Silvergrain article on HC110

There were actually 2 black book sets. One, for B&W consisted of a single volume and the other, for Color consisted of 2 volumes by the time I retired. There are lots of things in those books.

I can't imagine Dick with a beard. He was short and thin and remided me of a cheerful elf. Always smiling and happy. His successor was Bill Lee who also died soon after taking over, and at a very young age. Lots of critical losses in the Kodak archives that way.

PE

This all makes me want to use HC-110 again.

No Alex, Ilfotec HC is much better

Actually I did all my film test with Ilfotec and Tmax Dev about 22 years ago, they are great developers and give superb results, but I round Rodinal gave me very similar results but a better EI for the films I used.

Surprisingly May & Baker (Champion) Suprol and Ilford PQ Universal gave extremely similar results to HC110, Ilfotec and Tmax dev when used highly diluted.

Ian

There are many ways to 'skin a cat' as I've said. Dick Henn and Bill Lee were working on a new developer at the time of the B&W division shut down. Dick had retured and Bill carried on alone finally being replaced by Dick Dickerson.

I know that formula, and I'm working on recreating it somehow.

PE

the evil HC-110

So I guess this means the HC-110 some of us know and love is just fine the way it is and always has been for our intended purposes.

I wonder what propaganda about HC-110 Ryuji was trying to convince the rest of us of...I seem to have missed it. I guess I also missed the post where he actually displayed his results. Damn, bugger and blast.

For some reason, I keep hearing the line "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain !!" in my head. Can't for the life of me imagine why....

Bob M.

billtroop said:

Fortunately, that particular little black book fell into discreet hands.

Click to expand...

Bill - How much do you want for that book? I promise to take good care of it! :^)

Kodak have provided a chart for choosing film developers, depending on which particular bias in image quality is required. e.g., for the finest grain, highest speed yield and highest sharpness etc. There is a fine balancing of any film developer and no one developer can do everything, although Xtol appears to offer the optimum all-round balance of image quality. All of those products should provide pleasing results.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/chemistry/bwFilmProcessing/selecting.jhtml

Keith Tapscott. said:

Kodak have provided a chart for choosing film developers, depending on which particular bias in image quality is required. e.g., for the finest grain, highest speed yield and highest sharpness etc. There is a fine balancing of any film developer and no one developer can do everything, although Xtol appears to offer the optimum all-round balance of image quality.

Click to expand...

I agree with your analysis. If you look at the overall image quality performance, XTOL is pretty good for most pictorial b&w films.

HC-110 and Silvergrain

I experimented with many different developers starting in High School in the early 1970s. I noticed early on that Microphen gave more grain and a little more speed. Most of my Tri-X shot at 400 was developed in HC-110 Dil. B and the Tri-X shot at 1250 was developed in UFG. The two formats I used most often were full frame 35mm and 6X6. What happened over many yeras is that black & white film was improved to the point that phenidone based developers no longer made it look so grainy and the sharpness and slight speed increase it gave was more welcome.

Most of the D-76 I used was at 1:1. I preferred the extra sharpness even if the grain was somewhat more apparent. When I compared D-76 to HC-110 I was comparing D-76 1:1 to HC-110 Dil. B. In most ways, with Tri-X shot at 400, these two were more similar than different. I developed a fair amount of film then so I made a stock solution with the HC-110 rather than diluting it from the syrup. I have read (don't ask where) that over time the formula for HC-110 changed. If this is true I don't know how it affected the developer. When Kodak improved Tri-X to the current version I tested it in several developers against TMY. I liked the Tri-X better whether I was considering grain, sharpness or tonality. I have several rolls of TMY2 in 120 size but I have not tested them yet.

Over time it seems that phenidone based developers have become more popular and metol based developers have become less popular. If black and white films had not been improved I don't think this would have happened. It seems that a lot of the debate over which film/developer combination works best goes back to the time when 35mm was considered a miniature format. At this late stage in the history of film based photography the prices for medium and large format equipment have dropped tremendously. I know that I can make a very nice 8X10 or 11X14 with a slow film like Pan F+ or a medium speed film like ACROS with 35mm equipment but regular Plus-X or FP4+ in 6X45, 6X6 or 6X7 formats will give even better results in 8X10 or 11X14 prints sizes using any number of available film developers. This fact makes many of the agruments about film and developer combinations a lot less interesting.

