HC110 - replacement

[bob carnie]

Hi Ian and other Chemical Gurus

So we have been successful in making over 18 large scale negatives for various alt printing purposes using my Lambda . We are now going to print them out on different processes and stocks and see where we are. I started a group called the Toronto Farm Project and those members who stuck with us and took training with various experts are now going to put these negs to the tests.

We used rollie ortho 25 iso that we purchased in long rolls to work on our lambda.
We processed by hand in monster trays and used HC110 .. the mix was as follows 1419 ml of Hc-110 straight out of the bottles with 22 litres of water at 70 degree.Process Time was 7 min tray.
Our 21 step calibration balanced in perfectly on all three lasers so I am a very happy camper.. We got a great Dmax on the film and actually can get better.
We exposed about 30 ft of film at 20 inch width and questimated replenishment as it took us 7 four foot finals to complete the various negative.
We worked from, digital capture, scan , and made some tri colour negs with a K black neg too boot for four colour carbon and gum tests.

So here is my question from you Chem geeks. How do I make from scratch a comparable developer that I can use in a processor and set up a replenishment line... I have the processor, but I will require a developer that is sturdy, replenishable, and will last in tank for two days. I prefer a scratch developer for this as we all know the Manufacturers are dumping stock on a regular basis and for my sanity I need a solid alternative to store bought developer
the plan is to mix, balance run , then dump after film is done.
The handsome dude is me with one four colour seperation output sets, as well I have included the 21 step calibration to give you an idea of what has to happen even before I try to make the negs from files.
This calibration step is critical to all processes that can be done on a lambda, there are many processes that all require the grey patches to be balanced before the exposing unit will give you good results.

Any suggestions would be of great value to me.

thanks in advance

[sanking]

So here is my question from you Chem geeks. How do I make from scratch a comparable developer that I can use in a processor and set up a replenishment line... I have the processor, but I will require a developer that is sturdy, replenishable, and will last in tank for two days. I prefer a scratch developer for this as we all know the Manufacturers are dumping stock on a regular basis and for my sanity I need a solid alternative to store bought developer
the plan is to mix, balance run , then dump after film is done.


Bob,

Kodak DK-50 gives results very similar to HC-100 at the right dilution and it was once used widely in replenishment systems. I don't know if it is still available in kit but if not the formula is fairly simple and you could mix it yourself quite easily.

Sandy

[Drew Wiley]

Bob - there is no easy direct replacement for HC-110, and I don't see why you'd want
one when it is commerical available in concentrate. Over on the Dye Transfer forum
there's an extended discussion of this. A fellow in Australia has successfully duplicated
an exact formula for HC-110 because importation of it has been discontinued there,
but this has involved a very extensive bit of research and the availabilty of lab and techncial resources well beyond the average darkroom worker. It involves many critical
steps with hazardous intermediaries. He has access to a true research grade chem facility and people who work there. There are certain characteristics about HC-110
which are unique, and I've done some extensive tweaks with it myself over the past
couple of years for technical lab use, such as true straight-line contrast masking.

[Mark Sampson]

Kodak used to offer a replenisher for HC-110. Has it been discontinued? (I ran a replenished sink-line process with HC-110-B in the late 1980s.)

[Keith Tapscott.]

Hi Ian and other Chemical Gurus

How do I make from scratch a comparable developer that I can use in a processor and set up a replenishment line... I have the processor, but I will require a developer that is sturdy, replenishable, and will last in tank for two days.

I prefer a scratch developer for this as we all know the Manufacturers are dumping stock on a regular basis and for my sanity I need a solid alternative to store bought developer.

Any suggestions would be of great value to me.

thanks in advanceDK-50 & DK-50R have already been suggested, but it might be too rapid working for your requirements.

Although it's not a scratch mixed developer, you may find Ilford's DD developer and replenisher more suitable than either DK-50 and HC-110 , both of which are fairly rapid working.
Ilford DD is a slower working buffered-borax developer and replenisher which requires significantly longer development times than either DK-50 and HC-110 and will allow you easier control of development times.
You can download the fact sheet here. This is just a suggestion Bob and I am sure others here may be able to suggest suitable scratch mixed formulas.
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=30&t=Film+Developers

[John Berry]

DK-50 & DK-50R have already been suggested, but it might be too rapid working for your requirements.

Although it's not a scratch mixed developer, you may find Ilford's DD developer and replenisher more suitable than either DK-50 and HC-110 , both of which are fairly rapid working.
Ilford DD is a slower working buffered-borax developer and replenisher which requires significantly longer development times than either DK-50 and HC-110 and will allow you easier control of development times.
You can download the fact sheet here. This is just a suggestion Bob and I am sure others here may be able to suggest suitable scratch mixed formulas.
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=30&t=Film+Developers I agree, Dk-50 will be way too hot. Last time I used it I had to burn 4 sheets of 8x10 to tame it down enough to use with ektapan no less. The DD is considered a direct ilford replacement.

[Keith Tapscott.]

I agree, Dk-50 will be way too hot. Last time I used it I had to burn 4 sheets of 8x10 to tame it down enough to use with ektapan no less. The DD is considered a direct ilford replacement.
John, according to Dave Butcher who helped to design it, DD and DD-X which is the same developer in hobby size and is formulated as a liquid ID-11 but uses a modern Phenidone derivative instead of Metol (Elon). The developing times are fairly long compared to many other liquid film developers I know of.
Did you mean that Ilfotec HC is considered a direct replacement? An equivalent to HC-110 that is? (See darkroom materials in the link below for his description.)

http://www.davebutcher.co.uk/equipment

[Drew Wiley]

HC-110 is highly proprietary with a number of very special ingredients. Nobody is going
to market a direct substitute for it. It ain't easy to make.

[Roger Cole]

HC-110 is highly proprietary with a number of very special ingredients. Nobody is going
to market a direct substitute for it. It ain't easy to make.

What about this stuff that Freestyle sells?

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/10190-LegacyPro-L110-BandW-Liquid-Film-Developer-to-Make-2-Gallons?cat_id=301

It doesn't address the OP's desire to mix it himself, and isn't much cheaper than Kodak HC-110, so I really don't see the point, but it claims to be equivalent.

[Drew Wiley]

Roger - hard to say without testing. What Freestyle sells for general black and white
film development might or might not be suitable for critical use. I would consider standardized separation negatives and related masks for color printing to be very very
fussy. A very slight change in procedures or materials can result in a lot of extra work
and wasted money. If someone has standarized on HC-110 it's risky to switch unless alternative methods have been tested in advance. Those few little extra proprietary
additives in true HC-110 might make all the difference at extreme dilutions or elevated
temperatures, or storage properties of the concentrate. What we do know is that the
Kodak product has been extremely predictable year after year. I have a high opinion of
Freestyle, but when it comes to things like premixed developers or batch variation of
film lots, I never take anything for granted.

[Drew Wiley]

Roger - I should have stipulated that Bob's original query was in fact in reference to
color separations. He is taking the path of scans corrected in PS then output on the
Lambda, while I personally use an extemely precise narrow-band colorhead, so the
nature of his problem is analogous to the kind of work I sometimes do. The more variable one can pin down and not worry about, the better. It's can be hundred times more complicated than simple black-and-white printing, but fun and rewarding too.

[Roger Cole]

I understood Drew, no problem.

But the discussion seemed to diverge in usual forum fashion to include the idea that HC110 is so unique it's very difficult if not impossible to reproduce. That may in fact well be true. I note that the Freestyle product says it lacks the color and viscosity of the real stuff. But they do say it works at the same dilutions, times, and temperatures to produce substantially similar results (or words to that effect,) at least in the usual pictorial photography, so HC110 may not be all that special, or it may be special in ways that don't much matter for usual pictorial photography but could for color separations.

[Drew Wiley]

Roger - the main point is standardization. Once a substitute product appears, one
must assess the probability of it being around awhile. In these times, that's getting
more and more difficult. I had the forethought to work out separation negative formulas on both TMY and TMX film, with the assumption that if one got cut from the
list, it would be TMY first. And indeed, 8X10 TMX appears that it will be the more
difficult of the two to acquire in the future. For the moment, HC-110 looks like it
has a secure following in North America. If it goes, then people like me will be tempted to try a substitute, or formulate a new one. That's something I started working on two years ago but don't consider a priority. The key would be whether
or not a particular developer can produce a straight line at a very low gamma.

[John Berry]

John, according to Dave Butcher who helped to design it, DD and DD-X which is the same developer in hobby size and is formulated as a liquid ID-11 but uses a modern Phenidone derivative instead of Metol (Elon). The developing times are fairly long compared to many other liquid film developers I know of.
Did you mean that Ilfotec HC is considered a direct replacement? An equivalent to HC-110 that is? (See darkroom materials in the link below for his description.)

http://www.davebutcher.co.uk/equipment Nope, I was wrong.

[bob carnie]

Thanks for all the replies , I posted on hybrid and APUG and have received lots of information to digest.

Drew is correct, I am worried about moving forward and being consistent, as this project develops*pun intended* I may output film for others and I am very concerned about repeatability , consistent quality , and a method for those people interested in this film to gage where their files need to be in regards to numbers.
I suspect it will be as simple as giving out L channel numbers as end points for specific processes and leave it at that , time will tell. Maybe I will be able to provide my profiles for the processes we work on , not sure yet.

The key to me is the developer and its relationship to the large area of film it is trying to attack and for that my developer, once chosen should not change and be locked into the workflow.

I thank all of you for your suggestions.




Roger - the main point is standardization. Once a substitute product appears, one
must assess the probability of it being around awhile. In these times, that's getting
more and more difficult. I had the forethought to work out separation negative formulas on both TMY and TMX film, with the assumption that if one got cut from the
list, it would be TMY first. And indeed, 8X10 TMX appears that it will be the more
difficult of the two to acquire in the future. For the moment, HC-110 looks like it
has a secure following in North America. If it goes, then people like me will be tempted to try a substitute, or formulate a new one. That's something I started working on two years ago but don't consider a priority. The key would be whether
or not a particular developer can produce a straight line at a very low gamma.