list of non-metol developers?

[Troll]

Chris, I would guess that you have no experience in wet darkrooms. There isn't (or should not be) any physical contact with the developing agents. For film it is poured into and out of the tank, and for prints tongs are used to hold the paper. Tray development of film without gloves is OUT for everyone. Don't worry about the metol.

[jim_causey]

Bill, sadly, in a lot of schools and colleges, the young bucks I see and study with happily dunk their hands in the trays, regardless of where they've been and the resulting contamination of their prints (and mine).

[chris_markiewicz]

bill - what you say is true - i have not experience with with wet darkrooms. right, i would certainly avoid contact with all of the chemicals. i guess my thought was, given the choice between working with or without metol, i would work without it (since it's really no inconvenience). but your advice is both assuring and appreciated.

chris

[robert_grasing]

Barry Thornton mentioned the impurities in metol causing problems rather than metol itself in Edge of Darkness (which is, by the way, an excellent name for an afternoon soap). He may have gotten it from Anchell's The Darkroom Cookbook:

 

...metol has the reputation of causing skin poisoning (a painful rash that looks and feels like poison oak). This is often traced to certain impurities and not to the metol itself. Good quality metol does not usually cause a rash. However, some people are still sensitive to even the purest type.

 

(p21)

 

Unfortunately, Anchell gives no references for this (or for much of anything else in his book for that matter. Parts of The Darkroom Cookbook were lifted virtually unchanged and unattributed from the British Journal of Photography).

 

Does anyone have any trustworthy references about metol and other common darkroom chemicals? There's Shaw's book, Overexposure: Health Hazards in Photography, of course, but Richard Henry, MD and chemist, didn't think much of it (I'm referring to chapter 4, Safety in the Darkroom, in his Controls in Black and White Photography, 2nd edition).

[User_502260]

The Paterson film developers are advertised as being more environmentally friendly. I think they have several metol free developers. You can go to their website or send them an e-mail with any questions.

 

As far as the postings by Lowell Huff are concerned, I like them. We are at a time when many commercially prepared developers are still available but we can't expect that to last indefinitely. Some companies like Clayton and Nacco have mostly supplied industrial and commercial users of film developing products. Their products are not generally known to amateurs or even advanced amateurs. I have found Clayton F60 to be a good alternative to the much more expensive Ilford DDX. That doesn't mean DDX is bad. It just means that there are alternatives. I have not yet used Clayton's F76 or Extenbd Plus developers. A quart of F60 might cost about $10. If it is diluted 1:9 that gives ten quarts of working solution. That's enought to develop 40 rolls of 35mm film at 8 oz. per roll in a SS tank. At that rate, Clayton will not get rich from selling to occasional users.

The difference between Clayton and some of the other companies is that Clayton gives much better customer support.

 

Nacco makes several developers but it is hard to find any information on them. I am sure that most of Nacco's customers are large labs and not individuals. I have had some luck with Nacco's Super 76 and I have yet to try their Sensidol developer. If Nacco had someone like Lowell Huff I think they might make more sales in this market. Lowell Huff has never made unsupportable claims for his company's products. What he has done is make people aware of the qualities of Clayton's products and how they might benefit users. That kind of information is welcome. Don't expect to see postings like those from anyone at Agfa or Ilford or Kodak.

[lex_jenkins]

Olivier, please consider this notice that you've had ample opportunity to make clear your position on the issue of photographic product company representatives. Any further discussion of the issue in any thread on the b&w forums will be deleted.

 

And, for the record, I have not edited or deleted a single comment in this thread so far.

 

I'm far more irritated by hijacking of an otherwise informative thread about photography for the purpose of disseminating completely irrelevant positions on economics, politics or any other such issues.

 

'nuff said?

[stefan_kahlert2]

The information about an impurity beeing the cause of metol-poisoning with its skin rushes is cited in a copy of an Agfa handbook from as early as 1939 that is on my shelf. They also claimed the problem was eliminated with Agfa-Metol by changing the process some years earlier.