I still have some HC-110 around and I expect that it is good even though I haven't looked at it in a while. If it should become unavailable I think I could be just as happy with PC-TEA for most applications. As long as it is still made I expect it to continue to be a versatile, economical and useful general purpose developer. The fact that one person or one website has something negative to say about it should not sway anyone who uses it and is happy with it.

A question about proprietary (secret) developer formulas: Are there any real secret formulas that other companies have not cracked?

Mass spectrometers are pretty common these days, and there is are ionization techniques such as electrospray, APCI, etc. that are pretty good for analyzing solution-phase compounds. These, combined with accurate mass measurements and so-called tandem mass spectrometry, would allow a half decent investigator to reverse engineer most any mixture.

At the lab where I work we have some methods that are applied to medical samples in body fluids (far more complex matrices than any photographic solution) at parts-per-trillion concentrations (one picogram per ml.) Our methods are "target" methods rather than general methods, but I nevertheless believe that most companies could reverse engineer practically any developer without much trouble.

Therefore, I would ask "why all the secrecy?" in the developer industry.

I love HC-110. I've been using it almost exclusively for a few months now. I especially love Tri-X 400 & Plus-X souped in it. Give me grain!

alanrockwood said:

A question about proprietary (secret) developer formulas: Are there any real secret formulas that other companies have not cracked? . . . . . . . . .

Therefore, I would ask "why all the secrecy?" in the developer industry.

Click to expand...

Secrecy is purely about commercial advantages, one product being perceived to be better than another and achieving far higher sales.

Most good photo-chemists could emulate a competitors developer, so Ilford's Ilfotec emulates HC110 but uses one or two slightly different compounds to circumnavigate Kodak Patents.

Recently Ilford dropped Cooltone developer, they haven't released the formula because that would disclose the agent they use instead of Benzotriazole to ensure cool tones, again covered by a Patent.

Other developer formulae are common to the industry, so virtually every company made a D76/ID-11 clone.

So it's usually just quite normal commercial secrecy.

Ian

ha ha

Oh well...

First HC-110, and now Ilfotec HC is my developer of choice. Who cares about picking apart negs bit by bit. Nothing has the consistency and the versatility of HC, and those two things are the most important qualities in a developer, IMHO.

I use 1:63 at 75F for everything "normal". For special effects, I use other things like D-19 or Dektol, but this is rare. I dilute HC in varying amounts for masks and continuous tone lithos; usually start at 1:63 and tweak to suit desired contrast.

I find that I like the technical qualities of my prints in all formats using this developer far more than any of the others I have tried. X-Tol is a kick butt developer on a strictly technical basis on paper, but I prefer the look of HC...and the absolute consistency roll to roll, even when made from stock solution instead of from the concentrate like I usually do.

It is really a matter of opinion, in my opinion.

2F/2F

Ian is correct, but there are things that take place in any analysis that misleads the analytical chemist, and I have seen wild claims by companies other than Kodak about the contents of some Kodak products. A mass spec or NMR can give obscure results sometimes.

PE

As Ron says it's difficult getting a developer analysed accurately, I wanted something analysed a few years ago but was told it would be virtually impossible to identify some of the organic components and that I'd be wasting my money. That doesn't mean it can't be done but the cost would be prohibitive.

There are easier ways to skin a cat

Ian

Ian Grant said:

Secrecy is purely about commercial advantages, one product being perceived to be better than another and achieving far higher sales.

Most good photo-chemists could emulate a competitors developer, so Ilford's Ilfotec emulates HC110 but uses one or two slightly different compounds to circumnavigate Kodak Patents.

Recently Ilford dropped Cooltone developer, they haven't released the formula because that would disclose the agent they use instead of Benzotriazole to ensure cool tones, again covered by a Patent.

Other developer formulae are common to the industry, so virtually every company made a D76/ID-11 clone.

So it's usually just quite normal commercial secrecy.

Ian

Click to expand...

patents exist solely to protect economic adavantage. That has nothing to do with whether a new developer is better or worse than a previous developer.
The developer manufacturers file patent after patent not for the purpose of producing better developers, but rather as a means to deny their competitors from using the latest discovered chemicals and techniques. Most patents are competitor stoppers and never come to manufacture.
However, patents last only for 20 years(in the UK).
So who is going to tell me that a developer from only 20 years ago is so inferior to what is being produced today that I should not use it.
The answer of course, is one of the disingenous product designers who seek to market their own products by denigrating older products because their own product has nothing new to offer that a 20 year old and now out of patent product already offers.
There are a lot of fools out there trying to reinvent wheel and convince others that they have. The question is, who are the fools that believe them?

Can you back that up with a few facts Rob.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

Can you back that up with a few facts Rob.

Ian

Click to expand...

No. Its a conspiracy theory. Mine all mine and I'm taking out a patent on it. I'll sue you if you use it.

Developer patents both protect and reveal advances in developer chemistry. True, not all patents are taken forth to prouducts, but then not all advances are patented or are patented for other purposes.

There is still some room left to improve developers, based on the R&D going on at EK at the time they ceased work on B&W process chemistry. B&W film R&D is still going on.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Developer patents both protect and reveal advances in developer chemistry. True, not all patents are taken forth to prouducts, but then not all advances are patented or are patented for other purposes.

There is still some room left to improve developers, based on the R&D going on at EK at the time they ceased work on B&W process chemistry. B&W film R&D is still going on.

PE

Click to expand...

Yeah but isn't the point for photographers, whether the prints produced are aesthetically better, or is the point that the developer is cheaper and more convenient for the manufacturer to produce?
People harp on about the qualities of older thick emulsion films. Efke/adox being one of them. But in their day they were marketed as the new thin film emulsions producing sharper images.

Adok/Efke films are still unique in being the only thin "single" layer emulsions

It's papers that benefit from being thick emulsions with higher silver content.

Ian

Photo Engineer said:

Developer patents both protect and reveal advances in developer chemistry. True, not all patents are taken forth to prouducts, but then not all advances are patented or are patented for other purposes.

There is still some room left to improve developers, based on the R&D going on at EK at the time they ceased work on B&W process chemistry. B&W film R&D is still going on.

PE

Click to expand...

And again, these statements are meaningless to me as a photographer. They don't give the reason for "advances in developer chemistry" or "room left to improve developers" or "B&W film R&D is still going on". They don't say for what? The benefit of the manufacturer? Cos the scientists have a pet interest? Cos they can reduce overheads? Cos they can reduce staffing levels? Or is it because the prints look better according to the subjective opinion of a scientist based on what?

So you see that its really very very easy for a scientist to tell us how wonderful something is until you start to question their agenda and then it very often turns out your own agenda and the scientists agenda are wildly different which makes the claims worthless.

And I'm not saying all science is worthless, but I would say that most science is only of worth to minority interest groups and that a lot of science is only of worth to scientists because thats what they are into.

Rob;

Recently, Portra films were improved by addition of the new 2 electron sensitization. This was a trickle down effect from the Vision film family. Now, they are being introduced into B&W films as we see in the new films from Kodak. Obviously, I don't know details just the general direction in work.

This work means that you can gain speed with the same grain and sharpness. So, it benefits the customer. And, if needed, you can gain part of the speed/grain position and reduce silver level giving the best to both the customer and to the manufacturer. (that is, if the dmax and latitude can be maintained)

There are always middle and extreme positions in film design and in developer design. The same is true of fixers and blixes and bleaches. There is a large gamut and much room for improvement. The real problem is for one to proclaim and improvement with no proof. When I make a claim, I can back it with proof. So, if I were to design a high acutance developer, I would compare it with existing HA developers and present proof here on APUG.

PE

When I was a research engineer at NASA, I found out a lot about patent law. We used to say that patent lawyers would rather switch than fight, opposite to what a certain cigarette maker said about its product. You cannot patent an idea. You cannot patent the laws of nature. A patent can be contested if it can be shown that a competent engineer-scientist would come up with the same apparatus without reference to the apparatus described by the patent. A patent application used to require a working model.

The one patent I had a hand in belonged, of course, to the government. Each of the three of us got $25. The patent was put to public use as it covered a device that was useful in physical and mental rehabilitation after certain injuries or ailments. We designed it for psychomotor testing, which had to do with hand-eye cordination.

Yes, I remember making the coatings for one of our patents. The examiner wanted to see photographic prints using the different methods of catalytic imaging and I was elected to do the job of supplying the "working model(s)". The pictures were supplied to the attorney at Kodak, and he flew them down to Washington DC to demonstrate the patent to the examiner. He had all analytical data and strips of raw coatings for examination. The patent office created a new class of patent for catalytic imaging.

PE