film than an ISO/EI 200 film.
And if you combine that with the 1/3 stop loss of speed that HC-110 delivers with a lot of films - e.g. Tri-X at 320, rather than 400 - this may indeed be your issue.
But speaking more generally, I would suggest that any time you see something in the information about a developer that says it is the "same" as another developer, approach that claim with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Click to expand...

I generally shoot it at EI125. Its a nice film and very cheap.

OK, a month on and I am getting nice results from the hc110. I had initially increased the development time by 10% but reduced that to 5% in conjunction with the TMax (I think, something Kodak anyway) agitation scheme where it gets five inversions every thirty seconds. That keeps you on your toes.

Old thread, "new" new news. Kodak Professional chemicals will again be made in the USA by PSI, the folks that have been making the Unicolor chemicals (and a few others I suspect) for decades.
Maybe they will bring back the "good stuff" and not that short lifed water based slop.

{Moderator's edit - we have a thread about the announcement: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...cals-official-news-they-are-returning.202976/}

darkroommike said:

Maybe they will bring back the "good stuff" and not that short lifed water based slop.

Click to expand...

Don't get your hopes up - they were most likely the manufacturers of the post 2019 version with normal, rather than extraordinary storage life, and it is doubtful they have the capacity to make the old stuff - that process is complex and expensive!
Tetenal could - before their problems. Sino Promise might have been doing it as well in China.

MattKing said:

Don't get your hopes up - they were most likely the manufacturers of the post 2019 version with normal, rather than extraordinary storage life, and it is doubtful they have the capacity to make the old stuff - that process is complex and expensive!
Tetenal could - before their problems. Sino Promise might have been doing it as well in China.

Click to expand...

And I'll hold off buying any until more info "develops". Wish I still had a contact at PSI.

FYI I have a brand new bottle of "new" HC-110, purchased online in the US from Freestyle Nov 2023, and it's "Made in USA." It works fine and is not the good old syrupy stuff, but the good new watery stuff. There is no obvious date on the bottle.

I'm 90% certain I still have an old mostly full bottle of syrupy HC-110 that is one or maybe three decades old and I'm just as certain that if/when I do find it, it will still work fine despite being a little on the orange side.

I'm pretty happy with T-MAX in Diafine these days (mostly just new P3200) so it's unlikely I'll be looking at a new bottle of T-MAX developer any time soon.

I'm not sure why people believe that lower viscosity means shorter (opened) shelf life. It's not the solvent that reacts with oxygen. I may however divide it up between some glass bottles as it will certainly take me many years to use it all up.

Please note that of the common reagent container plastics (PP, HDPE, PET), plain old PET is the least oxygen permeable, but has long been considered unsuitable for bottling beer due to its ... oxygen permeability. So if you are divvying your chemistry up to protect it from oxidation, get yourself some glass bottles. For quarts, kombucha bottles with plastic cone lined caps work very well, as do the half gallon kombucha bottles with handles. For 8-12 oz, look for glass soda bottles with removable labeling. You can find those in both clear and amber, and they come with soda inside them as a bonus. You can also tape them over with gaff tape to make them "light tight," and you can use foil tape to reduce oxygen passing through the cap seal.

If equipped with a slightly bigger budget, borosilicate media storage bottles (ballpark $10-15 each in the 250-1000ml sizes, a little more for amber) work great, and pour extremely well even when full.

J N said:

I'm not sure why people believe that lower viscosity means shorter (opened) shelf life. It's not the solvent that reacts with oxygen.

Click to expand...

It's not the solvent itself, but the solvent does play a role. Basically, the formulation of the water-free version is different and this difference makes aerial oxidation virtually impossible. The acqaeuous version isn't immune to oxidation in the same way. If you search around a bit, you'll find a thread or two that goes into the production methods of the water-free version and this also clarifies the inherent difference in keeping properties.

Now there is an alternative.

Karl-Gustaf

fotoimpex-110-developer-500-ml-conc.html

K-G said:

Now there is an alternative

Click to expand...

Yes, but it's not identical to the original Kodak syrup. It's more like the watery version.

koraks said:

It's not the solvent itself, but the solvent does play a role. Basically, the formulation of the water-free version is different and this difference makes aerial oxidation virtually impossible. The acqaeuous version isn't immune to oxidation in the same way. If you search around a bit, you'll find a thread or two that goes into the production methods of the water-free version and this also clarifies the inherent difference in keeping properties.

Click to expand...

Elaborating on this thought, I think there is a good chance that oxidation by O2 is catalyzed by either free hydrogen ions (H+), or free hydroxide ions (OH-). These ions are present in water, either as a result of dissociation of H2O into H+ and OH-, or by ions from the buffer, which will usually be hydroxide ions in common developers.

Most common developing chemicals, like metol, are active in the negative ion form, meaning that that are more easily oxidized in that form. Hydroxide ions from the developer buffer convert the free developer into negatively charged developer (through acid/base chemistry), and in that form they are more susceptible to oxidation by O2.

The new watery HC110 is water based, so it will have free ions present in solution, and if my theory is correct these ions will be available in the concentrate to convert developer into the negative ion form that is susceptible to oxidation.

The old syrupy HC110 is not water based. The form of acid/base chemistry that is available in water-based developers is not present in solvent in the old syrupy HC110. Therefore, the developer is not very susceptible to oxidation in the concentrate. To elaborate, the solvent is, I believe, diethanol amine, which is a base, but in the absence of water it does not generate free hydroxide ions, so free hydroxide ions are not available to convert the developer into the oxygen susceptible form. Once the concentrate is diluted into water to make active developer the diethanol amine molecules from the HC110 concentrate react with water to produce free hydroxide, and the free hydroxide ions then convert developer into active form.

There may be some additional subtleties involved in the chemistry, but my bet is that the description above is probably pretty close to correct.

koraks said:

Yes, but it's not identical to the original Kodak syrup. It's more like the watery version.

Click to expand...

That´s correct. We currently sell the latest (clear and higher viscous) version under the Fotoimpex brand. It performs like the last Sino Promise product and is intended to bridge the market until Kodak comes back. Developing times should be identical to the "good old stuff". Only the keeping properties vary.