New Kodak Formulas

[gcoates]

As of last week, B&H shows old discontinued versions of several developers as well as new versions of the same developers. At minimum, this is the case for Xtol, D-76, and HC-110. Does anyone know anything about this change? Do the new versions work the same way?

[Oren Grad]

Recently Tetenal was out of commission for a while, so Kodak may have shifted to a new supplier.

By all means run a test if you're concerned, but I wouldn't worry about the formulas changing in any material way. There's nothing especially exotic about the Xtol, D-76 or HC-110 formula that should pose any difficulty for a new supplier.

[Duolab123]

I noticed that as well. New catalog numbers, not much information other than B&H. I bought some Dektol from Unique for 5 dollars less than B&H, free shipping etc. I think Freestyle has some "short date" Dektol for cheap as well. Could be clearing out inventory. If you can believe the pictures on B&H products are being made in USA. I panicked and bought a bunch of Tetenal made XTOL and Kodak rapid fix when Tetenal was in trouble. Tetenal's quality is better than "old Kodak" in terms of XTOL, no brown insoluble granules to contend with.
Like Oren has stated, best to check out any supplier changes. Hopefully no hiccups, I've got enough XTOL for the next 5 years :o

[Willie]

The answer is simple: ILFORD.

[Oren Grad]

Harman Technology / Ilford Photo outsources its processing chemical production too. They are not immune to supplier disruption.

[gcoates]

Even if Ilford wasn't subject to supplier changes, switching to Ilford would still require process changes and testing.

[Pere Casals]

Does anyone know anything about this change?

Changing those developers (Xtol, D-76, HC-110) would be a sacrilege :), but always read datasheet, if you don't see a change in the recommended times in the datasheets then there is nothing to worry about.

[Willie]

The Ilford was somewhat 'toungue in cheek'. If what you have works and you are happy, why change? I got on Ilford some years back with their film and the recommendations of other LF darkroom users - a number of them who had been bit by Kodak cutbacks. Then my Uncle introduced me to Sandy King's Pyrocat HD and it has been the film developer of choice since first trying it. Paper developer? Either Dektol for enlarging or Michael A. Smith version of Amidol developer if contact printing.

[Oren Grad]

The newly-numbered HC-110 and T-Max developers are designated "New Formula, Same Results", while the other products have no such designation.

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/photographers-photo-printing/resources/chem-tech-info

Apparently the MSDS has changed for HC-110.

I've downloaded and compared the new data sheets for HC-110 and T-Max developers with prior versions. On a quick pass through them, I see no differences in recommended processing times for either sheet film or roll film.

Thanks to the participants in this Photrio thread for the heads-up:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/new-hc-110-formula.169322/

[Keith Fleming]

This is not the first time Kodak formulas have changed. I have a memory from 20+ years ago of an article in either Modern Photographyor Popular Photography with a photo showing the then "new" version of HC-110 concentrate was a different color than before. I cannot remember if that formulation change affected the developing times.

Keith

[Bob Salomon]

This is not the first time Kodak formulas have changed. I have a memory from 20+ years ago of an article in either Modern Photographyor Popular Photography with a photo showing the then "new" version of HC-110 concentrate was a different color than before. I cannot remember if that formulation change affected the developing times.

Keith

If it was Modern then it is longer then you might realize, their last issue was July of 1989!

[Keith Fleming]

Bob,

I go way back! By the time Modern closed in 1989, I had been reading both magazines for at least 27 years. Bought my first 35 mm camera (a fixed-lens rangefinder Petri 7S) in a PX on Okinawa in 1962. I'm still trapped down here in the rabbit hole buying camera gear.

Keith

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I was on Okinawa in 1984. Traded in my Minolta 35mm for a Canon AE-1 Program.

[Corran]

The newly-numbered HC-110 and T-Max developers are designated "New Formula, Same Results", while the other products have no such designation.

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/photographers-photo-printing/resources/chem-tech-info

Apparently the MSDS has changed for HC-110.

I've downloaded and compared the new data sheets for HC-110 and T-Max developers with prior versions. On a quick pass through them, I see no differences in recommended processing times for either sheet film or roll film.

Thanks to the participants in this Photrio thread for the heads-up:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/new-hc-110-formula.169322/

Oren,

I see that some are claiming worse longevity for HC-110. Has anyone done any testing or is there an estimate on exactly what that means?

Just last year I switched to using a lot of HC-110. I don't need my developers to last 10 years but are we talking about issues within months? Or is this a lot of hot air mainly worrisome to those that shoot a few rolls a year and tend to use one bottle of developer for a decade?

[Oren Grad]

Nobody involved in this discussion so far knows yet - it's all speculation based on what can be deduced from the MSDS about changes in the ingredients. But the Photrio thread, though long and convoluted at this point, has overall been very useful in identifying the important unanswered questions.

I've never been a fan of HC-110 for my own work, so odds are this will have no impact on me regardless of how it pans out. But it's such an important product in the B&W market, I too am eager to understand how the new version is going to behave.

[Corran]

I've found HC-110 to work best for me with Kodak XX 35mm, and HP5+ for larger sheet films (economical). Luckily I have plenty left in a fresh bottle I just bought a couple months ago, so I will wait to see what the story is. If it has "sudden-death" syndrome after a few months, I'll have to drop it. That's why I don't use XTOL.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Speaking to Corran: Is it an error to compare miniature film response to LF even when the films are supposedly the same type?

[Corran]

Jac, I believe 35mm film is coated on a different base than 120 and LF, giving slightly different results. Plus some differences in how one might expose different formats - say, with an internal meter on 35mm vs. spot metering LF, can change things a bit in my opinion. Some LF shooters seem to like really thick negatives (shooting at half box speed as standard will do that). On modern films, I prefer a full-range negative without excessive exposure. Easier to print. Thick T-Max 100 negatives are unprintable, at least for me.

[Pere Casals]

Is it an error to compare miniature film response to LF even when the films are supposedly the same type?

99% the same.

Today sheet market size does not allow much to produce special emulsions for sheet only. TMX datasheet curves are for both sheets or rolls, if some development times are different in dastasheet this is related to the tank type, but for the same type of tank they say for "Rolls and Sheets" the same time.

[interneg]

Speaking to Corran: Is it an error to compare miniature film response to LF even when the films are supposedly the same type?

You might find these charts interesting (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/henry-kodak-acutance-tests-edge-effects.104041/#post-1374861) with regards to how different formats relate to contrast, sharpness etc in terms of imaging behaviour from an emulsion design standpoint. Or more simply: in smaller formats, the higher density from the finer lines can cause apparently higher contrast when an H&D curve is read & plotted.

[Jerry Bodine]

...Is it an error to compare miniature film response to LF even when the films are supposedly the same type?

Jac, FWIW you may find this excerpt from an email response I got from Ilford some time back to be of interest:

...there can be small differences between 35mm, 120 and sheet film as these do use different bases and slightly different emulsions. Although we endeavor to manufacture all three types to be as close as possible in order for development times to be consistent across the range for any one film type (and they are for most practical purposes) someone carrying out the exacting type of testing you describe will inevitably pick up small differences.

[LabRat]

Not to be obvious, but testing will give you answers...
You should have your developing/EI tests done beforehand, and have done many runs to have proven it long ago... So a no-brainer now and later...

One shouldn't have to change developers, as there are some but minor differences between them, but one should stick to one (any one) for long as possible, unless you hit a wall with it (like availible anymore)... I think many get "blinded by choice" with different offerings from makers, and think it will make a big difference... (It won't...) It's much mote about what you get used to using, and getting consistent results you can easily print with your preferred process on a good or bad day or night...

I have been given stock developer solutions(like HC-110 or Rodinal), some old and some very new, and tried them in a pinch, where the stock looked fine, but didn't develop anything, but I know to slip a piece of fogged raw film (in roomlight) in fresh mixed solutions, and wait about 3 min until the film darkens completely to confirm it works... (and that new half bottle of stock on the shelf from 6 months ago might not do what it used to do...)

I mix 98% of my chems from scratch, and never had a failure, and stock solutions seem to last longer than store bought... And I make as little or as much as I need for a project... And is MUCH cheaper, and get perfectly consistent results...

Developers are like making dough for baking... Several of the usual ingredents, but in different proportions, to create some variations... Or you can spend much more for designer or boutique versions of the same dough (for much more dough)...

I strongly suggest making your own, and cut out the middleman... A cheap scale, magnetic mixer, some bulk chems, and a copy of darkroom cookbook or BJP annual, and explore or standardize right from the start...

Steve K

[Howard Tanger]

The answer is simple: ILFORD.

IsIs that an American company? Howard

[Duolab123]

IsIs that an American company? Howard

Is Kodak Alaris an American company? Nope.

[Pere Casals]

Is Kodak Alaris an American company? Nope.

This deserves a clarification.

As part of the bankruptcy of the American company, Kodak faced a $2.8 billion claim by the UK Kodak Pension Plan (KPP) that controls Kodak Alaris (today mostly a marketer) as a privately held company through Kodak Alaris Holdings Limited.

So we have a US Kodak company that manufactures film that is marketed by UK Kodak company taking a share to sustain UK Kodak Pension Plan.

...but KPP wants to sell its "Droit du seigneur" on Kodak products, so they make a short term pricing policy to increase the short term profit to make the sell of Alaris easier and to show a value that can increase the selling price.


So we don't know well what is all that, IMHO Alaris is nominally an UK company but it's also an instrument to pay the debt in UK of an American Kodak company.

Problem is that all this mess damages color LF popularity, and it challenges the long term survability of this kind of photography.

[Drew Wiley]

LabRat - try making your own HC-110. Not easy at all, and it does have some fairly unusual characteristics in terms of versatility. It also keeps extremely well in concentrate, even partially used bottles. Let's be thankful for the options and varieties still available. Yes, I do mix many of my own developers; but there are numerous cases where I'd hate to have to concoct a substitution for something complicated. Color darkroom work in particular is heavily reliant on factory formulas. And in that case, I find even the black and white contrast masks perform better using HC-110 rather than ordinary developers. In my world, there are significant practical differences between specific developers, even in black and white work. I'm not a one-shoe-size-fits-all type. For others, your generic advice might be fine.

[LabRat]

True, HC-110 is its own formula (and I keep some stock around for process work), but there are other DIY formulas like D-19 I make when I need a vigorous, harder, more active developer (I don't use it for general pictorial work as it is a little harsh for me, even very diluted), but I'm still happy it is still made...

Steve K

[Drew Wiley]

It's the predictable performance of HC-110 at exceptionally low dilutions I require. It's the basis for a personal tweak that allows me very low contrast straight-line masks. At normal contrast levels, DK-50 is a readily formulated reasonable substitute in terms of analogous curve expectations. For general use, I'm more of a pyro user anyway.

[LabRat]

Yea, keep on making masks with it, you found what works...

I use DK-50 D (a variation) for general work, works great and I get edge effects, cheap, and good latitude without mushy grain... Not into staining developers as they can print a little flat on WTFB that I print neutral tone... :-)

Steve K