New HC-110 Formula

Wallendo · Aug 14, 2019

My current bottle is running low and I may need to re-order. I have used L-110 and it worked well, so there is always a backup plan. The solution may be to buy smaller bottles so I can use them up faster. My L-110 lasted a year in a partially open bottle.

The problem with the longevity of new HC-110 is that it will take us 5 years to see if it really lasts 5 years. Although to be honest, I really try to use up each bottle within a year so the very long durability of HC-110 is not really that important to me (I try to keep a bottle of Rodinal lying around just in case).

KN4SMF · Aug 14, 2019

As an aside, I wonder how much lead and metals got "dumped" into the world's oceans during WWII? Don't you know a lot of innocent fish got killed in that one?

Grim Tuesday · Aug 14, 2019

KN4SMF said:
As an aside, I wonder how much lead and metals got "dumped" into the world's oceans during WWII? Don't you know a lot of innocent fish got killed in that one?

Don't you think the circumstances of total war are a little bit different from our photographic hobby? Please stop making straw man arguments in favor of pollution. I'm willing to discuss the effects of photochemicals on the environment if you come armed with facts. I'd even be willing to change my mind if you convince me. But if you want to call me names (one of "these people") and imply ridiculous things like "WWII was bad for the environment, so you should be justified in doing other things that are bad for the environment or else you're a hypocrite" then I wish you would just stop fanning the flames and let this be a thread about HC-110.

Disconnekt · Aug 14, 2019

A smidge more info from the Youtube channel Nicos Photography Show here, at the 3:40 mark:

)

TL;DR The changes to HC-110 apply only to the to the US market due to Kodak reaction to Tentenal's bankruptcy announcement a few months ago so they changed manufacturers (unknown at this time), Germany's version (made by Tentenal) remains the same (no changes to it).

jim appleyard · Aug 14, 2019

Alaris makes Kodak chemistry? Who makes Ilfords? Who makes Freestyle's Legacy brand? Could Kodak just be switching chemical makers and going with whoever makes Ilford and Freestyle's version of HC-110?

Do the Ilford and Freestyle versions last as long as "old" HC-110?

cmacd123 · Aug 14, 2019

NB23 said:
“Less viscous and easier to pour”: sounds like Ilfotec-HC to me.

the Arista/legacy Pro L110 is also less viscus and easier to pour. It is made in USA, I believe by Unicolor, (Photo systems INC) I wonder if KodakAlaris is switching suppliers to the folks who make that, for fear of the German change of control at Tetinal? from what was written about HC110 in the past, some of the intermediate stages are almost explosive before the reactions all settle down.

photo systems also seems to be the supplier for the rest of Freestyles range of "Kodak Chemical Clones" which all "work the same" but may not be identical.

Sadly, I tend to have to get my supplies by Mail order from the US, so I end up with th eUS market stuff.

RalphLambrecht · Aug 14, 2019

Grim Tuesday said:
On the page for the "2019 Edition" of HC-110 at B&H, if you zoom in on the bottle it says "NEW FORMULA." This is confirmed by Alaris' website, where next to t-max dev and HC-110 it says "New Formula, Same Great Results:" https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/photographers-photo-printing/resources/chem-tech-info

Based on the MSDS sheets, they seem to substantially differ:

Old HC-110: https://www.digitaltruth.com/products/kodak_msds/Kodak-HC110_Film_Developer-MSDS.pdf
New HC-110: http://sds.kodakalaris.com/temp/SDS US English - KODAK HC-110 Developer.pdf?t=637013511210472235

The new formula seems to be considerably less toxic to humans and the environment, so that's cool. But it really seems like a completely different developer. I hope it is not an end of an era. Time to stock up on the yellow syrup?

as I understand it,the results are quite similar to D76?

KN4SMF · Aug 14, 2019

Grim Tuesday said:
Don't you think the circumstances of total war are a little bit different from our photographic hobby? Please stop making straw man arguments in favor of pollution. I'm willing to discuss the effects of photochemicals on the environment if you come armed with facts. I'd even be willing to change my mind if you convince me. But if you want to call me names (one of "these people") and imply ridiculous things like "WWII was bad for the environment, so you should be justified in doing other things that are bad for the environment or else you're a hypocrite" then I wish you would just stop fanning the flames and let this be a thread about HC-110.

