Runny white HC-110

[MattKing]

There seem to have been many MSDSs throughout its history, and the formula appears to been tweaked, adjusted etc. over time. For example, the “old” MSDS you posted looks different than older versions I recall seeing.

MSDS analysis is also complicated by the fact that different parts of the world seem to have different legislative standards for the MSDS (or whatever it might be locally referred to).
For that reason, there may me multiple MSDS around at any one time for any one Kodak product - each one corresponding to the market that the Kodak product was sold into.
Apparently the Aussies are/were particularly demanding!

 

[pentaxuser]

So for the sake of the layman such as I whose knowledge of chemicals and their properties is limited, what is the change that has caused HC110 to be less syrupy and does this change automatically lead to shorter longevity and if so is there any way to predict this from the change(s)?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

So for the sake of the layman such as I whose knowledge of chemicals and their properties is limited, what is the change that has caused HC110 to be less syrupy and does this change automatically lead to shorter longevity and if so is there any way to predict this from the change(s)?

Thanks

pentaxuser

It is reasonably likely that the total exclusion of water was the factor that gave the unintended consequence of extraordinarily long (rather than just long) shelf life.

 

[BradS]

Once again, we feel the loss. Would that PE were still among us. This has all be covered before and PE weighed in with his insight.

 

[MattKing]

I agree with Michael, although I wonder whether the new HC-110 still offers the same ability to mimic the performance of other, historical commercial developers through adjustment of dilution.
It is just an academic interest - simply curiosity.

 

[BradS]

Or... you could just use the new version.

I think it is important we all keep some perspective on this...

yes. I agree (see my first post in this thread). I am very happy with the new stuff but I loath all of this pointless hand wringing, gnashing of teeth and arm chair chemical engineering over meaningless minutia. By all reports, the new stuff works just like the old, produces results every bit as good as the old.
Use it or don’t. Be happy.

 

[MattKing]

My thoughts on that are the following:
1) Did it ever really do that? What does that even mean, exactly?
2) Would anyone be able to tell the difference either way?
3) Which old version did this? The one before this? Or the one before the one before this? Etc.

I think the important thing is it still contains a small amount of catechol. That was always the magic ingredient.

I think that it certainly did, and would have continued to do so right up until the implosion of the film photography world.
HC-110 always was aimed at the commercial world - the dip and dunk and high volume roller transport world.
The ability to replace all those developers with small bottles that were so flexible was its strength.
Relatively speaking, it was a really modern product.

 

[grat]

I think that it certainly did, and would have continued to do so right up until the implosion of the film photography world.
HC-110 always was aimed at the commercial world - the dip and dunk and high volume roller transport world.
The ability to replace all those developers with small bottles that were so flexible was its strength.
Relatively speaking, it was a really modern product.

Then why does everyone hold the "syrup" in such mystical reverence? All I ever hear is "long shelf life, gotta have the syrup!!".... Sounds like a Maple Syrup addiction meeting.

Surely long shelf life isn't something high volume processors would actually care about?

 

[MattKing]

Then why does everyone hold the "syrup" in such mystical reverence? All I ever hear is "long shelf life, gotta have the syrup!!".... Sounds like a Maple Syrup addiction meeting.

Surely long shelf life isn't something high volume processors would actually care about?

Exactly!
The people complaining about the change weren't the ones that HC-110 was originally designed for.
When it comes to the occasional darkroom users, the old 16 ounce/450 ml bottles had enough syrup in them to develop ~ 75 rolls of film. While it was convenient to be able to leave a half used bottle on a shelf for a couple of years, it never made much economic sense that a product was designed with that sort of use in mind.
It is more of a mindset problem. When X-Tol (as an example) was $10.00 USD a package, it always surprised me when people would complain that they hated wasting unused X-Tol if they weren't able to use up $10.00 worth of developer in the six months it was supposed to last.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

yes. I agree (see my first post in this thread). I am very happy with the new stuff but I loath all of this pointless hand wringing, gnashing of teeth and arm chair chemical engineering over meaningless minutia. By all reports, the new stuff works just like the old, produces results every bit as good as the old.
Use it or don’t. Be happy.

Preach it, brother!!!

 

[relistan]

...and arm chair chemical engineering over meaningless minutia...

If you're referring to my post with MSDS data, there is no hand wringing. I am using the new stuff happily. My belief from what I posted is also that all the other upset folks will find that the new formula also has very long shelf life. I was specifically trying to counter the claim that it is now based on water, which I don't believe at all.

