New HC-110 Formula

[Nicholas Lindan]

...Based on the [HC110] MSDS sheets, they seem to substantially differ...

Interesting MSDS statement for the original:

"Precautionary statements: Prevention: Use only outdoors ..."

I imagine that means using it on heavily overcast moonless nights and far out in the country. Edward Weston would open his darkroom windows at night - he liked printing under the stars. Carmel was more civilized back then.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

Tetenal's Tablet developer is also a MQ developer and I quote from Tetenal's Facebook post:

"The extraordinarily long shelf life of PHOTOTABS of at least 4 years allows a particularly high economic efficiency, especially if only sporadic work is carried out over a longer periods of time. A very special advantage of the tabs is the temperature-independent storage in a very wide range from - 40°C to +40°C – no other photochemical product is equipped with such a tolerance."

 

[Alan Johnson]

Ilfotec-HC is much more like the old version of HC-110 than is the new product branded HC-110.
https://www.digitaltruth.com/products/ilford_msds/Ilfotec HC Developer GHS.pdf

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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

 

[markjwyatt]

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

That is what my bottle looks like (USA). I bought in 2018, supposedly expired in July 2020. So far it is still good (last used in July).

 

[MattKing]

One complicating factor about all this is that Kodak Alaris never sold directly to retailers - only distributors.
So the possibility exists that any retailer who still shows a picture of the old type on their website, may be buying from a distributor who, contrary to most current practices, actually has inventory in a warehouse of the old stuff.
As Sino Promise essentially bought the business from Kodak Alaris - including the employees - they may be using the same model in those parts of the world where they aren't prominent as a direct to retailer or direct to photo lab distributor.

 

[Alan Johnson]

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

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

 

[alanrockwood]

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%.

Could you scan and post the MSDS documents? It might be interesting to see the percentages they list for the other ingredients.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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

I note the Bellini product lists catechol as an ingredient on the MSDS.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Catechol is CAS 120-8-9, they all have that, post 484.
The significant ingredient associated with very long shelf life, like the old version of HC-110, appears to be the diethanloamine-sulfur dioxide adduct believed only made in Germany by Tetenal and present possibly only in Ilfotec HC now since Kodak moved production [I do not know this for certain but it appears likely].

 

[john_s]

Here's another one with quite a lot of water. It was from, I think, University of Wisconsin.
Some time ago I read that the formulation of HC-110 did change over the years. MSDS docs leave out a lot, and what's left out varies with local regulations. The interesting thing about these MSDS docs that vary so much is the amount of water. Some fairly recently (not current new one) have none or just about none. I assume that it's those that had the legendary keeping qualities.

 

[alanrockwood]

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.

For some of us a year wouldn't be nearly long enough.

 

[alanrockwood]

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.

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.

And yes, it does last a long long time. This has been attested to by an almost uncountable number of users.

 

[braxus]

Here is the new bottle I just purchased a week ago. Its the new stuff. Not very thick liquid in it. Seems like water.

 

[braxus]

My 1L bottle will take forever for me to use up. Half or more of the film in my freezer is older then 10 years, but I just dont shoot that often. I was planning on using HC-110 for older films to cut down on fog, but even if the new formula reduces fog is in question now. I'll use it to see what it does for my first go around.

 

[MattKing]

HC-110 still offers the flexibility of up to 160 rolls of developed film in a single one litre package, along with the flexibility of being set up for use with multiple dilutions.
If it lasts one year, and you develop a roll per week, only you can decide whether using just 1/3 before discarding it makes economic sense to you.
The lower viscosity probably makes it easier to extend its life by decanting it into several smaller bottles.
I don't know that it is all that different than other concentrated liquid competitors. And I've always liked the results I obtained with it as a general purpose developer.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

Glycol based Pyrocat developers have a shelf-life of several years. Even PC-TEA has.

 

[Finn lyle]

I have a bottle that I purchased in June 2020, with an expiry date in early 2022. It's from the batch that suffers from precipitation of some salt, after prodding Kodak Alaris they said it was a problem related to low temperatures... no replacement offer or other explanation. I digress! Despite lots of crystals and being semi-used and open, as of two weeks ago the stuff still works great. For my process at least, I've noticed no drop in density and no change contrast (not scientific, just eyeballing negs). Might not be the same but it sure seems to be a damn similar developer, functionally. I'll post a picture of it when I can, just moved so its packed away someplace for the time being.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

Ilfotech HC, which is non-aqueous as far as is known, states "will keep indefinitely" when sealed, with stock solutions specified as lasting "6 months in full tightly capped bottles" - whereas LC-29 which also uses the adduct(s) but contains some water states it lasts "24 months in full tightly capped bottles". Thus if someone used dilution B and processed 2 rolls a week, a litre of HC-110 would last something like 64 weeks, which is overall a very low usage scenario compared to the way that HC-110 might be used in 3.5gal deep tanks with replenishment etc - I recall the replenished capacity of a 1L bottle at dilution B was specified as in the order of 1600 rolls of 135/120 or equivalent. Given that the specific properties of HC-110 as a developer (which are themselves a compromise, trading off various features against getting a single concentrate that does everything) seem to be alien to most who want to use it for a feature that really seems to have existed to help customers who operated on a large enough scale (likely buying by the crate/ pallet or more) to not want to have to deal with the expiry dates inherent to aqueous liquid concentrates or the issues around mixing up (and storing) powder developers in the tens of litres or more - it wasn't meant to be eked out for over a decade after opening, like some kind of strange, performative cheapskatery.

 

[alanrockwood]

...- 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.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

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?

Er, the HC-110. The old stuff - a bottle that's been open for 10+ years. Oh, I guess a 20 year old foil packet would be OK. Or a 60 year old metal can.

A contemporary Kodak (whoever that may be this week) "properly sealed foil packet" - best not to waste time opening it, just bin it.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

...like some kind of strange, performative cheapskatery.

Ah, someone who hasn't yet hit retirement (or hasn't hit it hard enough)... Cheapskatery is a fine art for some of us.

 

[Alan Johnson]

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

 

[alanrockwood]

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

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.

SO2 (which is a gas) can be bought in cylinders. I believe HBr (which is also a gas) can also be bought in cylinders. In principle it should not be too hard to build an apparatus that would allow SO2 and HBr to be added to DEA. Of course, good safety practices would need to be followed. On approach would be to treat DEA in two separate fractions, one for SO2 and one for HBr and then combine the two solutions in the proper proportions.