LegacyPro L110 Black and White Film Developer Review and Tips

[@stevenwagner7520]

I will take a look ar 1:47. I shoot loads of Arista EDU 100 using 1:31 for 35 and 1:63 for 120. Thanks for the video.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@anthonys_expired_film]

I’ve used L110 for over 2 years, and I found it’s a great developer for expired film using a 1:100 dilution using the stand development method. Try it!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@andrewreynolds1217]

Very interesting, I had settled on using 1+47 to reduce the amount of chemistry used as well as in some cases to give me more time for development while learning how but I look at some of these alternate solutions as well. Thanks for sharing!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@terryroth2855]

Do you think one would get similar results using a 400 speed film? Thank you for your testing here and have a Great New Year.

[@DavidHancock]

Good question and if you have a specific film in mind check my All About Film videos to see if I've covered that one and developed it in LegacyPro 110 (I often use this chemistry.) I tend to find that L110 has consistent results across films in terms of contrast and density, but there are some variations. I've not yet found a film I can think of where this stock absolutely tanks in terms of how it performs.

[@drewmenges8430]

For the 1+19 dilution, did you use the 1+15 developing time plus a few seconds? I'm interested in trying it, but I'd like a starting point. Thanks David 👍

[@DavidHancock]

@@drewmenges8430 the times are listed up at the top of the photos, but I think that +19 had it's own time that wasn't too different from +15.

[@drewmenges8430]

@DavidHancock oh thanks! I think I was too busy looking at the images. I'll check it out!

[@MichaelMartel-z6b]

Have been using the same bottle of L110 since May 2024 with no crystallization or issues. It has turned from clear to a light tan in color, but still clear. What would be the best developer to use from concentrate with a long shelf life?

[@DavidHancock]

PMK. Rodinal is a close second.

[@DixonLu]

QQQ: Did I hear you right: the conclusion is that Kodak and Legacy chemistries would yield the same results @ the same dilutions, even though the component ingredients have different concentration, i.e., test results in this video are interchangeable to K's. Thank you.

[@DavidHancock]

@@DixonLu that's my understanding, that both the current Kodak and LegacyPro chemistries are the same active ingredients in different concentrations. I'm basing that on SDS info, which does not list the actual recipe but does include volumetric range info for hazardous ingredients. But yes, the working solutions from concentrate are the same. I just use HC-110 times for L110 and the results are always spot-on.

[@mikesmith-po8nd]

Thanks for doing the work so we don't have to. Kodak has always had a penchant for proprietary numbering systems. (A good example is their early filter identification). I think that it's probably a business tactic to keep people in the Kodak eco-system. And I'm afraid that you might have selective OCD. The fourth paragraph of the description reads: "s a general statement...". But it's OK, it doesn't bother me at all. Not the teensiest little bit. Absolutely definitely zero. No, less than that. I'll probably forget that I ever saw it.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you for catching that. I am, in fact, a terrible self editor.

[@randallstewart1224]

While a very interesting comparison of HC-110 and L110, the video begs the underlying question of why would you want to use either product. Since Kodak has always openly stated (published) that HC-110 has the poorest overall performance of all of their developers, there historically has been only one reason to use it. That was its nearly infinite shelf life, so it was cheap to use. If the latest version of HC-110 and L110 no longer offer that advantage, why use either of them? If Kodak says its own product is relative crap, you should believe them. So, why was HC-110 ever made? In the 1950s (origin date), almost all consumer film processing was B&W, and it was done locally, usually in drug stores. These little operations needed a developer which was stable, long-lived for economy, and could be used safely by the 16 year-old high school kid who did the developing after hours in the back room. Thus was born HC-110. It didn't have to be cutting edge film processing technology to make 3x5 inch prints. It had to be bullet-proof reliable. The reason for its existence vanished with B&W volume reductions in the 1960s, but it held on because it was cheap to use. So with that feature gone, why now use it at all?

[@DavidHancock]

Personal preference. There are some films with which L110 works very well and it has an image look all its own.