• 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

B&H not shipping chemicals anymore?

It's definitely the holiday season . This must be the beginning of Festivus ! First the airing of the Grievances , followed by a Festivus miracle (a return to daily D-76 shipping )
The Festivus pole is not for internal use
Best Regards Mike
 
It's starting to look like they set a blanket policy a week ago, and now they're going through and reviewing each individual product and changing the status for those that can be shipped safely.

That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable approach, and explains the sequence of changes.
It probably takes a significant amount of time to review each item given the legal implications.

Just speculation on my part.

- Leigh
 
Really! First it was because of the ValueJet crash and now Trump has something to do with it.
 
Wait....no now I can get chemistry shipped, once/if it's approved by B&H? Just added Xtol to the cart and it didn't kick back saying that it was in-store only anymore.
 
sepiareverb said:
You are apparently mistaken. B&H does not ship by Ground. Repeat this until it is true and all will be clear.

Another one Henry...
Click to expand...

I am in the same situation as DWThomas.... I have a B&H box with a tag reading "UPS Ground"... I must be dreaming as B&H does not ship ground (especially because of what happened to a plane decades ago).
 
I think Leigh has it about right.

Something must have happened at/to B&H and it caused an immediate cessation of the shipping of photochemicals. I imagine, whatever the incident was, it brought a level of regulatory scrutiny in to B&H and an attendant cessation of chemical shipments was ordered by management to avoid any kind of liability.

Most photochemistry is classed as hazardous within the "CORROSIVE" category (neither flammable nor explosive). Each category has further subdivisions that could be seen to apply to the dangers that items might impose.

The study of HAZMAT is pretty evolved and complex.

I wouldn't be surprised if, as a review process moves along, some chemicals return to the B&H catalog as "shippable" items. The manner in which these items may be shipped, legally, might change (no more air shipping).

I would like to add, in case some of the contributors to this forum might not have been involved in concerns that shipped photochemicals when the ValueJet 592 crash occurred, that that event caused a nationwide reassessment of shipping regulations and a great deal of confusion and stress to those who were used to shipping hazardous materials by air.

A quick read over the ORM-D classification may be helpful.

I was working at Sprint Systems of Photography, in Pawtucket, RI at that time and I remember months of education, classification, training, labelling...trying to assess what kind of hazards that chemistry might pose to the different shipping methods that Sprint needed to use. The implications went far beyond the little factory co-op that Sprint occupied. Thankfully, as I recall, none of the chemistry concentrates were proved be really dangerous. Only the Print Developer was deemed (due to the high Ph) to be in a higher category but still not dangerous.

I believe Henry Posner was at B&H at the time and he probably remembers this trial as well. Sprint needed to get the proper information, and labeling, to B&H so they could continue shipping to customers. Any lapse might have serious repercussions even by omission or misunderstanding. I AM SURE that B&H has full time staffers on this end of their business.

I do think that, maybe, B&H could have done a better job communicating what was going on but we might consider that whatever seems to have triggered the current state of affairs happened about a week ago and during a holiday period where entire teams might not have been available for immediate response.

I remember Sprint farmed out emergency response to 800 number third parties as there were only three or four people who worked there and the work week was only four ten hour days.

Henry may be back with more news, later, Tim.
 
Last edited:
timmct, it does not explain why B&H does not even want to ship ground even if they already does... It does not explain why B&H does not want to ship ground even if Freestyle does. It does not explain why B&H does not want to ship ground and take this 1996 plane accident as a reference for their decision. 1996 - 2016: 20 years to discover that shipping chemical has a risk and to take the appropriate measures? Who believes that?
 
This might be a bit of duplicate of my earlier post, but ....
B & H aren't the only ones involved in this. Their chosen shipper(s) are also involved, as well as the terms of the most-likely customized contract between them.
If UPS (for example) were the ones who initiated a change, because of a recent change in UPS' viewpoint on the matter, I don't see B & H jeopardizing all the rest of their business to protect what now must be a tiny percentage of their business.
B & H may actually not be the ones who choose "ground" shipping with UPS. It may be that B & H is choosing a shipping option that is called something else (like UPS Select) and that option allows UPS to use "ground" for all or part of the shipping journey.
Whatever the case may be:
1) I hope that a product by product re-evaluation does occur, and many products return or remain available for shipping; and
2) The communication from B & H could have been better.
 
Apparently BHPhoto is not going to ship photograpic chemicals. They are available to pick up if your in the area. They are saying it is no longer legal to ship chemicals by air and that they do not provide ground transport shipping. It seems like a big deal as I suspect many people are purchasing from BHPhoto. Apparently it has to do with the crash of Value jet 592 and Federal regulations that followed.

At first I felt like I had suffered a big loss and that film was over. However it appears that virtually everyone else out there has no problem providing ground transportation for chemicals. I would say that 98% of my photo purchases are film and chemicals. My plan is to purchase products from Freestyle photo in Santa Fe Springs, Calif. A few dollars more but not really a problem as I am not shooing big quantities of film. I live in Calif so I probably should be shopping with them anyway. Also because they are committed to film.

Good luck.
 
There has been a long thread on this which started at the dawn of time - well OK only a week or so ago, it just feels like the dawn of time It's a blow by blow account of the saga. Worth a look

pentaxuser
 
Threads merged.
 
New user, signed up to weigh in on this (and because I only just now heard about this place). Kodak makes it possible to view regulatory information on their site for most of their products. If you put in catalog number 8275497 for D-76 found on it's MSDS sheet, you can see that it's not regulated for any aircraft, ship, or ground vehicle. Unless they haven't updated their online database since some plane crash in '93, it seems like it's perfectly safe to ship.
 
