Carestream Xray developer

[Rafael Ramos]

In search for a cheaper source to satiate the B&W developing adiction i've been eyeballing some Carestream X-ray developer. Here in Brazil it is like one sixth or less of the price when comparing to id-11 powder.

i would like to ask ye if somebody have tried this or if anyone recognize the formulation so i have a starting point to developing times.

the formula at the safety sheet goes as:
Water >60%
Potassium sulfite 5-10%
Hydroquinone 5~10%
Sodium borate 0.1~<1%
Potassium hydroxide <0.1

i would say it sounds like some id-13 or d-32 from the absence of metol, but someone smarter surely will rectify this.

 

[bernard_L]

Probably formulated for high contrast and fast processing. I fail to see in the MSDS any significant alkali: no sodium/potassium carbonate and very little sodium/potassium hydroxide.
Cost-wise, have you looked into buying direct from US (B&H, e.g.) or EU (fotoimpex, e.g.) a 1-gallon size Dektol powder bag?

 

[koraks]

What ar the pointers as to dilution? Is this used full strength? The combination of sulfite and hydroxide can be sufficiently active at this concentration. Note that other compounds may be present but left out of the msds for whatever reason (eg trade secrets).

You could, of course, always do some trials with this stuff. But keep in mnd that xray developer is used for short development times (1-2minutes iirc) at high temperatures and you'll have to figure out if and with which processing parameters his developer would yield useful results with photographic film. It does look like a compromise in any case with a very high chance of suboptimal outcomes.

 

[Rafael Ramos]

bernard_L:
i agree. the x-ray times in carestream are around 1minute constant agitation and they end up with fairly high contrast. it is a twice faster than what i get from ei12 daylight exposed x-ray in id-11 stock.

about costs: what i would save in price (if that much: our currency is not well nowadays...) i would spend in shipping and import taxes. so my options are carestream or caffenol :/

koraks: for x-ray the recomendation is stock.

i think i'll have to burn some film to learn and help all the broken and isolate brothers and sisters out there who, by this or that reason, dont have access to anything better.

which procedure would you recommend?
my idea would be to make a strip of film with various controled EI (lets say a tmax100 from 100 to 3200) and drop it for 5min@24ºC into the said elixir (or perhaps a 1+1 or 1+3 to have a better control) and check what comes out proper.

how does it sound to ye?

 

[koraks]

You'll need both exposure and development bracketing.

 

[Rafael Ramos]

yep. that is the first one to have an idea what it does 'generaly'
then i can make smaller brackets (like 200-400-800) to ajust the other factors. this way i save some film.
i think i'll keep a slow constant stirring with a magnectic stirrer to remove yet another variable.

which film would you deem a good standard to test? i can find most ilford and kodak here.
maybe some 400?

 

[koraks]

Oh I don't know, I just use any old film for initial testing of chemistry. I'd say something not too particular. I think you'd be good with something like FP4+ or HP5+. Tmax 100 or 400 would do just as well. I often use fomapan for testing because it's cheap and I often have it lying around in 100ft rolls of which I can cut a small strip for quick testing.

 

[Rafael Ramos]

i never even saw an empty roll of any foma down here :/ and i think, because the scarcity, it would end up more expensive than everything else.

i think i'll get a roll of hp5. well known, lots of times and tests to compare and one 36 should be enought to, at least, determine if it is a viable option.

 

[MattKing]

Test using film that you can easily access, and you can easily find information about.

 

[koraks]

Test using film that you can easily access, and you can easily find information about.

Certainly. It helps for instance if you use a film for which many development times in many developers are known. Allows you to extrapolate are bit, which can be useful.

Also, a single 36 roll definitely can provide quite some insight. I'd divide it in 4 equal parts and use the parts one by one for incremental testing.

