Silvergrain article on HC110

dfoo · Apr 4, 2008

The article is http://silvergrain.org/wiki/HC-110

After reading that, who doesn't feel like pouring their HC-110 down the drain? I've been using it as my developer of choice for a while now for FP4+, HP5 and some TriX, and I don't think the results are that bad. However, I haven't really tried other developers either... so am I missing out on something magical?!

j4425 · Apr 4, 2008

Wow.. I actually couldn't' tell the difference some years back between D-76 and HC110. I stuck with the latter for the convenience. Interested to hear what others think about this.

Photo Engineer · Apr 4, 2008

Ummm, interesting but there are several other substitutes for PVP.

PE

dfoo · Apr 4, 2008

PVP? Player vs. player?

CRhymer · Apr 4, 2008

Indeed, I have always wondered in which order to add the first two ingredients

US Patent 3552969 Example 1
diethanolamine 31.0 g
diethanolamine 9.0 g
diethanolamine hydrobromide 1.5 g
Phenidone 0.5g
hydroquinone 6.0 g
ethanolamine 5.0 g
ethylene glycol 10.0 g

I won't be tossing out my HC-110, but I had better get rid of all those inferior negatives that I developed. This is truly embarrassing.

Cheers,
Clarence

Photo Engineer · Apr 4, 2008

Poly Vinyl Pyrrolidone.

PE

gainer · Apr 5, 2008

Some points: diethanolamine is higher in pH than the same concentration of triethanolamine. The number of components can be reduced by using ascorbic acid instead of hydroquinone, as there is no need for an organic equivalent of a sulfite. Ascorbic acid is both a halide-reducing agent of about the capability of hydroquinone and an antioxidant of about the cabability of the sulfite. Propylene glycol is also much less toxic than ethylene glycol.

BradS · Apr 5, 2008

dfoo said:
The article is http://silvergrain.org/wiki/HC-110
After reading that, who doesn't feel like pouring their HC-110 down the drain?

Have you also noticed that Silver Grain market their own line of chemistry? Think maybe thay might be just a tad biased? DOn't pour your HC-110 down the drain. Send it to me. I'll use it. Tri-X and HC-110...it just doesn't get any better or any easier. Those guys at Kodak knew what they were doing....

dfoo said:
... so am I missing out on something magical?!

the proverbial magic bullet! ?!?!?!

CBG · Apr 5, 2008

I'd rather take a positive outlook on Silvergrain. It has a wealth of information and proven to be very useful. Regardless, I feel no obligation to agree with any conclusions drawn by them.

As far as I'm concerned, HC 110 is a valuable and flexible developer and a very interesting example of an advanced formulation.

C

CRhymer · Apr 5, 2008

Hello C,

I agree that a positive outlook is good. However, I recently received three bottles of HC-110 from an educational institution that was clearing out their old lab - gone d**** some time ago. All bottles had been opened and about 10% used from each - typical - one bottle per group of students - or open new, fresh bottle every semester. I don't know how old they are, but they have a terminus post quem of 1995 based on the printing date of the label. At any rate, I am having the same disappointing results as Brad. Worse still, my new bottle is no better than these old ones. How does Kodak get away with this. Now I have 4 open bottles of HC-110 and I can't ship them to Brad due to hazmat concerns. I would post some scans of the negs., but I never back up my claims with evidence.

I also have a superannuated bottle of Rodinal which I am loathe to use on my 20 rolls of frozen APX 100 - 120. Especially since I have 7 litres of Rodinal that I put down when it looked like it would disappear a while back.

What to do, what to do?

Cheers,
Clarence

I am not making this up.

CBG · Apr 5, 2008

CRhymer said:
...I am having the same disappointing results as Brad. Worse still, my new bottle is no better than these old ones. How does Kodak get away with this...

If I understand your post, it sounds like the new HC-110 works the same as the twelve or thirteen year old developer. To me that sounds like a very durable formulation.

Nonetheless, the results it gives are not what you wish. I suspect if you post it on the for sale forum as a local pick up, someone will want it and take it off your hands.

Ditto any old rodinal you are loathe to use.

C

Photo Engineer · Apr 5, 2008

CRhymer said:
Indeed, I have always wondered in which order to add the first two ingredients

US Patent 3552969 Example 1
diethanolamine 31.0 g
diethanolamine 9.0 g
diethanolamine hydrobromide 1.5 g
Phenidone 0.5g
hydroquinone 6.0 g
ethanolamine 5.0 g
ethylene glycol 10.0 g

I won't be tossing out my HC-110, but I had better get rid of all those inferior negatives that I developed. This is truly embarrassing.

Cheers,
Clarence

Clarence;

Here is the correct formula from the patent:

It is as above but the first ingredient is the sulfur dioxide addition product of DEA. In addition, they list about 20 compounds suitable as addenda for this type of developer. So this was a grave transcription error on the part of the originator of that web page. The person was either unaware of the significance of the error, or didn't proof it.

In addition to the extra compounds listed, I know of several more compounds used to prevent dichroic fog including the one used in Microdol-X and several used in motion picture processing that do not appear in that patent.

I have several patents on developers, but that does not mean that a particular chemical is used. So, the developer may actually contain TEA and TEA adduct, and something other than polyvinyl pyrrolidone. IDK. The key is that this does not reassure me that this is the HC110 formula or even anything close.

But, that is beside the point. If you had a gallon of Dektol, a gallon of D76 and a gallon of some other developer, you would have about the same degree of chemical 'contamination' on your hands.

PE

CRhymer · Apr 5, 2008

Hello PE,

Thank you for making that explicit. I was being a bit of a smart a**, and really had no idea of the detail behind the patent information. However, the formula as presented seemed improbable. I have pretty much given up on reading patents - it is like interpolating lacunae in papyrus fragments. I once attended a presentation in which the presenter wove a whole stanza from one diacritical mark (may have been a dead insect or part of a conservator's sandwich ). At any rate, it is very easy to go off the rails.

Cheers,
Clarence

CRhymer · Apr 5, 2008

CBG said:
If I understand your post, it sounds like the new HC-110 works the same as the twelve or thirteen year old developer. To me that sounds like a very durable formulation.

Nonetheless, the results it gives are not what you wish. I suspect if you post it on the for sale forum as a local pick up, someone will want it and take it off your hands.

Ditto any old rodinal you are loathe to use.

C

Hello C,

Well, the old HC-110 and new both work great as does the old Rodinal. I have to quit trying to be too-drôle-by-half on-line. Or, perhaps you have out-drôled me. Actually, I would gladly give a bit of HC-110 or Rodinal to a local, but I think I am the only user within 280km. or perhaps 750km.

I am not concerned about the toxicity.

Cheers,
Clarence

Photo Engineer · Apr 5, 2008

Clarence;

You are welcome.

However, just think how much more obivous a "sulfur dioxide adduct" is than a diacritical mark. They both make as much difference in 'translation' but one is much more obvious than the other. The difference between a caraway seed and a whole sandwich?

PE

srs5694 · Apr 5, 2008

BradS said:
Have you also noticed that Silver Grain market their own line of chemistry? Think maybe thay might be just a tad biased?

Silvergrain's commercial chemistry line is currently missing a film developer, so they currently have no commercial motivation to dis another film developer. That said, it's conceivable they're preparing something. If so, based on the lineage of Tektol, I'd expect it to be based on Ryuji Suzuki's DS-10, and therefore be more of an XTOL competitor than an HC-110 competitor. Then too, this is all speculative....

As in so many things in photography, it's subjective. Clearly a fair number of people like HC-110, else Kodak wouldn't continue to sell it. That doesn't mean that everybody has to like it. Use what you like, but respect the opinions of others, is my opinion.

Alex Hawley · Apr 5, 2008

dfoo said:
.. so am I missing out on something magical?!

You're not missing out on anything magical. Suzuki has a demonstrated ability to state his opinions as irrefutable facts. 'Nuff said.

Peter De Smidt · Apr 5, 2008

I've not always agreed with Ryuji, and his online manner can be a little arrogant, but that applies to lots and lots of people, including me. However, he has done a tremendous amount of work researching and sharing his research. No doubt he isn't always right, but that applies to everyone. Instead of taking pot shots at him, why not suck it up a bit and send him a simple email pointing out any mistakes? You know, that old do unto others stuff. There's not many people who know a lot about the science of photography at the Ph.D. level. It'd be nice if the few of you that do could at least try to get along.

Alex Hawley · Apr 5, 2008

Peter De Smidt said:
I've not always agreed with Ryuji, and his online manner can be a little arrogant, but that applies to lots and lots of people, including me. However, he has done a tremendous amount of work researching and sharing his research. No doubt he isn't always right, but that applies to everyone. Instead of taking pot shots at him, why not suck it up a bit and send him a simple email pointing out any mistakes? You know, that old do unto others stuff. There's not many people who know a lot about the science of photography at the Ph.D. level. It'd be nice if the few of you that do could at least try to get along.

Hi Peter. I've posted favorable comments about the Silvergrain products that I have used. Ryuji in undoubtedly a brilliant guy. You are also no doubt correct that there's not many people who know a lot about the science of photography at the Ph.D. level. Its quite natural to promote one's own work and products. However, IMO, as a Ph.D, he should know the fine line between promotion, opinion, and technical objectivity.

IMO, his products are first-rate. But they are not the ultimate magic bullet nor do they render previous similar products obsolete or technically inferior.

Peter De Smidt · Apr 5, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
Peter;

You are absolutely correct.

However, when I tried to do as you suggest in your post, I was answered in the most vile language and told I was wrong. At that time, I had the relevant patent related to the subject we were discussing sitting on my lap. I was reading from the patent to him on the phone and was told I was incorrect. He swore at me and hung up!

So, sometimes it is difficult to do what seems to be right.

PE

I'm very sorry to hear that, and I didn't know that it had gotten to that level.

Peter De Smidt · Apr 5, 2008

Alex Hawley said:
IMO, his products are first-rate. But they are not the ultimate magic bullet nor do they render previous similar products obsolete or technically inferior.

I don't think he claims that they are, at least he never did so on the old pure silver list, or on his old website. It is also my understanding that he doesn't make a dime from the products sold by digital truth. But enough. He's perfectly capable of defending/explaining himself, and I'll leave any more of that to him.

Peter De Smidt · Apr 5, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
Alex;

I agree that he is brilliant, but IMHO difficult to work with.

PE

That's my impression as well.

Ray Rogers · Apr 5, 2008

Ron and Alex are correct.

I had a very similiar experience with him as well.

As side thought
My last irritation was to see what was essentially an infomercial on wikipedia for his (sic) 'silvergain technotrix' chemistry... I don't know if he or DT or anyone related had a hand in that, but I ALMOST started to wipe it, but I thought I would pass that baton on to someone else. I never checked back to see if someone had stepped up to the plate or not... it may still be there.

Well, you know how the story goes.

"Jump on my back and I will take you to the other side of the river where you will be safe"
said the fox to the frightened little Gingerbread boy.

A piece of the Lebkuchen,

Ray

Photo Engineer · Apr 5, 2008

Ray;

Good to hear from you. Thanks for chiming in.

PE

Ray Rogers · Apr 5, 2008

Peter De Smidt said:
It is also my understanding that he doesn't make a dime from the products sold by digital truth.

???
Actually,
He said that he gets a fee for allowing them to use his formulae.

While he made sure to mention that it was only a small amount of money, he did not allow us to come to that size judgement on our own.

Ray

Silvergrain article on HC110

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency