Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by RalphLambrecht, Jan 4, 2013.
is anyoneaware of a self-brew formula for hc110?
I don't know of any. Presumably one could be formulated that approximated or matched its working properties, but home-brewing the formula itself is likely difficult. It apparently contains several iminodiethanol compounds ("ammonia-based forms of sulfite and bromide" according to Anchell/Troop), and Polyvinylpyrrolidone. Not sure how easy these are to obtain. Gerald Kock, PE, Ian Grant could probably provide more info/guidance.
Sorry just not practical. HC-110 is a very unusual developer in that it contains no water. It contains a mixture of amines and glycols which act as the solvents. Some of these chamicals were manufactured by Kodak just for this developer. Even if you were somehow able to get the necessary chemcals you would still need some specialized equipment to make it.
There is a formula in the Film Developing Cookbook by Steve Anchell & Bill Troop.
No there isn't. They present the patent formula that is or approximates HC-110. But that formula contains the amines and glycols referred to above. A home-brew would have to be formulated to approximate HC-110's working properties using readily available compounds. Likely not worth the effort anyway since HC-110 is a long lasting general purpose formula.
yes,sorry, just found it. i have trouble with reding book indexes,but many thanks anyway.
I don't clearly understand, and it would be interesting to learn, what some of the "weird" chemicals in the HC-110 patent formula are there for. It seems to me, as a rank amateur, that one should be able to *approximate* the behavior of HC-110 by using the same levels of developing agents in an organic solvent (glycol, TEA, etc.---I seem to remember that HC-110 itself uses some form of glycol), adjusting the pH to match, and introducing a similar antifoggant (I think that's the PVP in the original formula, but there are plenty of other antifoggants that could be tried). That doesn't sound too formidable, and I wonder how much it would differ in practice from the real thing.
I think Michael's point is that HC-110 is inexpensive, readily available and produces results very similar to D-76...so, why bother? (eg if you wanna home brew something mix up some D-76 and have at it).
That's pretty much what I was getting at. For those who just enjoy the work involved in re-creating a given formula, and enjoy mixing their own chemicals, I have no argument against it. Go for it.
What I meant in the specific case of HC-110 is that some of the other reasons normally given for home brewing don't really apply: Sometimes you can save money by home mixing a clone, sometimes its a pain to mix too much (5 liters of XTOL for example), sometimes you want to recreate the particular properties of a developer no longer commercially available, and sometimes you want to create something with a longer shelf life. However in the case of HC-110, it's cheap, lasts a hell of a long time, and there's nothing very special about it. So it seems like it would be a monumental effort to make a clone without much reason behind it.
Here's a similar thread with some comments from PE regarding the production of HC110
To provide halide solvency and replace the sodium sulfite used in conventional developers HC-110 contains the addition product of an amine and sulfur dioxide. To replace potassium bromide which is an inorganic salt and not soluble in glycols an addition product of an amine and hydrogen bromide is used. These are not chemicals that are readily available from chemical suppliers. As I mentioed Kodak manufactured several of the components of HC-110 just for this developer.
As pointed out there is a homebrew replacement for HC-110. It is called D-76.
"As pointed out there is a homebrew replacement for HC-110. It is called D-76."
i never tried it for xp2, but i will.
From Kodak's website:
Compared to D-76, HC-110 (dilution B) produces:
Slightly less shadow detail or true film speed;
Slightly finer grain;
Slightly lower acutance.
My point was that HC-110 was designed to reproduce the results of D-76. The conclusion is therefore that D-76 is a good homebrew replacement for HC-110. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic.
There is an interesting corollary in this and that is that there are no miraculous developers. No matter how strange the chemistry of HC-110 it still behaves like a well known conventional developer.
It might be interesting to know how something similar performs without the solvent---obviously you'd expect more grain and more acutance, which I think would be a totally acceptable tradeoff for many HC-110 users, especially in medium and large formats.
The potassium bromide replacement is the PVP, right? It seems like other antifoggants could be tried---for that matter, is it obvious that one couldn't dissolve KBr in something else like glycerin first? But one would need to do *something* for fog control, certainly.
You clarified this below, but I still think it's an amusing way of putting it. Point taken about the development results---by design they aren't *very* different---but personally I quite like working with a concentrate that lasts forever rather than having more stock solutions to worry about.
I fully agree, HC-110 is my favorite commercial developer.
mine too but I have trouble with it when used with continuous rotational agitation (eg Jobo drum on motor base).
IIRC the PVP is used to prevent sludgng in commercial processing machines.
For the formula in the US Patent. The role usually playerd by potassium bromide in HC-110 is accomplished by the diethanolamine hydrobromide. The antifoggant is benzotriazole.
I didn't mean to imply that you were being sarcastic, I just thought that was an honest (and funny) way to present the facts: if you want to have fun doing Homebrew and tinkering with the variables of a developer, D-76 and its many variants is the way.
I used to use HC-110 in the newspaper darkroom back in the 80's and 90's. One of the old darkroom rats said that Kodak made it for commercial labs and newspaper labs, where they needed fast development times and didn't want powders and the heating and cooling of mixing powders.
Good stuff, I recently got a couple of bottles from the local shop who closed out old stock at 75% off because it was past the date on the bottle. LOL
here are a few basic formulae,I've been using for years with much success
Separate names with a comma.