 

I'm asking myself if the problem may be gone for about 70 years by now and is only regurgitated on and on as it is still in the books. Anyone knows a of current and confirmed case of Metol-poisoning which is not just hearsay?

 

Stefan

[larry_kalajainen2]

Chris,

 

You may want to consider mixing your own developer for several reasons, among them price and ease of availability, but also environmental friendliness.

 

The following is a simple, easy to mix non-metol developer, in which the only ingredient not available in your supermarket or health food store is Phenidone, the main developing agent in most non-metol developers.

 

Since a small bottle of Phenidone powder (from an online source such as Photographer's Formulary or The Chemistry Store) will probably last you close to a lifetime, and the other ingredients are everyday consumer products, the cost will literally be pennies per tankload of developer.

 

Phenidone is not easily soluable in water, so most people make up a 1% solution (1 g Phenidone powder per 100 ml of 90% isopropyl alcohol). This is a long-keeping stock solution. Propylene glycol will keep even longer, and is available in auto parts stores as non-toxic antifreeze. I use the alcohol, because the stock will last at least six months, and 100 ml. of stock is enough for 25 developing runs as a one-shot in a two-reel liter-sized tank.

 

Here's the formula, using kitchen teaspoon measurements which as Pat Gainer is fond of saying "is close enough for government work." Most photochemical processes are.

 

1 liter water at 70F,

1 tsp. sodium metaborate (Kodalk Balanced Alkali from your photo store or online source OR you can make it yourself by combining 69 grams of 20-Mule Team Borax with 14.5 grams Red Devil lye),

1/2 tsp. Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) powder or crystals (from your health food store),

4 ml. 1% Phenidone stock solution.

 

For Delta 400--6 minutes

For Delta 100--10 minutes

For Fuji ACROS--10 minutes

For Fuji Neopan--9 minutes

(These are suggested starting times; you'll have to adjust for your own equipment and procedures.)

 

If you want to get Delta 100 or ACROS or Neopan down to the 6-7 minute range, substitute a teaspoon of Arm & Hammer Washing Soda (sodium carbonate) for the sodium metaborate. It's a more vigorous activator.

 

I've been using this formula successfully for the past 5-6 years and am very satisfied with the results. Needless to say, it's dirt cheap, and takes no longer than three minutes to mix up before a development session.

[bill_troop1]

I would like to respond to the comment,

 

"Unfortunately, Anchell gives no references for this (or for much of anything else in

his book for that matter. Parts of The Darkroom Cookbook were lifted virtually

unchanged and unattributed from the British Journal of Photography)."

 

If you are talking about Steve Anchell's 'Darkroom Cookbook', you may well be right -

I haven't read it since I made some comments on the very first edition.

 

But if you are talking about the Film Developing Cookbook, which is an entirely

different book that I co-wrote with the redoubtable Steve, that is a different story.

 

Start with the bibliographical note on page xi, which defines BJ as British Journal of

Photography. Go back to the acknowledgements on p. viii which states that "Geoffrey

Crawley, for many decades the editor of the British Journal of Photography ... has ...

for almost two decades ... unreservedly given us the benefit of his expertise.

 

Now turn to p. 44 and the heading, "Geoffrey Crawley and the FX series of developers"

- and you will see one of the most highly attributed pieces of writing in the entire

scientific or popular literature.

 

Also consider that the entire manuscript has been read, several times over, by

Crawley, as has the first and subsequent printings.

 

My curiosity piqued, I have just spent several minutes riffling through Steve Anchell's

"The Darkroom Cookbook, 2nd Edition, 2000." I find no extensive or even minor

quotes of Crawley whatever, though a few of his formulas are represented. The only

book in the entire photographic literature that I know of which quotes extensivvely

from the BJ is mine. So I think it must be my book which is meant here. But I cannot

find any quotation from the BJ in my book which is not carefully attributed. Am I

missing something? I would be extremely grateful for clarification, as would Mr

Crawley.