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.
-
Welcome to Photrio!Registration is completely free and logged-in members see fewer ads.Click here to sign up
A "sharp" developer to use with rotary processing
-
A
- Thread starter StoneNYC
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Schneider Symmar-S 240mm f/5.6 Compur 3, single coated!
- Started by varg
-
Sold Nikon 1 V1 w/10-30mm VR &/Grip Low Shutter Count
- Started by Acere
-
Free Saunders Multi-Print 8x10 Easel - Free for the cost of Shipping and Packaging
- Started by Todd Barlow
-
Found Schneider 135mm 5.6 APO Symmar
- Started by ediz7531
Forum statistics
- Status
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.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
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"
OP
OP
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...
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...
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"
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
looks like something a 99 cent funnel would have prevented.
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.
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.
OP
OP
Yeah, that's the one.
Maybe he spoke like that because he had ingested too many neurotoxins ...
OP
OP
Yea, probably, I didn't have one on hand that wasn't for food stuffs, next time...
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
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,671
- Format
- Multi Format
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.
Time will tell.
OP
OP
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.
Ah... Beaker. He was a part of the best performance of "Danny Boy" I've ever heard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCbuRA_D3KU
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.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
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
OP
OP
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
OP
OP
By the way exactly how dangerous is Phenidone anyway lol
Why don't you just get some trays then? You can do stand that way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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?
OP
OP
*facepalm*
- Status
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |