Liquid or powder concentrate???

[joe_neilson]

Hi just got my darkroom up and running just have one small question.

 

I went to go purchase my developer and noticed it is available in both liquid

and powder form, would I be getting more for my money if i brought it in powder

form? Or is it really worth the hassle of mixing it?

 

Would appreciate some help, cheers.

[david_dorcich1]

The advantage of liquid over powder is that you can mix what you need when you need it from the concentrate, with the powders you have to mix the entire packet then make your working solution form that.

 

Its really a matter of preference, once opened/mixed both have the same shelf life.

[ronald_moravec1]

Same shelf like as mixed. Do you know how long it sat at the dealers?

[frank.schifano]

I prefer dry chemicals if possible. Once mixed up as a stock solution, developers might have a shelf life, conservatively estimating, of about 6 months. Dry chemicals have shelf lives measured in years. Then there is the matter of cost. Liquid concentrates are mostly water by weight and volume, and shipping costs are not going down any time soon. So, do you think it is worth the money to pay to have something shipped to you that essentially comes free from the tap? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. There are some things like rapid fixer and selenium toner that are available only as liquid concentrate, but these don't suffer from short shelf lives like developers.

[big toys are better]

"Its really a matter of preference, once opened/mixed both have the same shelf life."

 

This is not completely true, as some liquids have very long shelf lives even after first opened. Rodinal is certainly in that category, and HC-110 is probably not too bad either. If you decide liquid is a good choice, especially if you are not processing enough film to use up even small batches of powdered chemicals before they go bad (XTOL is particularly a concern once mixed), then the two liquids mentioned above are certainly two to consider, and are particularly good for general use when highly diluted. However, once mixed into a working solution, any developer is very short lived.

[peter_thatcher]

I try to go with liquid chemicals whenever possible... besides being able to mix just enough for what you need, you also don't need to hassle with water temperature. A big help if you use distilled bottled water @ room temp.

[lex_jenkins]

It's best to choose a developer based on how well it works for you, considering your preferred film and techniques.

 

It's difficult to offer any generalizations about shelf life or economy. Some liquid concentrates will last a long time after opening, some won't. Most powdered developers, once mixed into stock solution, have a limited shelf life unless replenished, Diafine being a notable exception tho' even it can fail after more than a year if exhausted or not replenished.

 

Costs are all over the board. Some liquid concentrates are very expensive per use, but if you like the results there's no reason to avoid them. Some powdered developers are very economical and are nothing special, IMO. (Heresy, I know, but for my personal uses, HC-110 works as well as D76 or ID-11, so in my case HC-110 is the "better" developer.)

[blarg_.]

I agree with Lex.

 

I think it's more important to find chemicals that give you the results you want rather than go by liquid or powder or theoretical shelf life.

 

For me, I like FG-7, a liquid concentrate for film, but Ansco 130, a powder developer that's not just a powder, but comes in seperate baggies that have to be mixed in the correct order, and one of the components has a shelf life of about a week in powder form so you can only get it by special-ordering. (however once you mix it, it's stable for about a year).

 

For Fixer, I use TF4, a liquid concentrate for both paper and film.

 

I think paper developer changes the character of your prints far more than film developer and requires more experimentation. Just buy small amounts and play.

 

In the long run, the chemistry isn't THAT expensive. Even a "premium" developer might cost you all of $40 more over a year. Big deal. Use what you like.

 

...and remember the small container might cost more per unit, but if it crashes before you can use it all, you're actually wasting more money. I only bought the larger containers once - the first time.

[jay_jay12]

Liquid is made for convenience and safety, (safe because the vapor from liquid chemicals are harder to inhale than the dust from a powder, [selenium toner excluded from that claim.])

 

Powder is made for quality, longevity, and performance, (longevity before stock solution is made.)

[frank.schifano]

Jay Jay:

 

Selenium toner and dangerous vapors don't go together. What you are smelling there is ammonia because there is quite a bit of ammonium thiosulfate in that selenium toner. I admit that it stinks, but since you can carry out the toning process in full room light there's nothing stopping you from doing it near an open window. Short of soaking your hands in the stuff or drinking it, it ain't that dangerous.

[jay_jay12]

ok fine: selenium toner is perfectly harmless.

[teitur_ardal_rosengren]

I use powder chemicals, and I definitely think its worth an extra 3 minutes mixing them instead of paying more than double the price of the same chemical in liquid form.

 

I go to a rental darkroom a lot, and the guy who has it always complain about the stagering prices on ilford chemicals (liquid), and when I asked him why he doesnt use powder instead he told me he thought it was to much of a hassle mixing.

 

Dont be like the old man in the darkroom =) If youre the guy who wants to keep the prices down, use powder, if you dont care about price use liquid.

 

TEITUR

[ole_hjalmar_kristensen]

Just want to mention a third alternative: Buy raw chemicals and a good scale, mix whatever you need for the session and discard afterwards. Developers like D-23, D-76H, FX-1 and Beutler are simple to mix and works well for a wide range of films. Gainer's PC-TEA is another option where you mix a liquid concentrate yourself which is known to be very stable.

[lowell_huff1]

It is interesting how you guys perceive chemicals, formulas and chemical manufacturing. With out a doubt, powder formulas are less sophisticated, more difficult to mix and manufacture, less consistant, and lower in productivity. Liquid formulas, for the most part, are the opposite of each of those issues. Liquids, because of their concentrations and sophistication,, are less expensive to ship and are much more versital in capability. As a manufacturer, I have always been amused by the adhearance to old chemical technology (powders) and the rapid embrace of new film and paper technologies without utilizing their advantages through better chemicals formulations. Why would you prefer to use 1920's technology with modern emulsions that were not even invisioned by the manufacturers of that day?

[chris_waller]

After trying various developers, I settled on Rodinal. It is a liquid concentrate, which is more convenient, and yet its shelf life, even when opened, is legendary.

[kaiyen]

Lowell

 

How is a liquid concentrate more "sophisticated?" Does it have a nicer cigarette case? :-) Serious question, stupid joke.

 

And how is it cheaper to ship a liter of liquid than it is a pack of dry powder? And old chemical technology? Isn't XTOL basically the most modern commercial developer out there?

[lowell_huff1]

Allen, I knew I could get a rise! Most liquid developers are more sophisticated in that they are designed to provide THE desired result. They contain accelerators, anti fogs and restrainers that are not in powder formulas. When the earlier powder formulas were devised, the chemists did not have access to the chemicals and testing proceedures that have evolved in the last half of the twentieth century. In some very exotic formulas, i.e. Aerial chemistries, we use amines that are never powder. Appling the laws of thermo dynamics, liquid formuals are truely more uniform and equally distributed. That is why you can aloquat them.

Liquids are less expensive to ship and handle because of concentrations. For example, we manufacture a powder film developer to make one gallon, $5.16. One quart of our F 60 Film Developer to make one gallon, $3.73, I did the math. The difference is $1.43 per gallon working strength. With the given adavantages of liquids, I feel the difference is obvious.

XTOL, while recently introduced, is not new technology. It is an upgrade of old technology that is based on the replacement of hydroquinone with ascorbic acid. I would not consider that consept modern; but rather a marketing ploy to capitalize on a "manufactured" scare tactic regarding the toxicity of HQ.

[big toys are better]

Lowell may have a valid point.

 

Most of us likely know that the Agfa formulation of Rodinal is not quite the same as the paper versions published broadly, and Agfa's formulation seems to be a bit better as a consequence. HC-110 is also not exactly known, and we likely all agree that it is a great developer that rivals the venerable D-76. FX-2 and the Formulary's TFX-2 contain glycine, a wonderful but rather unstable chemical not inclined to be mixed in with other chemicals in a power composite, and their liquid formulation is acknowledged to be a bit different than the published formula for FX-2.

 

What the magic components may be in any particular liquid developer can be something that won't translate to powders for one reason or another, or is a fine tuning outcome kept proprietary for obvious reasons.

[al_divenuti]

Lowell,

 

Have you not stopped to realize that very nearly every constiuent you put in a liquid concentrate is, at one time or another, in solid (if not powder, than certainly in bulk) form?

 

Even the briefest search on the web will reveal MANY powder-based developers that contain all the components that you named as being exclusive to liquid concentrates.

 

It may be an inconvenient truth, Lowell, but the best results are usually to be had by mixing developers from fresh ingredients (read: powders) and then utilizing them as soon as possible.

 

If there is a grain of truth in what you are claiming, it is only that most commercial liquid concentrate stock solutions have a better shefl life than stock solutions of developers mixed from powders. Even that isn't universally true. For example, there are now many developers that are mixed from powder to produce stock solutions using organic solvents (e.g. TEA, Glycols, etc.) that have extremely (indefinite?) shelf lifes.

[lowell_huff1]

Hello Al

The grain of truth is, just because they are powder does not make them fresh. Do you have any idea how long each powder was in a large bag before it was put in a small bag? The solvents mentioned and others are liquid not powder; and these solvents are what enables modern developer formulas, let alone fixer formulas, to work faster and give better image quality. Q.C. of the liquid product, in production, allows for more consistant results than from powders. My point is that liquid formulas universally produce better images than do powders.

[big toys are better]

One thing is likely true, and that is that the quality control of a liquid mix versus mixing a powder composite is easier to guarantee. One of the very real issues of powers is that they can separate over time, and this is why using part of a bag of power is very bad practice. Another problem is that there can be incomplete emptying of the container, or spillage that can affect the final product in small but potentially important ways. Finally, we all know about the problems with XTOL, and that sad history is a testament to the simple fact that the exact mixing technique can also degrade the final product (e.g.-- water is too hot/too cold, destructive oxygen introduced by over-vigorous mixing, incomplete dissolution of the chemicals, etc.)

 

On the other hand, many if not most liquids have few problems associated with them so long as they don't get too cold (especially don't allow to freeze, but also try to minimize infiltration of oxygen into the stock container) and the user is careful with the mixing of the working solution (I ALWAYS use distill water for mixing developers) . Agfa's Rodinal seems to be one of those amazingly tolerant mixes, and I love it for that reason. HC-110 also seems to be an especially well thought out liquid developer, but I have learned that if some things freeze, such as TF-4 fixer (and some others aw well), it is never the same afterwards.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"Lowell may have a valid point."

 

Or not. What a bunch of hogwash. I am a trained chemist, so you can't fool me with them thar big words like thermodynamics.

[big toys are better]

Mr. Budding--

 

Good for you, always good to see a trained chemist exhibit their skills....

 

One thing I was thinking of late is just how much the buffering of liquid developers is different that the buffering of dry versions. I know this is in part done to compensate for variations in local water quality (alkaline out west and acid in the northeast, and some containing God knows what else in addition to H2O-- I've seen some talking about murky water being just fine for their work), and for this reason there may also be chelators included that are designed to eliminate excesses of some things like "hardness" (calcium, magnesium, iron, etc.). This would particularly important for making up the stock solution from a dry component mix but also a consideration for the final working solution where additional water is added.

 

Perhaps Lowell will enlighten us on that.

[lowell_huff1]

Mr. Hofland, you are correct, certainly our liquid formulas, as well as other manufacturer's, are buffered and chelated to compensate for water conditions world wide. It is very difficult to do that with powders.

To that end, I seldom recommend D.I. water either.

Another draw back that powders bring to mind is the insoluability of the raw materials. In long years ago, we could specify mesh size of the raw chemiclals; not any more. Now we deal with "fines and rocks" and are just happy to get what we can. They don't disolve. When we make liquids, we filter most of them out at manufacture, prior to bottling.

[conrad_hoffman]

As a practical matter, you can read more reports about bad powdered chemistry right from the envelope over the last few years, then anybody ever had decades ago. IMO, quality control of the raw materials was better then. I've never been a fan of liquid chemicals, but a few years back I got some of Lowell's developers. What I used was very good. At that time I switched to digital, and had some left. Full but opened bottles discolored and went bad quickly (nothing new), but full unopened bottles are good to this day. Storage doesn't have to be an issue. Thus, if you don't factor in the pleasure or annoyance of mixing powders, the only factor that really matters is the results you get. Personally, I always keep some raw chemicals around. It's a pain, but I might only need a developer every few years, and in very small amounts, so commercial preparations don't make much sense. For most people today, liquid chemistry has a lot of advantages.