 

[Rafael Ramos]

i think i'll put it in the canon FTbQL and go cutting as i expose. should be able to get one 5-stop for the first gestimation and at least 7 3-stop strips to fine-tune the times.

i should make the test target scene from a macbeth chart, a black cavity, 18%card and a bright white screen phone or lamp. probably a guitar and some other things that i sure have laying around at the time to have a feeling of shadows and contrast on real things.

i'll try to start this project next week. if you have any other ideas, recomendations, advices and good luck wishes: i am all ears untill then

 

[bernard_L]

about costs: what i would save in price (if that much: our currency is not well nowadays...) i would spend in shipping and import taxes. so my options are carestream or caffenol :/

A 1-gallon packet of D-76 costs approx 40$ including shipping (taxes I don't know, do a little homework). Sure looks expensive, but with 1 gallon of D-76, used 1+1 one-shot, you can develop 25 rolls of 35-mm film. These 25 films cost here 6€ each, total 150€. So you are going to compromise the quality of development of approx 150$ worth of film to save 40$ on developer? (assuming you get your Carestream X-ray developer for free). Useful life of D-76 stock solution? store in in a wine pouch and after one year it will be like on the day it was mixed.
And note that my calculation is heavily biased towards worst-case. You could amortize the shipping costs by ordering a second bag of powder (infinite storage lifetime). And I bet that you pay more for film than what i entered in my calculation.

Your photos, your money.

 

[Rafael Ramos]

well. i surely can afford even the high tag prices our local stores ask for it. the id-11 i am using now went for around 100usd. That on the dever alone. Put another 75 on the fix. (yep. they assault us good down here...)

but many people here in brasil and everywhere around the world cannot afford or lay hands on anything. Carestream and equivalents cost like 3usd per 500ml bottle and are pretty much everywhere: anywhere with a hospital, dentist or vet will have something equivalent. the fixer is even cheaper. and should last as long as any dedicated dever on the market.

if this ready, reasonably quality-controled, cheap and easily found product delivers something acceptable (or may be even undistinctable from dedicated developers) i believe it is worth investigating. i wouldn't be amazed if the formulation turns out to be just an un-branded famous developer.

people (i've seen a quite a few here at the forum) have been mixing their own stuff from raw materials to save money for quite a while (even people in europe and north america).

so even if not for the sake of my money, for the many that could benefit from it: imagine how many good lads and lasses could get some ol'Trip35 or worse, the cheappest 24 film they could find, develop it in its own cannister (yep. i tried and that works. wonderfully.) and have their first taste of our beloved activity without having to sell their souls. one of them can well be the next sebastião salgado...

and also, i admit, for the sake of good old curiosity and love for experimentation and investigation that drove the photography thru a century

 

[koraks]

and also, i admit, for the sake of good old curiosity and love for experimentation and investigation that drove the photography thru a century

That in itself is a perfectly viable reason to do what you're doing. For some of us, it's the result that counts and they prefer the shortest and most reliable route that takes them to those results. For others, the process and tinkering with it are just as important.

 

[bernard_L]

Put another 75 on the fix

You can save there also. The main (but not only) component of rapid fixer: ammonium thiosulfate, is used in agriculture as a fertilizer. However, it is normally sold by the cubic meter or truckload. So you need to locate a farmer who agrees to sell you a few litres.

 

[bernard_L]

but many people here in brasil and everywhere around the world cannot afford or lay hands on anything.

I sympathize with their situation. But the economics of my post #13 remain valid for them as well, unless they have access to incredibly cheap film.

people (i've seen a quite a few here at the forum) have been mixing their own stuff from raw materials to save money for quite a while (even people in europe and north america).

Indeed, and that is what I do myself sometimes. But then I mix a developer formula with known properties thanks to many man-hours of specialists. And spend more of my available time making the best possible prints in the darkroom. Because the print is the justification for all the rest.

 

[Rafael Ramos]

Bernard: if one does have 40usd, yes: that makes perfect sense.

but 40usd is about 200brl: a 1/5 of the minimum wage here.

one can find film for 20brl and the carestream dev and fix kit for another 25ish.

i believe that the feeling that i am not being able to transmit is that commiting two weeks worth of food or a month of electricity in the first experiences with developing is not an easy decision.

i can tell for myself: if there were references for carestream doing a resonable job i would have jumped into film at least a year early. the feeling would be 'well... it is only 16brl. who cares if is thrown away? is the price of two beers...'. But, even in my reasonable wealth, to commit into all proper gear and chemical was a step that required a lot more of consideration.

so if i can show that shooting colorplus200 (the cheapest film we can get) with granny's Trip35, developing with carestream and scanning/treating with the celphone can yield some beautiful results i think is worth.

do you remember the first time you got a film out of the water and saw image?
were you worried that dmax, contrast, grain or watherver was not perfect or you just wanted to make another?

and another thing you did not take in account yet is this thing have a very high probability of working as well as any developer. Carestream is kodak alaris quality control, engineering and specialists. i think is just a matter of tweaking to get proper, consistent results for 8usd.

 

[MattKing]

Rafael,
First, I totally understand where you are coming from - particularly the economic factors you describe.
Second, I think it is a great idea to experiment.
Third, don't get your hopes up too high. The X-ray materials are/were designed to do things that are almost the opposite of what the standard films are designed to do, and the X-ray developers were designed to complement the X-ray materials. You might not be able to get the X-ray developers to behave in the way you want them to.
May I suggest you reach out to Carestream themselves, to see if they have any advice for you?

 

[Rafael Ramos]

Matt: not a bad idea contacting carestream. will try.

about the xray: people in large format have been using it for quite a while, developing in photo chems, and having impresive, if not outstanding, results. my own experiments duplicating 135 into dental xrays for positives are also very satisfatory. i dev them in id-11 stock in times that are twice the expected in carestream stock.

so they are a ortho-lytho-ish film, very sensitive to UV, the emulsion is a pain to avoid scratching but, in general, is a silver nuclei developing film as any other. a bit more sensitive here, less sensitive there, a peculiar grain, double side coating, but from rodinal to caffenol the r-xay works as photo for all development purposes. and nothing indicates that carestream wouldnt work on photo: all the essentials are there. in its stock state probably a bit too fast, too high contrast (some might even like it...), but i believe that it can be tamed for our purposes with some dilution.

my expectations are only that it will work consistently and there will be some testing to make it look proper.
but if we learn it can yield professional results and later on some wise chem-guy proves that carestream is only a renamed brand for some known old dev i wouldn't be even a tad surprised.

 

[MattKing]

my expectations are only that it will work consistently and there will be some testing to make it look proper.
but if we learn it can yield professional results and later on some wise chem-guy proves that carestream is only a renamed brand for some known old dev i wouldn't be even a tad surprised.

Carestream is actually Eastman Kodak, after a bunch of changes.
Eastman Kodak disbanded their their previously profitable X-ray film business and sold the assets to a group of employees who formerly worked in that business, including a manufacturing plant (or at the very least a leasehold interest in that plant. The entity they incorporated to run that business is Carestream.
Ironically, both Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris now contract with Carestream for product (although Kodak Alaris may actually hold a leasehold interest in that plant as well).
The Eastman Kodak developers for X-ray film were optimized for X-ray film and the equipment used to process it.
Much of the X-ray world has gone digital, but X-ray film is still used to a significant extent.
Sort of fun fact - most X-ray film isn't particularly sensitive to X-rays.

 

[Rafael Ramos]

i knew. that is what gave me more hope.
what i meant by 'discovering' would be "oh, it is just the same-same d-xy formulation. what makes it special is high temperature, concentration and agitation they use in the development"

soon, fellows, very soon we will have answers for all these questions.
well... at least to the question if it will develop something

i promise to keep you posted.
(and again: if you guys have any ideas on the testing i would love to hear)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

A low contrast version of Caffenol works very well with x-ray film. Pick up some washing soda, and instant coffee from your supermarket. Powdered vitamin C from health foods store. Check out recipes online. I've been working with x-ray film for years. My favourite developers for it are Pyrocat-HD, POTA, and Caffenol-LC. EI 50. EI 32 for POTA.

 

[Rafael Ramos]

excelent!

have you tried the oposite by any chance? using x-ray developer in photos, Andrew?

 

[juan]

I, too, have used X-ray film for years, but never the X-ray developer. I can only suggest you get some and try it.
Can you get metol and sodium sulfite? D23 is an inexpensive and very good developer. If not, caffenol is probably your best bet.

 

[Rafael Ramos]

d'ye know what makes me amazed?
how skeptical people are. i start to imagine how Mr.Scott Williams felt when proposed caffenol.

and, in the other hand, i am mesmerized nobody ever tried it by now...

it think i'll have to be the one to boldly go where no man has gone before

i think i'll come back with a bottle of d19...