HC-110: Old formula back by ADOX - differences to SINO and PSI

[surfnturf]

Hello forum!
As some of you might have noticed, ADOX is bringing back the original HC-110 syrup.
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/fotochemie/adox-hc-110-pro-original-sirup-made-in-germany-500-ml-konzentrat.html?cache=1738674596

I’ve read in many threads that the formula must have changed after KODAK got split (from syrupy to runny to “not keeping that well”).
That all spiked my interest to compare these formulas:
I tried to base all mentioned facts on MSDS from the manufacturers. Of course, we’ll not see exact formulations. What I tried to do is take a greater look at the components used. I’m by all means not an expert – but I’ll try my very best. Please correct me if I'm totally off here. I tried to learn and progress a bit.

One assumption must be made: ADOX uses the original formula from Tetenal – otherwise the whole comparison falls apart.

Contenders:
SINO-Promise, PSI, ADOX. For one reason or another, I included PC-TEA and 510 Pyro:

https://i.postimg.cc/d7nfM4Bj/hc-110-compared2.png (https://postimg.cc/d7nfM4Bj)



As we can see:
Differences to ADOX:
SINO and PSI both use sulphite in their formulas. This can be seen as a preservative, adds alkalinity and can act as a solvent of the silver halides.

SINO and PSI both use KOH to adjust the pH, both use Borax – so may be as a substitute for a balanced alkali and as a buffer system?

ADOX contains no sulphites and doesn’t use any borates or KOH.

Similarities:
All three formulas contain Hydroquinone and Pyrocatechol.
PSI and SINO both use Dimezone-S whereas ADOX uses the rather uncommon, but more potent Phenidone B (4-Methylphenidone) which is also very hydrolysis resistant.
Also, all formulas do use DEA and EG but in varying quantities.

One Difference: Except for SINO, all formulas contain a chelating agent.

The original formular uses DEA and EA as a “buffer within itself if diluted in water” and also a water free or reduced basis based on ethylene glycol. Preserved like Gainers PC-TEA or DeFehr’s 510 Pyro.

One other assumption for me could be – If Pyrocatechol is added to PC-TEA, you could get a “HC-110” like developer with a Hydroquinone substitute (Ascorbic acid).

[landstrykere]

Hello forum!
As some of you might have noticed, ADOX is bringing back the original HC-110 syrup.
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/fotochemie/adox-hc-110-pro-original-sirup-made-in-germany-500-ml-konzentrat.html?cache=1738674596

I’ve read in many threads that the formula must have changed after KODAK got split (from syrupy to runny to “not keeping that well”).
That all spiked my interest to compare these formulas:
I tried to base all mentioned facts on MSDS from the manufacturers. Of course, we’ll not see exact formulations. What I tried to do is take a greater look at the components used. I’m by all means not an expert – but I’ll try my very best. Please correct me if I'm totally off here. I tried to learn and progress a bit.

One assumption must be made: ADOX uses the original formula from Tetenal – otherwise the whole comparison falls apart.

Contenders:
SINO-Promise, PSI, ADOX. For one reason or another, I included PC-TEA and 510 Pyro:

https://i.postimg.cc/d7nfM4Bj/hc-110-compared2.png (https://postimg.cc/d7nfM4Bj)

interesting comparison.

As for ADOX using the original Tetenal formula it would mean that PSI does not, which is paradoxical because PSI tells on its site:

Kodak Alaris sold their license rights to Sino Promise and we continued to manufacture the entire KODAK B&W line. We took over manufacturing of the C41 products in early 2023. Unfortunately, Sino Promise decided to exit the chemistry business in April. Photo Systems engaged in license negotiation with Kodak and signed a license agreement in September, which allows the continued manufacture and worldwide distribution of KODAK Professional Chemicals. (https://kodak.photosys.com/pages/about-psi)

it seems like PSI got the formula from SINO, or a SINO variant, that´s for the chemistry, but a brand deal with Kodak when this was still Alaris.

the HC-110 sold by Tetenal was manufactured by the chemical plant in Norderstedt near Hamburg. Tetenal GmbH in its last years manufactured nothing but was a brands business. Norderstedter Chemiwerke manufactured most products, also the Compard ones sold by MACO. For years I was buying from Germany HC-110, some Tetenal developer, and C-41 kits, and became nervous at the time USA destroyed the Gazprom pipeline summer 2022, indeed few months after, in autumn, Norderstedter Werke went bankrupt in the turmoil of silly gaz prices and there was no more Tetenal.
Sometime ADOX has probably done like they did with the remains of Agfa for Rodinal (now Adonal), buy the formulas for cheap. This makes sense, but then it means that Alaris didn't buy it back instead. Or???
It would be funny: the real HC-110 no longer a Kodak brand.





Differences to ADOX:
SINO and PSI both use sulphite in their formulas. This can be seen as a preservative, adds alkalinity and can act as a solvent of the silver halides.

SINO and PSI both use KOH to adjust the pH, both use Borax – so may be as a substitute for a balanced alkali and as a buffer system?

ADOX contains no sulphites and doesn’t use any borates or KOH.

as I understand the older HC-110 using glykol, sulfur, DEA/TEA, had required more steps than a solution of sulphite. Does it means more expensive manufacturing and a reason for the switch to SINO water sulphite formula?

btw, in the "back to the old original formula" style, ADOX has also a "classic" D76 now. It seems not everyone appreciated their "green" tendency with the D76 "ECO".

[sjbadham]

PSI's comments about their history manufacturing Kodak chemistry are a bit confusing. They seem to imply that they were the sole manufacturer of Kodak black and white chemistry after 2019, even after Kodak Alaris sold the license rights to Sino Promise. From the PSI website:

"In 2019, we were approached by Kodak Alaris to manufacture some of their B&W KODAK chemistry. The KODAK era began. Kodak Alaris sold their license rights to Sino Promise and we continued to manufacture the entire KODAK B&W line. We took over manufacturing of the C41 products in early 2023."

The word "continued" is confusing in that context. There were still new bottles of HC-110, etc. being sold in 2022 that clearly stated they were made in China. Maybe PSI meant to convey something else and this was just a bad word choice.

In any case, one thing that bears repeating in all of these discussions about licensing and formulas is the possibility that the "thing" that's actually being licensed by Kodak to PSI is just the product name, not the formula. It would, of course, make good business sense for PSI to manufacture a developer under the HC-110 name that closely mimics the properties of the existing Kodak product, but differences in formula might reasonably be anticipated. Additionally, it's not clear, based on the quote above, that the PSI formula for current HC-110 was specifically acquired from Sino Promise. It's possible PSI already had one or more products in its catalog that had been engineered to closely approximate Kodak products, and that these were being sold to distributors and re-labeled under various house-brands. Kodak may have simply collaborated with PSI and determined that some of those products were close enough to the existing Kodak recipes that they could be packaged as-is with the Kodak name. I imagine it would be to PSI's benefit to make as few changes to its production line as possible.


...at the time USA destroyed the Gazprom pipeline summer 2022...

Meh, unlikely. Could be a fun discussion, but probably best left for another forum.

[landstrykere]

PSI's comments about their history manufacturing Kodak chemistry are a bit confusing. They seem to imply that they were the sole manufacturer of Kodak black and white chemistry after 2019, even after Kodak Alaris sold the license rights to Sino Promise. From the PSI website:
.../...
one thing that bears repeating in all of these discussions about licensing and formulas is the possibility that the "thing" that's actually being licensed by Kodak to PSI is just the product name, not the formula. It would, of course, make good business sense for PSI to manufacture a developer under the HC-110 name that closely mimics the properties of the existing Kodak product, but differences in formula might reasonably be anticipated. Additionally, it's not clear, based on the quote above, that the PSI formula for current HC-110 was specifically acquired from Sino Promise.

yes it feels very fuzzy and mostly a business around brand names.
I didn't follow closely the modifications of Kodak after their financial troubles in 2010's. I am late 50 years and when teenagers we were in the era of big mail order catalogues like Foto-Quelle that were selling cameras and photographic material of European industry, and have a closer overview of what happened along the 90's.
When comparing the HC-110 saga to Rodinal one, I wrote for shortness that Adox/Fotoimpex bought Rodinal from Agfa. It is incorrect, Fotoimpex bought nothing but rather recruited former Agfa engineers in order to re-create or re-implement a close clone of the last Agfa Rodinal. This is Adonal. The other older clones under name Whatever-R09 are what was manufactured after WW2 in DDR and from there in COMECON ( Fomadon R09 in Czechoslovakia, etc). Fotoimpex did this also with some emulsions, also recently paper emulsion: recruit the engineers who where supervising the manufacturing of the former product and re-implement/re-create.

So now Kodak. You walk in a shop that sells analog photo material and there is Kodak film on the shelves. What strikes me is that neither the remains of Eastman Kodak in USA nor any other photo dedicated business in USA similar to Fotoimpex/Adox has done with HC-110 what Fotoimpex did with Rodinal. Re-create the previous known product.
Instead it seems Fotoimpex/Adox has done it again. When surfnturf comments in OP "One assumption must be made: ADOX uses the original formula from Tetenal " Rodinal story comes to mind. Adox doesn't need to actually get/buy anything from Tetenal, but just recruit the guys who supervised the manufacturing at the plant where Tetenal had products manufactured. They call the developer "HC-110 PRO".

Whatever it is it means that now the fork that formed in HC-110 formulas has consolidated. Very different formulas that have only in common that they are supposed to produce exactly same results but differ in shelf life. Chemically it is interesting: from a long preservation glycol/TEA/DEA liquid developer to a water/sulphite one.


...
at the time USA destroyed the Gazprom pipeline summer 2022...
Meh, unlikely. Could be a fun discussion, but probably best left for another forum.

it is not bringing in a (off-topic) discussion, it is just a key marker on the timeline. Summer 2022. In itself the event is enormous, an unprecedented state terrorism act of continental effects, hell this was a main energy source, hence a key marker. In our case it impacted directly availability of chemicals for a while until Germans moved heaven and earth in order to relaunch some manufacturing, like finding ways to run Calbe plant (former ORWO !) with profits. JOBO by now no idea but when they started selling C-41 kits it was .... Japanese (!). As I said earlier: when I saw in the news the pipeline had been blown first thing I did was go online at MACO and buy a 5liter Compard kit. Luckily Fotoimpex/Adox could recently manufacture C-41 kits in the plant they acquired few years ago. And maybe by doing like with Rodinal: recruiting former employees of Norderstedt plant :-)

[surfnturf]

Very different formulas that have only in common that they are supposed to produce exactly same results but differ in shelf life. Chemically it is interesting: from a long preservation glycol/TEA/DEA liquid developer to a water/sulphite one.
That would be an interesting case study to do: Compare all “tree” HC-110 with the same neg/exposure under a controlled environment.

Also questioning the pH: Are they buffered to the same pH? I doubt it a bit in theory as having multiple buffer systems at once (plus one has no chelating agent which also by substance might influence the pH).

Also PSI’s formula might have more “HQ” and less Pyrocatechol than the others.

Another thing I want to bring into the discussion is quality control: I heard from “bad” XTOL with faint / thin negatives – new batches, freshly bought.

As we also had bad experiences with Phenidone from China, I’d be kind of cautious when it comes to these important compounds and cutting corners.
Also an interesting task would be: Adding “good” Phendidone to a bad XTOL solution (in proportion) to see if this improves the developer. If so, bad HMMP or Phenidone was present to start with.

Looking at the MSDS again: They might’ve changed the HC-110 formula because it solved the problem of using expensive DEA and equipment to handle the syrupy consistency.
Also they could buy cheaply synthesised Phenidone or HMMP – which could lead to a hit or miss situation.

Therefore I’d day that ADOX has a reputation for good quality product. If I’d ever switch from “self mixed” to HC-110, I’d take the ADOX formula any day

[John Layton]

So...does the new Adox formula duplicate the old Kodak HC-110 syrup?

[wayne77]

The new ADOX formula is pretty close to the original Kodak HC-110, but not exactly the same. It skips the sulphites, borates, and KOH found in some others, so while it performs similarly, it’s not a perfect match.

[landstrykere]

That would be an interesting case study to do: Compare all “tree” HC-110 with the same neg/exposure under a controlled environment.

actually there are more than three. Everyone was making its own "HC-110". Not bad for a "trade secret"...

ILFORD has Ilfotech HC but on the MSDS I see no pyro:
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/images/products/media/42980_1_MSDS_DE.pdf
Bellini HC lists catechol (dihydroxibenzen) but no phenidone variant:
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/images/products/media/69501_1_MSDS_DE.pdf
and there is a film reseller in USA, that sells also its own, but I find no data:
https://filmphotographystore.com/collections/darkroom-supplies/products/darkroom-supplies-fpp-110-bw-developer-1-liter-kodak-hc-110-equivalent



Another thing I want to bring into the discussion is quality control: I heard from “bad” XTOL with faint / thin negatives – new batches, freshly bought.

I recall feedbacks about inconsistencies in the SinoPromise XTOL, that was in COVID times. That said XTOL clones are manufactured since long. I use sometime FOMADON Excel (w27) clone.


Looking at the MSDS again: They might’ve changed the HC-110 formula because it solved the problem of using expensive DEA and equipment to handle the syrupy consistency.

my feeling too.

I have still some HC-110 bought 07.2022 at Fotoimpex, of the SinoPromise formula but from the German factory:

https://i.postimg.cc/SSNTTSYZ/photo-2025-02-13-04-57-36.jpg

it has an expiry date, that is gone now one and half year ago ... :

https://i.postimg.cc/LSN0q1GG/photo-2025-02-13-04-57-38.jpg

I use it in dilutions 1/64 or 1/48 (1+63 1+47 in American maths...) and find to issue but then don't do analysis on the negatives.