Lord have mercy... I'm going to ask you to believe something. A post can be made in the spirit of levity, distraction, breaking of the ice for a moment, a pondering; with no intention of conveying an agenda, or making a straw man argument, or any of the other ideas and accusations in your head. A truly innocent random thought sparked by the topic at hand. Can you believe that, or have you become so uppity like so much of the country seems to be, that such a simple thing has to be tagged for scolding? Don't tell me I'm the only one who has ever wondered how much copper and tin (brass) is at the bottom of the ocean, how much lead. And how many fish were swimming around happily one minute and kaboom! the next. Once again as a simple moment of levity, I say that WWII must have been a bad time to be a fish. And I wish I had a penny for every ton of brass that got ejected from the wing guns of airplanes. OK, I now return you to our regularly scheduled program of APUG anger. Unlike Amateur radio and RC planes and old cars, and my other hobbies, the hobby of photography, my lifelong hobby of choice, also has an inordinate number of uppity assholes in it, who take themselves way too seriously.

NedL · Aug 14, 2019

MattKing said:
...
For example, NaCl that is first removed from the oceans, and then re-deposited.
In that case, dilution is the solution.

And in that case it can take decades. That's only one part of the plan... the Napa River and SF Bay waters are allowed into the other ponds and then slowly released. When I was at one of the ponds that been under restoration for about 10 years now, it's salt level was around 1.8% ( compared to around 2-1/2% in the bay and around 3-1/2% in sea water ) -- I needed to figure that out because I wanted to make a salt print with it That was a pond that has had fresh water put into it, and then released slowly, for over a decade.

markbau · Aug 14, 2019

Sal Santamaura said:
If this isn't sarcasm, it deserves to be intensely ignored. That fallacious contention was disproved many decades ago.

I was being a bit flippant but seriously, a home darkroom produces so little chemical waste that it isn't worth worrying about. A bit of perspective here, that plane ride you last took negatively impacted the environment way more than a lifetime of tipping minuscule amounts of chemicals down a home darkroom sink.

Sal Santamaura · Aug 14, 2019

KN4SMF said:
...I'm going to ask you to believe something...

Something you, who injects your political BS into everything, writes? Not a chance. And that's even before the denigrating epithet at the end of post #58.

markbau said:
I was being a bit flippant but seriously, a home darkroom produces so little chemical waste that it isn't worth worrying about...

Unless properly treated, and depending on the waste water disposal mechanism in use, it most certainly is worth worrying about. Do some reading about the biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand Ron referenced in post #48.

markbau said:
...that plane ride you last took negatively impacted the environment way more than a lifetime of tipping minuscule amounts of chemicals down a home darkroom sink.

I last reluctantly set foot on an airplane (to reach an overseas destination) four and a half years ago, fully cognizant of the impact air travel has on the environment. And I'm a retired Boeing engineer. Also, depending on how much volume the home darkroom user processes and the waste water disposal mechanism in use, a "lifetime" of pouring photo chemicals down the drain can have vastly more negative environmental impact than a plane ride. Think contamination of an aquifer where ground water is the primary source.

It's best not to be flippant about how humans degrade our environment.

NB23 · Aug 15, 2019

Humans.
I’ve personally quit trying to understand who or what we are, really.
We’re probably worst than rats. Rat’s rats is what we are. Yes, rat’s rats.

And the pollution song has been played wrongly for far too long.
Blame the huge corporations, not the poor individuals.
We have no idea and yet we’re supposedly killing a whale for every toilet flush we activate.

It’s all a media orchestrated population guilt trip. Close a Tire (Tyre) company and you’ll be saving the whales right there. And the monkeys too.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Aug 15, 2019

If the new formulation of HC-110 gives the same results as the older formulations and is significantly easier and safer to manufacture, why wasn't it adopted earlier? Did it require an innovation that was previously elusive?

markbau · Aug 15, 2019

Sal Santamaura said:
Something you, who injects your political BS into everything, writes? Not a chance. And that's even before the denigrating epithet at the end of post #58.Unless properly treated, and depending on the waste water disposal mechanism in use, it most certainly is worth worrying about. Do some reading about the biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand Ron referenced in post #48.I last reluctantly set foot on an airplane (to reach an overseas destination) four and a half years ago, fully cognizant of the impact air travel has on the environment. And I'm a retired Boeing engineer. Also, depending on how much volume the home darkroom user processes and the waste water disposal mechanism in use, a "lifetime" of pouring photo chemicals down the drain can have vastly more negative environmental impact than a plane ride. Think contamination of an aquifer where ground water is the primary source.

It's best not to be flippant about how humans degrade our environment.

Wouldn't the solution to your environmental concerns be to go digital? Then you wouldn't have to worry about any chemicals you are using going into the ecosystem, especially if you never digitally printed your images.

Eric Rose · Aug 15, 2019

Oh I see some have fallen for the bait! Before you get hauled in, pulled onto the boat and then gutted you better shake that hook!! Run, run for your lives .......

john_s · Aug 15, 2019

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
If the new formulation of HC-110 gives the same results as the older formulations and is significantly easier and safer to manufacture, why wasn't it adopted earlier? Did it require an innovation that was previously elusive?

Maybe the long life of the original version has been sacrificed to make manufacture cheaper. There have been precedents: remember Agfa Viradon which was reformulated by the accountants, leaving out the only expensive ingredient?

Photo Engineer · Aug 15, 2019

There is no innovation in this new formula. The original formula was an innovation, in that it contained no water.

As for BOD and COD, they are only of any real importance if you run effluent into the environment. If you run into a municipal sewer system, the treatment plant oxidizes or reduces all of the appropriate materials. Don't over play this item. It is rather minor except in huge operations such as photofinishers.

PE

ant! · Aug 15, 2019

The photo shop just over the street from my work, in Canada, has still no new bottles, but about 10 of the old ones, Made in Germany, with expiry dates 2020 and 2021. I assume Canada gets it through the US, so I think most shops should have still the old version around at the moment. Even B&H lists still both versions in parallel in stock. Just bought a bottle with the 2021 expiry date, and when this is used up, I'm a slow user, probably we know more about the new version. In the worst case, since shelf life is important to me, I get them from Europe...

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Aug 15, 2019

Without the long life of the previous formulations, what advantages does the new formulation of HC-110 offer to its users over XTol or D-76? Not having to brew the stock solution from powder and not needing to store a gallon of stock solution are definitely nice.

billtroop · Aug 15, 2019

Photo Engineer said:
The original HC110 contained the adduct of HBr with TEA as well as the SO2 adduct of TEA. It contained few ionic species and was very stable. This new material is quite different IMHO and should not be called HC110. It may work the same, but it is not the same. Keeping of the syrup will be different, but working solutions should be the same for keeping.

PE

Minor correction Ron since people will be referring to your remarks on this subject for years to come, I think you meant DEA not TEA in this case.

billtroop · Aug 15, 2019

There is no doubt that Tetenal knows/knew how to make the DEA/sulfur dioxide adduct. It was an ingredient in Ultrafin Plus as of April, 2011. It is also used in Ilford's HC developer.

billtroop · Aug 15, 2019

Photo Engineer said:
There is no innovation in this new formula. The original formula was an innovation, in that it contained no water.

As for BOD and COD, they are only of any real importance if you run effluent into the environment. If you run into a municipal sewer system, the treatment plant oxidizes or reduces all of the appropriate materials. Don't over play this item. It is rather minor except in huge operations such as photofinishers.

PE

Ron is 100% correct about the innovation of a water-less vehicle which was the key to longevity and the remarkable _consistency_ for which this developer was prized. I would like, however, to draw attention to an error in FDC 1. I misread Haist v. 1 p. 530 which is not entirely clear on this point. Where I give a sample formula from the patent, there is an incorrect direction to make up the solution to a liter with water. This error is noted and corrected in the upcoming FDC 2.

mgb74 · Aug 15, 2019

Ariston said:
In the 70s it was global COOLING that was going to doom us all. Now it is global warming...er... I mean climate change due to pollution. Fifty years from now it will be whatever our kids decide is the threat of the day, so it's out of our control, anyway.

History is repetitive, not political. Use whatever developer you like.

And in 100 years those kids will still be debating this in the coastal city of Atlanta.

Vaughn · Aug 15, 2019

mgb74 said:
And in 100 years those kids will still be debating this in the coastal city of Atlanta.

Ah, an optimist! Kids may not have time to conduct debates in 100 years...survival will probably the main topic of discussion.

Sal Santamaura · Aug 15, 2019

NB23 said:
...the pollution song has been played wrongly for far too long.
Blame the huge corporations, not the poor individuals...It’s all a media orchestrated population guilt trip...

Can't resist piling on, eh? Too bad. Please restrict it to the Soap Box.

markbau said:
Wouldn't the solution to your environmental concerns be to go digital? Then you wouldn't have to worry about any chemicals you are using going into the ecosystem, especially if you never digitally printed your images.

Why the need to make this about me rather than address facts/science? An absence of good answers?

I enjoy both chemical and digital photography. I practice both. After working with darkroom chemicals, I dispose of them properly. How about you?

New HC-110 Formula

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency