list of non-metol developers?

[chris_markiewicz]

can someone give me the list of developers that don't use metol? XTol

is the only one i know of...thanks. chris

[jordan_w.]

There are lots. Microphen, Ilford DD-X, and Kodak HC-110 do not contain metol AFAIK. I'm pretty sure the T-MAX developers don't and neither does Rodinal. Many of the liquid-concentrate developers from third-party suppliers (like Sprint Standard, etc.) are also metol-free.

[jim_causey]

You might want to pick up the "Film Developing Cooking" by Anchell and Troop. This article is also helpful:

 

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Developers/developers.html

 

There are lots of developers that don't use Metol. The Sprint D-76 clones don't use it (even though D-76 does); HC-110 and Rodinal don't; Microphen doesn't.

 

Check out the formulae at:

 

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Developers/developers.html

http://www.apug.org/forums/article.php?c=11

 

...for more information as well.

[lowell_huff1]

Clayton Film developers: F60, F76 plus, Extend plus, and CP Powder Developer

Print developers: P20, P90, Ultra Cold Tone, and CP Print Developer

askus@claytonchem.com

[olivier_reichenbach]

Could this forum, or any photo.net forum for that matter, stop being an opportunity for

sellers to plug their products? Not that I don't respect business and the products in

question, but a photo buffs' forum is not the place to advertise under the guise of an

answer to a post. I've also received unsollicited e-mail (aka spam) from said sellers who

picked my e-mail address from this very forum. Highly unethical, to say the least. May I

suggest sellers to buy advertising space on photo.net. It'll do double duty: it'll help the site

financially, and it'll rid it from ungainly publicity indiside the threads.

 

Moderators, please.

[garrylewis747]

Just how far back, in history, do you want to go? Or are you referring to OTC products?

[olivier_reichenbach]

Garry, are you asking me this question? In which case, I don't understand it.

What do you mean, "how far back in history"? I mean in the future.

 

Just read the thread and you'll know what I'm talking about.

[david_grasby]

Most of the questions on this forum seek advice about film, developers, processing times, etc,. How are contributors expected to answer a question without, in some way, endorsing some product or another?

 

So, please step down from your soapbox.

[chris_markiewicz]

garry - sorry - i should have been more specific - i'm talking about otc products. i keep inching closer to doing my own b&w and i figured i'd avoid the whole metol issue. additionally i had read in a few places that xtol was relatively friendly, environment-wise. anyway, so xtol was my first choice, but i never see xtol on the shelves in any of the local shops, so i figured i should find another developer (unless i want to go mail order every time).

 

thanks

chris

[olivier_reichenbach]

David, you don't get it, do you? I'm not not talking about endorsing products, I'm talking

about PLUGGING one's own products. I'm talking about being THE person who heads (or

is employed

by, or has strong ties with) a company which sells processing products, and who keeps

postings plugs of their

products under the guise of posts on the forum. Just make a quick search, and you'll see

that this person only ever talks about THEIR products, nothing else. I don't think this is

even

tolerated by the photo.net rules. And I'm not the first one to complain about this. Now, I

have nothing against the products themselves. In fact, I never tried them.

 

And wait until your e-mail address is highjacked and you receive spam like I did. It didn't

last because I reacted, but once is already one time too many. You'll get on your "soap

box" yourself.

[garrylewis747]

I was addressing my question to Chris- sorry about the confusion.

I would add Acufine, Diafine, Acutol,Ethol UFG and Edwal FG-7.

[olivier_reichenbach]

That's okay, Garry, no offense. Now I get it :)

[olivier_reichenbach]

After reading the replies, I think that maybe someone could list which developers DO use

metol. Wouldn't it be shorter?

 

And, BTW, what is it with metol? Is it that bad?

[garrylewis747]

some people have allergic reactions to Metol

[chris_markiewicz]

hello oliver. i've read a handful of posts (and stuff on other sites) that say that it's less than desirable. apparently prolonged exposure (directly to your skin) can cause some reactions. do a google for metol or metol poisoning. i ask for two reasons - 1) i'm a low grade hypochondriac (and this stuff is easy enough to avoid). 2) i occasionally have a touch of excema on my hands which, i assume, would make me more susceptible to absorbing the stuff.

 

but from everything i've read, just follow the instructions and you're fine. (wear gloves, don't let it touch your skin, etc).

 

chris

[bjm]

I don't see anyone here really "plugging" their product. The question was looking for a list of non-metol developers. The answers listed such developers -- no other qualitative or quantitative information about the products was given. The question was answered directly, concisely and in my view, without a "plug" of any kind. Quite frankly, if I asked this question, I would have been happy with the answers received whether they be the ones given by a "buff" or those by a manufacturer -- all contributed answers directly to the substance of the question.

[lex_jenkins]

Olivier, folks, nobody had any problems with David Carper mentioning specific Ilford products that met certain needs when he was an Ilford rep.