It forms a bit of jelly deposit, shake the bottle to dissolve. I am not going to the end of it but I bought an ADOX one.

https://i.postimg.cc/ChPv93jw/photo-2025-02-13-04-57-37.jpg




ADOX has a reputation for good quality product

in the first place there is no reason for a factory to manufacture bad chemicals, but otherwise yes ADOX are transparent and consistent in their dedication to the product, this also because they have been moving carefully from being just a post-COMECON reseller to a manufacturer with a belief in what they sell. They seem to take no chance with quality control so to no jeopardize investments among others.
That said they suffer from specific "Greenism" of German society in the 2010's. I think of the money and time they spend in the "dust-free":
CAPTURA. Es ist wasserlöslich, ungiftig und biologisch abbaubar. Pulverchemie ist die Zukunft. Sie kann überall hin transportiert werden, wiegt weniger als Flüssigansatz und hält sehr lange. (https://www.adox.de/Photo/adox-captura-staubbindetechnologie-2/)
like if people would bend and sniff the powders when mixing chemicals.... Germany has switched to trans-atlantic shipped liquified/re-gazifield shale gaz with huge impact, and there you have little ADOX over its lab sink spending time and money on small bags of dust-free powders. Then Pulverchemie-ist-die-Zukunft brings .... yet another liquid developer (HC-110). :)
Just to mention, en passant, that part of ADOX good reputation may be related that cultural "greenist" factor. That said yes they pay attention to quality consistency. Something that FOMA for instance does not always care about (for the coating of some emulsions, dust control issues).

[sjbadham]

That would be an interesting case study to do: Compare all “tree” HC-110 with the same neg/exposure under a controlled environment. [...] Another thing I want to bring into the discussion is quality control: I heard from “bad” XTOL with faint / thin negatives – new batches, freshly bought.

A controlled study using a step wedge or control strips (plus a densitometer) is, indeed, the only way to resolve the question whether these new formulas perform like the old ones.

My own history in that regard comes from getting burned by Kodak Xtol starting in 2019 or so. I tried three or four different 5-liter batches of the stuff over the course of two years (periodically "checking in" by purchasing a new batch to see if anything had improved) and always got what I considered to be unacceptably thin negatives. To clarify, these results affected both Kodak and Ilford films and happened using box speeds, distilled water, and manufacturer-suggested times and temps. Searching forums for similar reports turned up sporadic hits, but it also turned up reports from users saying Xtol worked just fine for them. This was during the Sino Promise era, so quality control was always a question, but the consistency of my poor results made me suspicious that something deeper was going on.

When Adox released XT-3 a couple years later, it was like a revelation -- that stuff produced what I considered to be proper density and it became my developer of choice for a couple years. When Photo Systems Inc. signed a licensing agreement with Kodak in late 2023, I bought a PSI-made bag of Xtol a couple months later to see if anything had changed. I think it might be a little better than before, at least in the sense that the negatives seem slightly denser than those produced by the Xtol of four or five years, but it still produces negatives that look thin to my eyes. I tested this last spring using FP4+ control strips and can confirm that the LD, HD, and D-max patches are all considerably denser when developed in XT-3 compared to Xtol.

I recently came across a thread on Photrio talking about "new" Xtol, and it seems more people are starting to observe the thin negative phenomenon. I'm not sure what's going on because PSI is generally regarded as a good manufacturer. I'll note that Xtol uses Dimezone-S (as opposed to phenidone), so I wonder if you're onto something by speculating that the root cause of this problem is farther up in the raw chemical supply chain, which is heavily reliant on Chinese manufacturing.

Another data point possibly worth mentioning in all of this is that I started mixing my own Xtol-like developer (MOCON) about six months ago. MOCON also uses Dimezone-S, and I've noticed that my films need considerably longer development than what MOCON's formulator reported in his film testing done back in 2013. I'm wondering if the Dimezone-S being used by PSI to make Xtol, and the Dimezone-S I'm using (Bellini) to mix MOCON, is all coming from the same factory in China and has a problem.

[surfnturf]

So it seems like anyone mixes their own “soup” of HC-110. Ilford has no Pyrocatechol in it (as long as I trust the MSDS).
Bellini uses borates, Ilford does not.


So...does the new Adox formula duplicate the old Kodak HC-110 syrup?


The new ADOX formula is pretty close to the original Kodak HC-110, but not exactly the same. It skips the sulphites, borates, and KOH found in some others, so while it performs similarly, it’s not a perfect match.

As long as we could not find any MSDS from the “Original Syrup” we can only guestimate that ADOX has the “good mix recipe”. Does the “original” from KODAK contain any sulphite? Does it contain Borates? Don’t know. Maybe we’ll find that out sometime.


That said they suffer from specific "Greenism" of German society in the 2010's. I think of the money and time they spend in the "dust-free":
(....)
like if people would bend and sniff the powders when mixing chemicals.... Germany has switched to trans-atlantic shipped liquified/re-gazifield shale gaz with huge impact, and there you have little ADOX over its lab sink spending time and money on small bags of dust-free powders. Then Pulverchemie-ist-die-Zukunft brings .... yet another liquid developer (HC-110).

I want to share with you some of my experiences hence the "Greenism" that is often discussed.
I think that a positive change to a sustainable and also environmentally friendlier alternative is often good. But I would like to take a different approach here:

As mentioned, many of the developing agents like Hydroquinone and Pyrocatechol (and Pyrogalol) are chemicals, which can cause harm when handled wrong or are disposed in an improper way.
From a medical and “health and safety” perspective, measures were implemented to limit harm, especially to people working or using the chemicals.
I often tend to forget that many of us (in all fields, but I am focusing on chemicals and Photochemistry here) have experiences that many others do not have.
So the STOP acronym was implemented as a measure to limit harm if something goes wrong:
S = Substitute
T = Technical
O = “Organisation” (workplace)
P = PPE.

S would be an alternative to e.g. Metol and Hydroquinone:
Phenidone (in all its variants): Lower dose and lower environmental impact + lower toxicity (must be ingessted to do harm)
Ascorbic acid and derivates: Toxic? Not realy (in reasonable amounts)

T: CAPTURA
Dust is not set free when mixing the chemicals. Hence Hydroquinone is toxic and can damage the eyes, reducing dust when working with it is a smart idea.

ADOX made a great effort to implement S and T into their products. That seems to us like overkill – but we should think about unexperienced users.
I am biased myself by my experience any day in my field of work and my private life – seeing “Tiktok” challenges of swallowing detergent pods or ingesting Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) - Syrup in lethal doses makes me stay reminded that some measures we see as “over the top” and “waste of time and money” are unfortunately not to make our lives difficult (acquiring raw chemicals) but to limit the possibility of harm in unexperienced individuals.

[interneg]

There's some pretty good documentation about the classic syrup HC-110 (and the use of isomers of HQ for specific purposes, nothing to do with their willingness to form poor quality couplers) and Ilfotech-HC in the patent literature - and some clear hints about the shortcomings of non aqueous developer formulae, hence why DDX, Xtol, Ilfosol 3 etc are classic aqueous formulations.

BTW, the key adduct for HC/ HC-110 is available industrially and doesn't have to be made by the developer manufacturer today. I don't think people understand the hazards that need to be mitigated to make syrup HC/ HC-110. As it is, you can also use what HC-110 was invented to replace: DK-50 and DK-60a. Frankly though, there are better conventional developers than HC/ HC-110 unless you have some weird urge to test the age degradation of the organic components of film developers.

[Drew Wiley]

I have technical uses for HC-110 at very high dilutions. And since I only do that intermittently, excellent shelf like of the concentrate is crucial. Other developers probably wouldn't work for the same application, or might require a whole new tedious round of testing. Therefore, if / when I run out of my old original syrup stock, it's important to replace it with something as close as possible to the classic old formula.

[Michael R]

There's some pretty good documentation about the classic syrup HC-110 (and the use of isomers of HQ for specific purposes, nothing to do with their willingness to form poor quality couplers) and Ilfotech-HC in the patent literature - and some clear hints about the shortcomings of non aqueous developer formulae, hence why DDX, Xtol, Ilfosol 3 etc are classic aqueous formulations.

BTW, the key adduct for HC/ HC-110 is available industrially and doesn't have to be made by the developer manufacturer today. I don't think people understand the hazards that need to be mitigated to make syrup HC/ HC-110. As it is, you can also use what HC-110 was invented to replace: DK-50 and DK-60a. Frankly though, there are better conventional developers than HC/ HC-110 unless you have some weird urge to test the age degradation of the organic components of film developers.

I wonder how many people would even know about HC-110 if it hadn’t been one of the developers Adams used toward the end of his career. It’s kind of like selenium toning.

HC-110 was never really optimized for anything but bulk convenience. Everything novel about it in the 1960s had to do with its compounding process. And yet not only do people prize it for non-existent properties, they are falling all over themselves for a Fotoimpex non-aqueous re-issue so that they can see how long they can get away with keeping a bottle (which may or may not be as stable over time as people think anyway).

[Drew Wiley]

HC-110 was a massively used and highly versatile commercial developer, with Kodak keying numerous processes to it. All the bent-nosed, cowboy-hatted, bearded Ansel clones put together probably wouldn't have equalled its commercial applications. What kind of hat and beard do you have, Michael?

[Michael R]

I’m not saying it wasn’t commercially used in high volumes. I’m saying it likely never would have become popular with the LF/Zone System crowd had it not been for The Negative in which Adams mentions it - particularly where he talks about using it relatively dilute for “compensating” development. It seems to me that’s how it became (for a while at least) the de-facto Zone System developer.

It’s just so strange to me Fotoimpex would go to the trouble of doing this. I’m sorry but if there really is a demand for it, versus the aqueous Photo Systems/Kodak-branded version or Ilford’s equivalent, it’s just another example of how silly photographers can be when it comes to this stuff. Ooh-la-la now I can use the same bottle of sludge for 25 years because I *think* it lasts forever.

As for the hats, keep in mind I’m on the east coast. If you wear a hat here it’s only because you’re trying to hide your baldness.

[Drew Wiley]

AA tried all kinds of film developers; he was less versatile when it came to paper developers. DK-50 was the poor man's HC-110, but also heavily used commercially. What really counts is the right hat. If you don't have at least an XXX quality Stetson cowboy hat, liquid will leak through when you try to measure your darkroom solution gallonage with it. A proper cowboy hat also doubles as a horse watering trough if necessary. All kinds of things, including hiding baldness too. I don't even own one, which is why I'm not a famous photographer myself.

[tundra]

There's some pretty good documentation about the classic syrup HC-110 (and the use of isomers of HQ for specific purposes, nothing to do with their willingness to form poor quality couplers) and Ilfotech-HC in the patent literature - and some clear hints about the shortcomings of non aqueous developer formulae, hence why DDX, Xtol, Ilfosol 3 etc are classic aqueous formulations.

BTW, the key adduct for HC/ HC-110 is available industrially and doesn't have to be made by the developer manufacturer today. I don't think people understand the hazards that need to be mitigated to make syrup HC/ HC-110. As it is, you can also use what HC-110 was invented to replace: DK-50 and DK-60a. Frankly though, there are better conventional developers than HC/ HC-110 unless you have some weird urge to test the age degradation of the organic components of film developers.

I have a pile of DK-50 tins sitting here and use it from time to time. It is very clean working, but subjectively seems to produce grainer negatives that HC-110. For me, the question is moot as I've pretty much switched to Pyrocat-HD and, occasionally, D-23 and D-76 for all things, though I still have some original Kodak HC-110 I bottled in glass some years ago.

[interneg]

particularly where he talks about using it relatively dilute for “compensating” development. It seems to me that’s how it became (for a while at least) the de-facto Zone System developer.

It was (I think) possibly the first really widespread PQ developer in the US market, so PQ inhibition effects (well known 'to those skilled in the arts' but barely spoken of outside of quite closed-off industry academic publications) would give rise to people thinking they've found some 'new' property - which it isn't really doing, at least not as strongly as commercial developers that are aimed at properly exploiting those effects (cf. the later big manufacturers' aqueous developers (and the very interesting use of PMT by some), rather than an unfortunately well known staining developer that is merely a D-76 substitution). Most of the time Zone System people seem far more reliant on the built-in manufacturers' safety margins than they'll ever understand.

[phdgent]

This might be useful:

257484

[landstrykere]

I have technical uses for HC-110 at very high dilutions. And since I only do that intermittently, excellent shelf like of the concentrate is crucial. Other developers probably wouldn't work for the same application, or might require a whole new tedious round of testing. Therefore, if / when I run out of my old original syrup stock, it's important to replace it with something as close as possible to the classic old formula.

point being what is "the classic old formula".
Kodak avatars after the 2012 implosion of Eastman Kodak have make difficult to track datasheets over time, but some are still floating at some other sites.
For instance this is the datasheet of a 2006 version, actualized in 2019. It mentions sulphur (dioxyde)
https://www.agarscientific.com/media/import/AGP9156_-_KODAK_HC-110_Developer_(GB).pdf

CAS: 111-42-2 2,2'-iminodiethanol 35%
CAS: 7446-09-5 sulphur dioxide 20%
CAS: 123-31-9 Hydroquinone 10%
CAS: 111-46-6 2,2'-oxybisethanol 10%
CAS: 141-43-5 2-aminoethanol 10%
CAS: 67-43-6 N-carboxymethyliminobis(ethylenenitrilo)tetra(acetic acid) 5%
CAS: 7758-02-3 potassium bromide 3%
CAS: 120-80-9 1,2-dihydroxybenzene 1%
CAS: 107-21-1 Ethylene Glycol 1%

the one sold by American plant/business Photo Systems Inc now is different:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0339/5113/files/1058692_Photo_Systems_Inc._KODAK_PROFESSIONAL_HC_Developer_1265749_US-en_v5_07.26.24.pdf

CAS 10117-38-1 Potassium Sulfite Solution 45% 40-60%
CAS 123-31-9 hydroquinone 10-15%
CAS 111-46-6 2,2'-oxydiethanol 5-0%
CAS 12179-04-3 Borax Pentahydrate 3-5%
CAS 1310-58-3 Potassium hydroxide 45% 1-3%
CAS 7647-15-6 sodium bromide 1-3%
CAS 139-89-9 Dissolvine H-40 1-3%
CAS 111-42-2 diethanolamine 1-3%
CAS 13047-13-7 Dimezone S <1%
CAS 120-80-9 Pyrocatechol <0,05%

the one of ADOX also different from these:
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/images/products/media/71460_4_MSDS_EN.pdf

CAS 123-31-9 1,4-dihydroxybenzene;hydroquinone;quinol 5-10%
CAS 141-43-5 2-aminoethanol;ethanolamine 1-3%
CAS 67-43-6 N-carboxymethyliminobis(ethylenenitrilo)tetra(acetic acid) 1-3%
CAS 7758-02-3 Potassium bromide 1-3%
CAS 2654-57-1 4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidone <1%
CAS 120-80-9 1,2-dihydroxybenzene;pyrocatechol <1%


-------------

I used the "older" (1st here) a lot years ago with Retropan 320 in 120 rolls and some expired emulsions (of ORWO, Kodak) and the bottle I bought in 2022 was the formula of the SinoPromise period, made in Germany, ie. after Kodak Alaris sold the BW chemicals to SinoPromise and I used it with other emulsions mostly aerial (Agfa, Tasma) plus some expired Kodak, ORWO. No comparisons and i don't do densitometrics. Very empirically I felt the SinoPromise manufactured in Germany was ok.

Now, BOTH Adox (Germany) and PSI (USA) claim they do the "original" stuff. For sure the current PSI one is not the older pre-2019 Kodak one, as per these datasheets.
Common sense to me is that PSI would have worked with former Kodak engineers, like Adox must have worked with former Norderstedt engineers. What it is about any possible patents legalities no clue, and they don't make it clear.

In any case, the fact that Kodak patent expired long ago was mentioned. I am fact based, so need facts, data. What i find as patent is this one: US3552969. If incorrect, please source.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/45/c6/25/25d6b6bd1d9126/US3552969.pdf

it does not provide one formula, but is a chemical explanation and description of a proposed concentrate developer. In the examples at the end are formulas variants.

I guess the engineers back all this know their stuff and we can trust they implement developers that give same results for same emulsions than some older canonical formula (probably not the oldest, emulsions have also changed over time).

[Daniel.E]

Another data point possibly worth mentioning in all of this is that I started mixing my own Xtol-like developer (MOCON) about six months ago. MOCON also uses Dimezone-S, and I've noticed that my films need considerably longer development than what MOCON's formulator reported in his film testing done back in 2013. I'm wondering if the Dimezone-S being used by PSI to make Xtol, and the Dimezone-S I'm using (Bellini) to mix MOCON, is all coming from the same factory in China and has a problem.

Oh this is good information! I was about to buy some Dimezone-S from Freestyle. I’m now back to square one looking for a supplier.

[surfnturf]

Oh this is good information! I was about to buy some Dimezone-S from Freestyle. I’m now back to square one looking it a supplier.
There are some good options:


Buy Phenidone B/Z from “reagent007” (e.g. https://www.ebay.com/itm/204538525592?) https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?179624-phenidones-A-B(Z)-dimezone-dimezone-S landstrykere tested it and I've also tested it – works flawlessly and is also more resistant to hydrolysis. Does ship to Italy.
Buy Dimezone S and/or Phenidone from Suvatlar in Hamburg: https://www.moersch-photochemie.de/shop/



One thing that could also be tested: Adding an equimolar amount of Phenidone or Dimezone S to a “slow /inadequate working” XTOL-Solution. If the Phenidone or one of its derivates is the problem, the time should come out around normal. If it is something else, the time should IMHO stay the same.

[Daniel.E]

Thank you! I got some Phenidone from Bostick & Sullivan, so I'm good with that but I've been wanting to buy Dimezone-S. I'll try Suvatlar.

I have 5 bags of XTOL here, 3 from Kodak from the Sino era and 2 from Legacy Eco Pro that I've been afraid of using. I'm interested now to try out adding Dimezone S or Phenidone, if any of those are not working as they should.

I'm collecting all the chemicals I need to start mixing my own developers. I'm kinda tired of just using Rodinal for everything and I miss XTOL.

[MartinP]

. . .
I'm collecting all the chemicals I need to start mixing my own developers. I'm kinda tired of just using Rodinal for everything and I miss XTOL.

The Adox and Foma versions of Xtol, XT3 and Excel respectively, work and are easily available in Europe, in various package sizes. The Excel chemicals dissolve more easily and cleanly than I remember with Xtol, and the (dust-free) XT3 is even better than that.

[Bernard_L]

I'm collecting all the chemicals I need to start mixing my own developers. I'm kinda tired of just using Rodinal for everything and I miss XTOL.

See this
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/results-of-hp5-developed-with-d96-or-d76.212465/post-2877917

the main impact on the tonality of the image is made by a host of factors. Choice of the developer as such is pretty far at the bottom of the list. Subject matter, light and viewpoint/framing are all the way at the top. The bottom half of the list is made up of choices like film, lens, development time and if you dig down very deep into factors that have only very subtle influences, you'll encounter the developer


And if you really must try yet another silver bullet, this one has been extensively tested not only by its inventor but by two other forum members. Does not require many chemicals. Despite being a decades-long user of D-76 1+1 user, I'm almost tempted to try it myself, for one simple practical reason: long-term keeping properties.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/my-pc-512-borax-developer.195379/

[surfnturf]

Maybe Gainers PC-TEA or PC-Glycol does the trick hence Borax can be hard to get in the EU

[Daniel.E]

See this
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/results-of-hp5-developed-with-d96-or-d76.212465/post-2877917


And if you really must try yet another silver bullet, this one has been extensively tested not only by its inventor but by two other forum members. Does not require many chemicals. Despite being a decades-long user of D-76 1+1 user, I'm almost tempted to try it myself, for one simple practical reason: long-term keeping properties.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/my-pc-512-borax-developer.195379/

Yes I agree the only thing is that, to me, Rodinal and XTOL are polar opposites. The more I read about mixing my own developers the more attractive it looks. I want to make a print developer as well.


Maybe Gainers PC-TEA or PC-Glycol does the trick hence Borax can be hard to get in the EU

Thankfully I have access to Borax. But the simplicity of all those developers is so attractive to me now.


The Adox and Foma versions of Xtol, XT3 and Excel respectively, work and are easily available in Europe, in various package sizes. The Excel chemicals dissolve more easily and cleanly than I remember with Xtol, and the (dust-free) XT3 is even better than that.

I though of that but I'm not shooting often enough and before with XTOL the developer would sit for awhile. I know they make smaller bags but mixing my own ends up being more economical and I can have fresh developer on demand, as long as the Demizone-S and Phenidone don't go bad.

[Vaughn]

...A proper cowboy hat also doubles as a horse watering trough if necessary. All kinds of things, including hiding baldness too. I don't even own one, which is why I'm not a famous photographer myself.

I wore a baseball cap style Forest Service hat when I was a hippy mule packer...dang mules could bend down to drink their water. But I have been wearing Akubra hats for 15+ years or so...got a big bald spot to protect and I don't like wearing sunglasses (especially photographing) so the big brims are great.

My nicest Akubra was stolen out of my van -- the Territory. A beaut...great for photographing in Death Valley...like wearing my own personal shade tree. My MIL gave it to me as her husband had died without wearing it (typical Aussie farmer/cattleman -- would not give up his old hat). Its a big hat (4" brim), so I have replaced it with smaller lighter Akubras.

For the record, I use Ilford's Universal PQ developer and PyrocatHD...but used HC-110 for years.

Photo credit: Elizabeth Opalenik

[landstrykere]

Borax can be hard to get in the EU

yes, and this is the occasion of an interlude...

sugar may become hard to get in the EU, because it causes dental caries. Also water, because it can cause death by drowning.

there was a discussion inside a dedicated sub-agency of the huge eurocratic machine, where someone did luckily know or got informed that borax is also used in photography:
https://echa.europa.eu/-/opinion-on-the-use-of-boric-acid-and-borate-compounds:

"Helsinki, 29 April 2010
ECHA's Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) has adopted today an opinion on the use of boric acid and borate compounds by consumers in photographic applications.
The opinion concerns the use of the substances by amateur photographers to develop and print their own photographs from films in the darkroom. In its opinion, RAC concluded that the use of these substances does not pose a risk to consumers when no other boron sources are considered."

then it is up to the understanding of sellers...
In EU, shops dedicated to small quantities sales for photography, like Suvatlar, Disactis, Bellini, do sell to anyone, as customers are supposed to be amateur photographers.
Norway is not EU but without us being asked, which is a great gesture of democratic spirit, there are Norway-EU agreements that require Norway to follow EU regulations.
That's where interpretation of a text is key: the EU directive forbids sales to regular persons, allows only to registered companies ie. for professional use.
A shop selling whatever for metal working, welding, smithing, jewelry, does list and sell borax only to companies ("Dette produktet selges ikke til privatkunder.") They list and label "borax" and their provider seems to be German as per the "Pulver zum Schmelzen" :

https://i.postimg.cc/QNXQTJQf/borax-pulver.jpg

the "Pulver zum Schmelzen" is the funny point. Because other shops in the same smithing, welding products and tools branch, do not list borax at all, they list "flussmiddel" and sell to anyone. One of these shops wrote on its site that due to some arcane ukaz of EU, borax can't be sold to non-professionals, so they sell no more borax but instead flussmiddel.
I buy this by:

https://i.postimg.cc/p2f5JnX4/flussmiddel-1.jpg

and on the back label it says Innhold: natriumtetraborat-pentahydrat ie. the one borax variant with less water (penta instead of deca molecules).

https://i.postimg.cc/WN935mRW/flussmiddel.jpg