New HC-110 Formula

[Grim Tuesday]

Well I can confirm what you say above. I still have 2 dozen bottles of the old and recently tried the new. As I process color separations with it for use in the dye transfer and carbon printing processes any variations in the formula could require re-calibrating. Fortunately it doesn't seem to be the case. Any variations I can chase in the tray. However the syrup discolors in the bottle very quickly. I guess one can be thankful for small mercies.

Good to hear. What viscosity is the new stuff?

 

[visual impact]

Never ran a viscosity test on it. But it's obvious that it has a lower viscosity. Fortunately the separation negs came out with a density range of only 0.02 log units of opacity lower that I obtained with the old stuff.

 

[NB23]

Never ran a viscosity test on it. But it's obvious that it has a lower viscosity. Fortunately the separation negs came out with a density range of only 0.02 log units of opacity lower that I obtained with the old stuff.

Yes, that is while it’s new and *very* fresh.
Like D76 seasons with each day passing by, it will be interesting to know if the new HC110 stays stable over at least a year, preferably 2!

I’ve already mentioned Ilfotec-HC many times, but that thing is so stable. Even after 3 years in a clear bottle half full (Jack Daniel’s bottle, by the way), the color hasn’t changed at all.

 

[visual impact]

Color change can sometimes be an indicator of developer oxidization but not always. The real test is to conduct a control strip test and measure the results with a densitometer. pH and SG changes can also be an indicator. But while I don't have to re-calibrate for DT or carbon I am happy to make up more fresh HC-110 when needed.

 

[silveror0]

I have a query into B&H to find out how two one-liter bottles can have such different package weights:

MFR #5010541 (one liter) Package weight = 2.865 lb

MFR # 1058692 2019 version (one liter) Package weight = 18.135 lb

They have now corrected the 18 lbs to 2.95 lb. They've also discontinued the CAT # 5010541 version in the meantime.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

This test report by Leslie of Film Photography Project could be of interest to those who were concerned about the new HC-110 formulation:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/65448995@N05/48679190898/

 

[NB23]

Talk about a flawed test. Or one that says absolutely nothing except that the new developer actually acts as a developer.

Curve? Grain? Different dilutions? Longevity? Ph?

 

[pentaxuser]

They have now corrected the 18 lbs to 2.95 lb. They've also discontinued the CAT # 5010541 version in the meantime.

Why are we are arguing over such a tiny difference as 15. 05 lbs

pentaxuser

 

[odell1618photography]

Talk about a flawed test. Or one that says absolutely nothing except that the new developer actually acts as a developer.

Curve? Grain? Different dilutions? Longevity? Ph?

For me personally, Leslie's test is exactly what I wish to know. Short, simple, concise and to the point.
I'm pleased to know that I can use the new HC-110 as usual. Very worthwhile.
While I agree the results shown do not include all of the criteria that others may be interested in, it's not flawed.
Plenty of room for others to step in and provide additional data while appreciating Leslie's contribution to give confidence
putting the new HC-110 into practical use.

 

[mgb74]

Talk about a flawed test. Or one that says absolutely nothing except that the new developer actually acts as a developer.

Curve? Grain? Different dilutions? Longevity? Ph?

I wouldn't so much call it a flawed test as I would a cursory one. She developed matching exposures from the same roll of film in both new and old HC-110 at the same time and temp and the negs were the same density and contrast (at least from a visual evaluation). That's not a surprise (since that's what Kodak promised) but still good to know.

 

[GorV]

Not flawed, but incomplete. I'd like to see grain comparison, sharpness, overall and microcontrast closeup. Negatives seem to be similar, but hey, we're not contact printing it.

Around two weeks ago sent a message to German online store Fotoimpex, if they've got old / new one and if there's going to be some change. Answer was short and simple: old stock for now and no information about the future.
Ended up buying three bottles of old stock. Would buy more if had enough cash.

 

[dante]

Not sure I understand this kerfuffle - didn't the formula actually change 3 years ago when they started making it in Germany? That's when the color got pale and the viscosity lower. It's also when the edges of the syrup - or the solution - would oxidize orange if it was more than a month old.

Or do people just buy HC-110 so seldomly, or look at photo catalogues so sporadically, that the sky is suddenly falling?

Maybe there was some supposed golden age of HC-110 forty years ago, but I don't think that anyone advertises any developer (or ever did) as a buy it once-a-year proposition. HC-110 was always a high-volume, high-contrast developer, and I suspect the presumption is that people buying it - mostly labs - would blow through it too quickly for it to go bad, even if it were as perishable as any other developer.

 

[dante]

I'll also make the snippy editorialization that given the price of film (>$5/roll for a lot of stock) and the effort involved in shooting pictures, over-economizing and overstretching developer age-wise is penny-wise, pound-foolish.

 

[odell1618photography]

Not flawed, but incomplete. I'd like to see grain comparison, sharpness, overall and microcontrast closeup. Negatives seem to be similar, but hey, we're not contact printing it.

Around two weeks ago sent a message to German online store Fotoimpex, if they've got old / new one and if there's going to be some change. Answer was short and simple: old stock for now and no information about the future.
Ended up buying three bottles of old stock. Would buy more if had enough cash.

Not flawed and not incomplete. Exactly what I'm interested in.

 

[markjwyatt]

Not sure I understand this kerfuffle - didn't the formula actually change 3 years ago when they started making it in Germany? That's when the color got pale and the viscosity lower...

Viscosity got higher (i.e., more viscous not more runny)?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Visual Impact - is that you, Andy? I'm interested because I use HC-110 for both in-camera separations and as a specialized tweak for low-contrast masking work, and would hate to recalibrate. I use TMax RS dev for separations from chromes, but am skeptical how long it might be around. I also process mats using HC110, since my own route is actually a modernized tweak of the old wash-off relief method rather than dye transfer per se. DK-50 is a logical substitute for mat dev if necessary, if the formula can still be dug up. All of this doesn't sound particularly worrisome, but I do want to be aware of any unexpected chuckholes in the road, or any bridges now out.

 

[MattKing]

I use TMax RS dev for separations from chromes, but am skeptical how long it might be around.

I believe that it has been discontinued - it certainly isn't listed on the new Kodak Alaris catalogue number update publication.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thank you, Matt. I did parallel densitometer plots with more than one developer option, just in case. Nothing is permanent except change.

 

[GorV]

Not flawed and not incomplete. Exactly what I'm interested in.

Good for you.
From the other hand, you're not the only user here and some other people including me want to see a little bit more thorough study.

 

[odell1618photography]

Good for you.
From the other hand, you're not the only user here and some other people including me want to see a little bit more thorough study.

And I respect that.It's just not accurate to say that the test in discussion is incomplete or flawed.
The test had a particular purpose, a visual comparison of the old and the new. There are certainly a myriad of other tests that could, can and will be done.
We should give credit and appreciation for the contribution, not label the results as flawed or incomplete. I just feel that it is appropriate to give someone
their due respect and credit for their contributions.
When your data presents itself I'll have the same respect for you as well.

 

[MattKing]

Incomplete may be the wrong word.
Limited, and far from comprehensive might be better descriptions.
The test gives some comfort to the casual user who happens to use HC-110 in circumstances that are similar to the test conditions. And that is a good thing.

 

[abruzzi]

Not sure I understand this kerfuffle - didn't the formula actually change 3 years ago when they started making it in Germany?

Apparently some markets got the version you speak of, but the HC-110 I bought ~6 months ago was definitely the thick variant. When I looked around online at the time, there were warnings then about making sure you didn’t get the “other” HC-110, because dilutions were different or something like that. So, at least for people in the US, this is the first we haven’t been able to get the old formula.

 

[MattKing]

Historically - we are talking several years ago - the European (and some other international?) market(s) received a version of HC-110 that was half the concentration of the version found in the US and much of the rest of the world.
Michael Covington's resource page for HC-110 includes this paragraph:
"Note: In Europe, HC-110 is also sold in 500-mL bottles as a less concentrated syrup which you dilute 1:9 to make dilution B. If you are using that product (Kodak CAT 500 1466), follow the instructions for the European concentrate, not those for the syrup. Although the European type of HC-110 is sold in England, there does not seem to be an English data sheet for it. Full-strength syrup is also sold in Europe so make sure you know which one you have."
AFAIK, that European variant hasn't been marketed for some time.

 

[Rudeofus]

Even by Kodak's own standards, HC-110 is not the best developer in terms of image quality one could come up with. People use it because it's easy to use, it lasts for a long time, and given sufficiently large film format it's good enough for decent images.

So please tell me, why a "complete" comparison would have to check for "exact same grain and exact same sharpness" ??? The new soup uses the same development agent and the same solvent, dev times are the same, so grain&sharpness are likely the same. If there were stark differences for whatever reason, the person doing the comparison would certainly have reported them.

We might as well assume, that old and new HC-110 are effectively identical in action.

 

[NB23]

Even by Kodak's own standards, HC-110 is not the best developer in terms of image quality one could come up with. People use it because it's easy to use, it lasts for a long time, and given sufficiently large film format it's good enough for decent images.

So please tell me, why a "complete" comparison would have to check for "exact same grain and exact same sharpness" ??? The new soup uses the same development agent and the same solvent, dev times are the same, so grain&sharpness are likely the same. If there were stark differences for whatever reason, the person doing the comparison would certainly have reported them.

We might as well assume, that old and new HC-110 are effectively identical in action.

Well, the new hc110 order to achieve the same developing times has maybe been diluted accordingly from the raw materials. Something very easy to achieve. In a matter of a few hours of research and lab work, Kodak could calibrate all their developers to match 5 minutes @ 20c. But there would be trade-offs, and it is these trade-offs that we are all eager to find out about this new HC-110 (me, at least).

And when you say “decent results”, please note that some people despise XTOL and compare it to Orange juice even though its excellence. In this light, which is the decent developer? Xtol or HC110?

And let’s not forget that New tri-x is nothing even close to old tri-x, and older tri-x... even though the New (post-2007) tri-x retained the same developing times as pre-2007 Tri-x. They are simply different films. And give me pre1995 tri-x which had different developing times and such nice grain.

Why is it even still called tri-x, anyway?? Tri-Max is much more appropriate if we take into account the changes they made. TX400 vs. 400TX was such a lame stupidarss differentiation. I remember being insulted by this lame kodak move. What’s next after TX400 and 400TX? T400X? LOL