Last edited:
I have been browsing Freestyle photo this evening and will be fine shopping with them. They have an office or store in Santa Fe Springs, Ca which is like going home to me as I went to Santa Fe High School in the 60's. I was just down there a few weeks ago for my 50th High School reunion. It was loads of fun and I have a roll of HP5 still to develop from the get together.
It was good to touch base with some of the guys and girls.

I think I will order 100 ft of Arista edu 100 ASA and try it out. I have not shot that film yet but my friend has some and he likes it a lot. No issues with film speed as he shoots mostly outdoors and uses flash indoors. I guess I will do the same with my FM2n.

I see the BHPhoto thing as a customer service issue. If ground shipment is needed then that is just what a normal on-line retailer would do.
 
For pity's sake-just order your stuff somewhere else and abandon the thread.It's not hard-I just did.
 
Alan W said:
For pity's sake-just order your stuff somewhere else and abandon the thread.It's not hard-I just did.
Click to expand...

it is for folks who live outside the US and have come to depend on being able to order supplies from one source. for instance, my second choice if I can't order Ilford Rapid fixer in Litres from B&H becomes using half litres of Foma fixer from argentix.ca (when II looked yesterday at least Ilford Hypam fixer was back as shippable.)

(I guess I should order some of that anyway when I order my spring supply {don't order liquids in the winter} just so I know the working parameters.
 
Last edited:
B&H management spokesperson Henryp has been conspicuously absent for the past five days, ever since B&H resumed shipping at least some chemicals again. I guess he figures he'll lay low and the whole thing will blow over. Not likely.
 
I have been putting together a B&H order for a couple of weeks to ship to Sydney. Just went to finalise it and got a pop up message that the LFN wetting agent I had included could no longer be shipped because it is a chemical and can only be collected in store. They must be insane - it's basically just dishwashing liquid isn't it?
 

Michael, I went straight to Adorama, NY for various items including chemistry: total order VERY COMPETITIVELY PRICED, destined for the Gold Coast, Australia to the value of U$640. All items shipped within 2 days of order. No conditional level of customer service experienced - a totally satisfactory transaction. Normally, this order would have gone to B&H... Fred
 
Maybe OZX is right.

I have been sympathetic with B&H because I really don't know what has caused the present shipping difficulties. I'm sure something happened.

ValueJet 592 was a LONG time ago (as some members have opined).

There has been a lot of good, and well meaning input from the membership, on this thread (mixed in with a little thrashing). HenryP seems to feel that letting things slide is better than supplying perspective from B&H. That is a management style most of us have grown used to but can't easily accept.

I checked the Edwal LFN wetting agent's SDS sheet and, I believe, the team at B&H could ship that product anywhere without having any problems...even by air.

A lot of Wetting Agent concentrates have a dangerous amount of Isopropyl Alcohol in them that renders them within the "FLAMMABLE" category of Hazardous Materials. It may be worth noting that this level of flammability is usually below that found in "Bottled in Bond" bourbons (100 proof) and, certainly, far below any of the 151 proof Rums.

If I read the SDS for the Edwal LFN wetting agent correctly...it seems to me that the IPA content in that product is recorded at less than 15 per cent. The SDS for LFN seems to provide a Flash Point of 325 degrees Fahrenheight.

The SDS for Sprint Systems' wetting agent has the IPA content listed between 25-35 per cent with a soupçon of formaldehyde... <5 per cent... in the mix (if I recall correctly, the formaldehyde was in the wetting agent to "tan" the gelatin of the emulsion a bit as the step of the process when one used the wetting agent was the time when the gelatin layer would be the softest, most swollen, and most likely to be damaged) . I think that the actual amount of IPA in the Sprint mix is tighter than the 10 percent variable implies (it certainly was when I was mixing it). If I still can read an SDS with some comprehension, the IPA content of the Sprint wetting agent puts it in the level 3 category for both flammability and health concerns.

It's like an alcohol bomb (IF it wound up in a fire!) in a plastic bottle with a touch of formaldehyde thrown in for...like I said. Again, one should remain aware that a regular bottle of your average hard liquor at 80 proof is 40 per cent alcohol by volume. Sprint advertises their wetting agent as a "super concentrate". If I recall correctly, I recommended a reduction of that concentration for obvious reasons.

My point is...wetting agents have been, usually, based on IPA...IPA breaks the surface tension of water and, at the same time, reduces drying times by about half. The undesirable corollary is a pronounced flammability...the higher the concentration of IPA...the higher the flammability.

They have, usually, been classified as "FLAMMABLE" rather than "CORROSIVE". Perhaps the people at B&H have simply grouped all wetting agents into a class and have not yet seen that the Edwal product has been formulated in a way that removes it from either of those, hazardous, categories. There may be other wetting agents that are not hazardous in any regard and may be similar to dishwashing liquids but I am out of touch with newer things.
 
Last edited:
It appears nobody has bothered to research the Flight 592 crash and its causes. On Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592#Investigation

The fire was started by and enabled by 100 OXYGEN generators in the cargo hold that should not have been there.

It had nothing to do with corrosion or similar chemical contamination.

- Leigh
 
Further to the Edwal LFN - on the product page, B&H lists among its highlights "non-flammable and non-corrosive".
 
Michael W said:
...They must be insane...
Click to expand...

I believe "calculating" and "less than forthright" the words you are looking for.

As someone else has pointed out, with all the little bottles they hand out on flights, I think some of the passengers are more flammable than routine photographic chemicals.
 
I put all the items in my B&H cart into an Adorama cart. Exactly the same products at exactly the same prices, but they will ship Edwal LFN. Unfortunately their shipping is a lot more, their cheapest option is double that of B&H. I'll wait and see if B&H come to their senses, and also do some pricing at Freestyle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register