New Kodak Formulas

[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/phot...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/thread...ormula.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 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.