 

Get off your high horses before you fall into the mud of the narrow-minded, anti-free-enterprise, socialistic, mushbrained rhetoric that pervades the 'net beyond the point when it was actually amusing.

 

This is a dying art form, folks, whether you want to admit it or not. I'd rather encourage folks from JandC, Clayton, Ilford and others to maintain a personal presence on the forum even if it means I might occasionally have to rein in the hype a bit.

 

I'll risk your tepid wrath if it means helping to encourage traditional b&w photography wherever possible.

 

You might not like the arrangement of words a particular person uses but that doesn't invalidate the information. And keep in mind that Clayton advertises on the digitaltruth.com website, whose Massive Dev Chart many, many of us refer to on a regular basis - free of charge.

 

In this context, try to consider the larger picture. ;>

[stefan_kahlert2]

Chris,

 

I have allergies against a long list of substances and also suffer from exemas at times. However, I have not developed a problem with Metol though I'm even homebrewing, handling the dry, pure substance.

Avoiding it without any signs of a problem may be overdoing it by far. Furthermore, the risk to get into direct contact with metol is greatest when developing in open trays. With small tanks the risk is rather low unless it leaks. I would rather be worried about my paper-developer where direct contact and spills are a much bigger problem.

 

To help your exemas simply avoid immersing your hands into any liquids (inside and outside the darkroom!) where cold water is the least critical, alkaline solutions like paper-developers are among the worst. Dont't forget to apply some fat to your skin before and after you go into the darkroom. Do not enlarge pictures when you have open exemas, wearing gloves doens't make things much better in my experience as they trap the humidity at your skin and also aggravate exemas (often had to use them at work). Restrict yourself to spotting, mounting and exposing film untill things get better.

 

best

 

Stefan

[robert_grasing]

I have read that metol itself is not the cause of these allergies but certain impurities that sometimes appeared mixed with it in the past. Hydroquinone, on the other hand, seems to be very toxic. Phenidone and ascorbic acid developers would seem to be the safest choice, eg, XTOL, Fujidol-E, or some of Pat Gainers' formulas.

[chris_waller]

The most obvious one that springs to mind is Agfa Rodinal which contains para-aminophenol, one of the least toxic of developing agents. It also has the advantage of a very long shelf-life.

[__piotr_e_recht]

They can talk about their products all they want. Just openly peddle the snake oil and don't try to shill the crowd like you're one of the good ol boys. Next, it'll be Billy Kahunawicz saying F76 cured his arthritis.

[olivier_reichenbach]

Lex, advertising on the Massive Dev. Chart is perfectly legitimate, and honest. As I said, let

them buy advertising space on photo.net as well. That'll be fine with me. In fact, I find it

even more insulting that they do buy advertising space on the Massive Dev. Chart, but

they don't do it on photo.net, taking advantage of the fact that they can post their

publicity inside the threads without having to pay, pretending to participate in the

discussions. Most of the time those posts have even had

nothing to do with certain threads. And

stealing members' e-mail addresses from the forum to send them unsollicited publicity is

unforgivable. It

made me feel vulnerable, unrespected, and made me wish I had not registered on

photo.net with my e-mail address.

 

As for "the mud of the narrow-minded, anti-free-enterprise, socialistic, mushbrained

rhetoric that pervades the 'net beyond the point when it was actually amusing" I don't

think calling people names really helps your argument. And it is totally irrelevant. I am all

for free enterprise (I'm a free enterprise myself.) But I indulge in photography as a fun

hobby and I hang about photo forums as places where I can virtually meet lots of

interesting and helpful people who share my passion, and I just hope they will remain the

last bastions not invaded with commercial interests. I have my share of that in my

everyday life. On these forums people share ideas and tips and comments for the sheer

fun of it, with a totally disinterested mind. That's what makes them so fascinating. I'm

worried that a door be opened to anything commercially interested.

[conrad_hoffman]

My $.02- It does a great service to the hobby when manufacturers have some presence in the forums, are upfront about who they are, and contribute more than "yeah, we make that". Gimme some insight, some history, some technicial enlightenment, whatever. If they can't do that, I still don't mind the posts, but I won't have the slightest interest in trying the products.

[olivier_reichenbach]

Piotr, Conrad, I agree with you.

[jim_causey]

I don't really agree with Chris' assertion about Rodinal being based on one of the "least toxic of developing agents".

 

The "Film Developing Cookbook" claims that Rodinal is one of the developers that requires more careful handling than many of the more environmentally friendly alternatives; P-Aminophenol is highly toxic by ingestion, mildly toxic by absorption, and can cause skin irritation.

 

Other agents, such as phenidone and ascorbic acid are way less toxic.

 

As for claims that metol's allergic responses being overwrought, again, Anchell and Troop claim that if metol were discovered today, it would likely be considered too toxic by regulatory agencies to be used in consumer products.