 

[NB23]

Have we forgot the crystal growth problem with this new formulation? Definitely not confidence inspiring for such a new product that, in the end, just isn’t hc-110 except in name.

also, may I ask what’s up with the argument that new Hc110 develops just the same as the old formula? As far as I’m concerned, all of today’s available developers work the same (yes they all develop film, in about the same ballpark times) and it would be hard to distinguish them in a blind test.

Saying that the new hc110 is the same as the old is like saying that ilfosol-3 is the same. Definitely Magical thinking at work.

Kodak should have had the balls to simply discontinue hc-110 and market this new developer as what it truly is: a new developer.

 

[grat]

Have we forgot the crystal growth problem with this new formulation? Definitely not confidence inspiring for such a new product that, in the end, just isn’t hc-110 except in name.

And yet, according to at least one post in this thread, it "just doesn't matter".

also, may I ask what’s up with the argument that new Hc110 develops just the same as the old formula? As far as I’m concerned, all of today’s available developers work the same (yes they all develop film, in about the same ballpark times) and it would be hard to distinguish them in a blind test.

Having researched a number of different developers when I got into film photography within the last year, if you can't see the difference in results of different developers, then it's not the testing that's blind.

 

[scyg]

As far as I’m concerned, all of today’s available developers work the same (yes they all develop film, in about the same ballpark times) and it would be hard to distinguish them in a blind test.

Maybe not all, but I'm pretty confident I could distinguish between HC-110, Microdol and Rodinal on the same film stock.

 

[pentaxuser]

If you're referring to my post with MSDS data, there is no hand wringing. I am using the new stuff happily. My belief from what I posted is also that all the other upset folks will find that the new formula also has very long shelf life. I was specifically trying to counter the claim that it is now based on water, which I don't believe at all.

Yes, thanks for your post, relistan, this was what my previous post was trying to establish. The answer I got covered only what I knew which was that somehow in the past there was no water in it. What I was trying to get an answer to was : Is there evidence from the MSDS or anything else that water is now included which may or possibly may not result in it being less syrupy and having a shorter life?

It was clear to me that you believe that there may be another ingredient in it which can (a) make it less syrupy and (b) is not based on water, both of which might well result in no reduction or much less of a reduction in life compared to the introduction of water. If you are correct then this may well help other long term users and other prospective users to consider its use

It would appear that no definite incontrovertible evidence exists from what anyone here knows that really helps us to decide on whether there is now water or not and what effect this might have in terms of even a "ballpark " figure on its effective life.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

Maybe not all, but I'm pretty confident I could distinguish between HC-110, Microdol and Rodinal on the same film stock.

yes, but to the same extent I am sure that this new hc110 will show differences vs the old. There is no way that such a change in formulation will result in “exact same” results.

 

[relistan]

It would appear that no definite incontrovertible evidence exists from what anyone here knows that really helps us to decide on whether there is now water or not and what effect this might have in terms of even a "ballpark " figure on its effective life.

Agreed, but I'd put money on it being propylene glycol based and experience with PC-Glycol says that some years of shelf life will be my minimum expectations. We will all see eventually!

 

[pentaxuser]

Agreed, but I'd put money on it being propylene glycol based and experience with PC-Glycol says that some years of shelf life will be my minimum expectations. We will all see eventually!

Thanks I presume that propylene glycol from your experience would account for its less syrupy nature as well?

pentaxuser

 

[relistan]

Thanks I presume that propylene glycol from your experience would account for its less syrupy nature as well?

pentaxuser

Yeah, my HC-110 is sitting next to a bottle of propylene glycol and the viscosity is pretty much identical from observation. It behaves exactly the same as PC-Glycol on the syringe I use for measuring, too.

 

[john_s]

I stopped using HC-110 when it became unavailable here in Australia. Until then, it worked a treat with Tri-X. Referring to the current MSDS above, I wonder if all those ionic salts would dissolve if there were no water in it?

 

[Finn lyle]

Many glycols, propylene included, are polar solvents with at least some ionic compound dissolving capabilities iirc.

 

[bnxvs]

I stopped using HC-110 when it became unavailable here in Australia. Until then, it worked a treat with Tri-X. Referring to the current MSDS above, I wonder if all those ionic salts would dissolve if there were no water in it?

I can confidently state that the replacement of DEA with water was associated only with the use of an alternative source of sulfite. In the new version, this is potassium sulfite, and in the old version, it was the adduct of SO2 in DEA. All other substances are still dissolved in glycol (most likely in a mixture of DEG and PG). Thus, the water content in the new composition of HC-110 is low (in fact, it is a 65% potassium sulfite solution and possibly a slight excess to facilitate the dissolution of borax).