• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing

Status
Not open for further replies.

No, but both are quite toxic. Both are category 3 toxins for oral ingestion, but pyrogallol is a category 4 (harmful with very short exposures) for dermal and inhalation, while catechol is less toxic for these routes. The MSDS shows catechol as a category 2 health hazard and pyrogallol as category 3. Catechol occurs in nature from many sources at concentrations not much less than fully diluted developer. Pyrogallol is a neurotoxin, but catechol is not. Both are harmful, given sufficient doses, to the kidneys and liver. Catechol is a moderate carcinogen promoter, especially in the presence of Cu(II); pyrogallol is a mutagen. It takes a considerable chronic dosage in susceptible strains of laboratory animals for either of these effects to be noticeable statistically. Both have been used with reasonable care by photographers for over a century with no notable health effects.
 
Roger Cole said:
Just because they designed it to be used a certain way doesn't mean you have to do so.
Click to expand...

unless of course you use non RS in a rotary processor with sheet film
then chances are you will be outtaluck.

i use things other than what they were designed for all the time,
unless i dont want the suggested contraindication.

seeing stone is processing sheet film , why suggest he use a developer well known
and documented to cause dichroic fog ( even by koduck)?
when the good folks at kodak told me to use it ( non rs ) it was a mistake, and after the fog was there
they said, " why did you use that version of tmax developer, it causes dichroic fog"
 
What happens when I try and mix powders... This is why I don't like them...



Was trying to make a Tech Pan developer...

Ugh... Well, we'll see how it comes out...

Why then send chemicals in baggies is beyond me, stupidest thing I've ever seen...

That's Phenidone by the way...
 

I'm not suggesting he use it. I was passing on my experience with it as similar to his DD-X which he has and likes.

Since I have both I'm going to give non-RS in my Jobo with sheet film a test, just to see if I can duplicate this dichroic fog.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Stone,

Have you ever heard of a beaker?
Link

They are great for mixing your chemicals in. I usually use a two liter beaker, unless I'm mixing a gallon kit, in which case I use a large stainless steel container. Haven't gotten around to getting a gallon sized beaker yet.



 

you mean beaker?
 
Michael R 1974 said:
And, nobody says you have to scratch mix powders anyway. Try some ID-11/D-76. Easy as pie.
Click to expand...

This. And Xtol, which many here have recommended, is not much harder. It just comes in two packets. They are all pre-measured, just dump into a measured amount of water at specified temperature and stir.

Xtol does require a large mixing container and bottles to store the resulting 5 litres of liquid though so I can see how it isn't ideal for his circumstances. That's not because it's a powder though, but because it comes only in an inconveniently large size.

You can't have everything and no photo succeeds or fails because of presence or lack of edge effects. Get some HC-110 and start shooting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No need for a funnel, just roll a small sheet of paper in the shape of a funnel and throw it away after you are done (a common lab practice). An oil brush comes in handy too.
 
Stone, you likely have chemicals in the house that are dangerous, but since they are considered "common," no one worries (or takes proper precautions). I don't think some of the suggestions here are more likely to cause problems. Even if they are more toxic, you are probably going to be safer with them than you might with drain cleaners and such.
 
What is this thread about?
 
Btw, is the new Adox/Paterson developer recently rereleased suitable for rotary?
 

I was by no means "rushing" and this is the aftermath of me trying to store the REST of the opens phenidone in something other than a baggie, so yes I should have used a small funnel which I will get in case I do this again.

The actual 1.5g part was relatively less messy, but still, I just find it much easier to pour liquid than mess with mixing powder.
 
StoneNYC said:
I know this is subjective, but looking for new developer options.
Click to expand...

I don't know why this thread has over 200 submissions...

Stone likes DD-X, so he should use DD-X. He'll never understand the effect rotary processing has on his negatives until he can compare it to results he received prior to the change to rotary . All too often, he posts about changing multiple variables at once. To understand any changes, they must be made one at a time, and the testing time put in to accurately identify the changes.
 

i dont know eddie ..
i think he should switch films, and camera formats as well as development chemicals and methods ..
why make things easy when they can be difficult
 

I did compare them to the results I had prior to going Rotary, and they were different, the edges were very soft as it was too hard and sharp, that's why I'm asking this darn question in the first place
 
StoneNYC said:
I did compare them to the results I had prior to going Rotary, and they were different, the edges were very soft as it was too hard and sharp...
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean by, " the edges were very soft as it was too hard and sharp". How can something be too soft because it's too sharp?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register