5x7 sheet film

I use FP4 and HP5 5x7 from Ilford, great films that give good contrast control in development. I tried Bergger/Forte, with PMK, which is now collecting dust. Forte is too soft from itself for decent Palladium prints and is very insensitive for overdevelopment, making it useless for zone-system/SBR processing.

Now Ilford is delivering well again I see no reason to mess with the very toxic pyro developpers.

Which low toxicity Ilford developer are you using?

ehr mainly D76 and also Tmax

At least they less toxic then pyro..

reinierv said:

ehr mainly D76 and also Tmax

At least they less toxic then pyro..

Click to expand...

They're both Kodak developers, so they shouldn't be affected by Ilford's problems

Besides, that bit about toxicity is debatable, too

If you're going to print on Azo, avoid 100TMax at all costs. There's a UV blocker in it that makes for nothing but disastrous results on Azo. I recently tried to print one and gave up after about 1/2 hour of producing nothing but pure mud. It really is hopeless. I find this ironic since my absolute favorite film is 400TMax. I like it so much that if I were going to make 5 x 7 contact prints I'd buy 8 x 10 film and cut it.

I recently saw some new work by Joe Freeman, Jr., one of the finest photographers working today. He's making absolutely breathtaking prints on Efke PL100 developed in ABC pyro. He told me he couldn't hit a lick with 400TMax. To each his own.

I've made some beautiful prints on Bergger BPF 200, and also on JandC Classic 200, which seems very similar to me. Also HP5+ and Tri-X. They're all pretty good. You just have to find the one that allows you to produce the best prints possible.

Ole said:

Besides, that bit about toxicity is debatable, too

Click to expand...

Yes, I see the smiley...

...but there's no real debate about the toxicity of pyrogallol. The debate is over magnitude of risk. All of us deal with poisons daily -- gasoline, for instance, is a known poison and carcinogen, and "known to the State of California to cause genetic damage and harm to unborn infants" or something like that wording; it's also flammable enough that the toxicity is very much secondary.

In a photo darkroom, far more people will have trouble with metol than with pyrogallol; metol isn't quite as toxic as pyro, but is far more commonly used (and it's not *that* much less toxic). I have a bottle of potassium dichromate, 1% solution, behind me; it's used as a contrast enhancer in cyanotypes, and is easily the most toxic and hazardous chemical I have around (much worse than the HC-110, stop bath or fixer concentrates, borax, etc., and chemically more hazardous than any of the solvents and lubricants I keep near my lathe). I have the bottle clearly marked, and there are never children in my house, so I don't worry much about it, other than to take great care to keep it off my skin when I use a drop for a cyano print that needs it.

No, I wouldn't want to put my hands in a pyro developer -- but I've spent a lot of hours with my (unprotected) hands in Dektol when I printed in high school and college, without incident. I wouldn't do that without gloves, now, either. I have no sensitivity that I'm aware of, but why push things?

With pyro, the precautions needed are the same as for any other photo chemical: don't drink it (and by extension, don't eat or drink *anything* in the darkroom or chemical prep area, just as you wouldn't eat or drink in a chemistry lab), avoid skin contact where practical, clean up spills properly, and dispose of chemicals properly (which, for most, is simply a matter of adequate dilution when disposing into the drain). And last, don't get yourself all worked up over it -- constant worry will kill you a lot faster than anything in your darkroom, if you don't do anything really stupid.

We just received an flyer from the 'waste' department in our town what stuff to bring in for special processing. In the last few years many materials became less bad for the environment and could be removed from the list. But a photochemicals it still states: ALL, so no exceptions.

Whatever you use, it is not stuff that belongs in the sink, no matter how diluted, because in the end all those little dilluted bits from so many people will end up to be a lot...

Someone out there with some serious chemistry experience/knowledge - what exactly are the repercussions of darkroom chemical disposal on the waste water downstream? This thread has mutated into a discussion of the toxicity of pyro, so what the heck. I wonder if household bleach is perhaps every bit as harmful (or not) as Dektol . . . If most of the compounds in our chemistry are degradable, it would seem we are not seriously polluting. Obviously, heavy metals would be a problem - oh, I guess that includes the dissolved residual silver in used fixer. Anyway - hey if this has been discussed at length in another past forum, point me to it. Let's not invite any "experts" into this discussion . . . (wink wink, nudge, nudge)

5x7 Film

I've found Bergger to be a great film in the LF sizes. The 120mm and 35mm size are on such thin material that they curl. If you can deal with it it is good film as well. I try to support the companies that are taking risk in getting into film. I don't know about Efke (I believe thay are a newer company to) but Bergger started in LF before going to the smaller sizes when film was going the way of the DoDo bird.

In case your curious I was able to buy 5x7 Kodak Portra from Adorama. You should have seen the look on my processors face when I told him. At first he said I was mistaken.

Randy

rhphoto : thanks for the thread
everyone : thanks for the replies
sandy king : thanks for everything (and congrates)

I still have flames coming out of my ears since Kodak stopped Plus-X in 5X7 and have not made the new Plus-X available. How does Efke 100 compare with Plus-X? Tmax100 just does not have the look and I only have 1 box of the old Tmax400 left in the freezer.

Bergger200 does not do it for me, too soft while processing, but I did find that if you develope in Dektol 1-3 for 3-5 minutes you do get a truely different look, very 'fuzzy-wuzzy' pointillist.

Pyro IS toxic but has been the developer of choice for over a century. Common sense and standard darkroom safety measures more than handle any problems with it.
The least toxic would be Pat Gainer's original Vitamin-C formula available on APUG. 'Heavy Metal' is anything heavier than helium, I made that mistaken assumption until I checked it.

Thanks for the info.

snip:

c6h6o3 said:

If you're going to print on Azo, avoid 100TMax at all costs. There's a UV blocker in it that makes for nothing but disastrous results on Azo. I recently tried to print one and gave up after about 1/2 hour of producing nothing but pure mud. It really is hopeless.

Click to expand...

is this true for all tmax 100 or the "new" stuff ?
i have been using film with " -----v-v-- " as the notch code together with azo without a problem.

jnanian said:

snip:

is this true for all tmax 100 or the "new" stuff ?
i have been using film with " -----v-v-- " as the notch code together with azo without a problem.

Click to expand...

I don't know. My bad experience was with the "new" stuff.

c6h6o3 said:

I don't know. My bad experience was with the "new" stuff.

Click to expand...

okay ...

i havent bought sheet film since about 2001, so i guess i have never experienced it.

thanks

the new Tmax 100 has an UV block, making it almost impossible to use for contact printing with UV lights. I switched to Ilford (after disposing Berrger) for that reason. I wonder if Kodak has noted a drop in sales of Tmax 100 sheets, in the eyes of every contact printer it was a stupid move. I seems that it is better for scanning though so maybe they even sold more

reinierv said:

We just received an flyer from the 'waste' department in our town what stuff to bring in for special processing. In the last few years many materials became less bad for the environment and could be removed from the list. But a photochemicals it still states: ALL, so no exceptions.

Click to expand...

Funny, when I called the water depatment here in St Paul they told me that it wasn't a issue with the home darkroom. Go ahead and dump it in the drain. You would think the standard was the same.

phfitz said:

I still have flames coming out of my ears since Kodak stopped Plus-X in 5X7 and have not made the new Plus-X available. How does Efke 100 compare with Plus-X? Tmax100 just does not have the look and I only have 1 box of the old Tmax400 left in the freezer.

Click to expand...

Efke 100 is a great looking traditional film. I think of it as a smoother Tri-X-ish film. It's not quite like Plus-X, but if you're looking for an alternative traditional medium speed B&W film in 5x7", FP4+ and Efke 100 are the most likely candidates. If you develop in trays, the emulsion is more fragile than Kodak or Ilford, so handle carefully.