...Based on the [HC110] MSDS sheets, they seem to substantially differ...
Kodak used to sell "Universal M-Q Developer" in tablets. Later they supplied it in two small packets in a sort of oversized matchbook. I guess Metol doesn't play well with others.
Can’t believe no one else has posted this. I opened this bottle on February 8th this year as a second developer for B&W reversal and it still works. Although it appears a bit darker and more orange than the initial yellow, but when it is diluted I see no differences to fresh HC-110.
This is the UK/Europe one so not sure how it compares to the US one.
View attachment 282697 View attachment 282698
The source of the sulfite in the Bellini product is not disclosed, it may be potassium sulfite unlike the old version of HC-110.Bellini also seems to produce a 'HC' style developer: https://ntphotoworks.com/product/bellinifoto-euro-hc-110/ although it is much more expensive compared to ILFOTEC HC - https://www.ilfordphoto.com/1155064
Could you scan and post the MSDS documents? It might be interesting to see the percentages they list for the other ingredients.It’s interesting that older msds documents (2008 for example) list the addition product (diethanolamine sulfur dioxide complex) rather than diethanolamine and sulfur dioxide separately. KBr is not there either. But that’s beside the point.
HC-110 msds documents and the formulation itself have changed over time. The version you’ve attached as “old” is the most recent before the latest reformulation. Certainly the newest version is quite different chemically, as it appears to have dispensed entirely with the novel adducts formerly unique to HC-110.
The new version is also the first as far as I know to have a different concentrate pH. Going back as far as the 1980s the pH was always listed as 9.0, while this newest version is 9.9, significantly higher.
The water question is a confusing one, however. I have two older msds documents for HC-110 which list significant quantities of water. One from 1993 listing water as the second ingredient at 15-20%, and one from 1989 listing water as the first ingredient (before diethanolamine sulfur dioxide) at 60-65%.
The source of the sulfite in the Bellini product is not disclosed, it may be potassium sulfite unlike the old version of HC-110.
https://ntphotoworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/BWEUROHC-EUROHC-BW-DEVELOPER-MSDS.pdf
PE said it contained no water (at least whatever version he remembered).
...That aside, I’m sure the concentrate will last a year if stored properly, and in all honesty that should be long enough for people not to stop using it if they like it.
Granted that HC-110 is not the best developer based on technical considerations (combination of shadow detail, sharpness, grain), but there is something magical about it. Can you name another developer (besides rodinal) with a longer shelf life? I suppose one could name some dry developers, but once mixed into liquid form they do not have long shelf life.In that case I would say you are using the wrong product. There is nothing magical about HC-110 besides its high concentration - which was meant for high volume labs.
If a bottle no longer lasts for years and years (assuming it ever really did), meaning a low volume user will end up wasting some or most of it, then it is wasted money, and you’re better off with any number of other developers.
HC-110 is/was always a compromise - it was optimized for capacity/convenience (some would say flexibility but I don’t think so) in exchange for image structure and emulsion speed penalties. If it turns out the new stuff doesn’t last forever, it has little to offer a low volume user.
Can you name another developer (besides rodinal) with a longer shelf life? I suppose one could name some dry developers, but once mixed into liquid form they do not have long shelf life.
By all accounts it did last a very long time. I don’t know how long, since I don’t know of any sensitometric data on any of this. But yes, certainly longer than than most, if not all general purpose developers.
My point was that its capacity/concentration and longevity were its only special qualities, and that if it turns out the shelf life of the reformulation has been significantly shortened, it will have lost the characteristic that made it economical for low volume users who need several years to go through a bottle. Without that, it has little to offer a low volume user.
I will again highlight this all assumes the new version has a much shorter shelf life. We don’t know. I threw out one year as nothing more than an example of a reasonable minimum. It could be two years, three years. I have no idea.
Sorry if this is all coming off as harsh. I do sympathize. Along with all darkroom practitioners, I have been through these kinds of disruptions several times before, not to mention the lack of good information from the manufacturers. If the new formula doesn’t last as long, and you still want to use it, you’re kind of stuck buying a new bottle every year or two years and throwing away what you haven’t used.
It would be nice if the new formula were offered in smaller sizes, which would eliminate or at least significantly lessen the need for it to last for years.
...- it wasn't meant to be eked out for over a decade after opening, like some kind of strange, performative cheapskatery.
I say, cheapskates of the world unite an throw off the tyranny of the expirationists.
Given the choice between freshly mixed 1L powder developer from a properly sealed foil packet and a bottle of HC-110 that's been open for years, which are you realistically going to be more inclined to rely on?
...like some kind of strange, performative cheapskatery.
I found a paper by Li, Jiao and Chen on the solubility of SO2 in several solvents, including DEA. The title of the paper is "Solubility of sulphur dioxide in polar organic solvents". Unfortunately, the paper is not complete enough to be useful. It gives solubility at several temperatures, but it does not specify what the partial pressure is for SO2 equilibrated with the liquid. This means that the data in the paper is useless in its present form. I am actually surprised it got past the peer review process.I am sorry you US guys cannot afford to manufacture the diethanolamine-sulfur dioxide adduct.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edit...e+sulfur+dioxide&pg=PT123&printsec=frontcover
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?