Chemistry Formulas

[asaphoto]

I am getting really interested in formulating my own chemistry. Both for the control over the process and for the obvious economic reasons in getting chemicals in bulk. I am starting with a simple fixer from bulk chemicals but I want to eventually move on to making other things such as developers and toners and whatnot. Right now I am just looking to collect what formulas I can and get any information on technique to use them and any alterations to get different effects. I also what to get an idea of what role the individual chemicals play in the formula. So would anyone like to share there favorite formulas with me and the community at large.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's already here

Have a look in the articles section on this site, you'll find the information there.
However it is being updated currently and many formulae posted on the earlier system are still to be re-listed.

Also have a look at the formulae section of Digitaltruth, the link is in the Business Directory.

Ian

 

[Roger Hicks]

Do not necessarily assume it will save money. It used to, when I started doing it 40+ years ago; today, I'm not so sure. I also find it quite time consuming -- time taken away from taking pictures -- so I seldom do it any more. I like to have the option; there are always things it's easier to make up than to buy; and there are some things, especially in alternative processes, that you have to make up.

But for ordinary developers and fixers, I do not believe that there is any more control in making up your own brews, nor that there is any likely difference for the vast majority of photographers in the quality of their results, even if they make the chemistry up right (it's easy to make mistakes). Those who trumpet their differences are in many cases seeing what they want to see, or chasing distinctions that are as nought compared with taking pictures that others want to see.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jean Noire]

Those who trumpet their differences are in many cases seeing what they want to see, or chasing distinctions that are as nought compared with taking pictures that others want to see.

Cheers,

R.

This is a profound observation by Roger that many should bear in mind.

Regards
John

 

[jim appleyard]

Grab copies of Anchell's "Darkroom Cookbook", Anchell & Troops, "Film Developing Cookbook", Tim Rudman's "The Photographer's Toning Book--The Definitive Guide", and although not really a formula book, Barry Thornton's "The Edge of Darkness is great reading as has a couple of Good formuals in it.

Also the Ansel Adams series.

 

[Jed Freudenthal]

Do not necessarily assume it will save money. It used to, when I started doing it 40+ years ago; today, I'm not so sure. I also find it quite time consuming -- time taken away from taking pictures -- so I seldom do it any more. I like to have the option; there are always things it's easier to make up than to buy; and there are some things, especially in alternative processes, that you have to make up.

But for ordinary developers and fixers, I do not believe that there is any more control in making up your own brews, nor that there is any likely difference for the vast majority of photographers in the quality of their results, even if they make the chemistry up right (it's easy to make mistakes). Those who trumpet their differences are in many cases seeing what they want to see, or chasing distinctions that are as nought compared with taking pictures that others want to see.

Cheers,

R.

In the case of 35 mm, I think Roger might be right. However, after a bad experience with a commercially obtained D-76, I even mix that myself.
But with medium format and in particular large format, the situation is different. One can select from many different approaches, with very different results.
Recipes can be found here on the APUG site, but also elsewhere on internet and in a large number of books on the subject. And for the really interested person, there is a wealth of scientific literature.
The advantage of self mixing is the fact that one knows what the composition of the brew is. And there are no technical limitations like in pre-mixed commercial brews. And, in my experience, self-mixing cost less time than going after all those commercially available products.

Jed

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I have tried mixing my own developers and they have been successful so far, including a D-76 type which I`ve added to the non-staining section in this forums chemical recipe section. D-76 and ID-11 can work out a bit more costly if you buy these in 1 litre sizes, but the larger US Gallon and 5 litre sizes are excellent value for money although it depends on how much film you use.
I have also made made Kodak D-163 print developer which I liked very much with Kentmere Kentona paper. This I did for reasons of personal curiosity more than anything. It`s far more convenient to buy packaged products in liquid or powder form and not necessarily much more expensive either.

 

[Nick Zentena]

The only time I've seen commerical B&W chemicals come in cheaper then my home mixed versions is if you compare large Kodak etc packages against small volume purchases of chemicals. Even then only if you ignore waste.

Personally I can't imagine mixing up a gallon of developer and hoping it's still good when it's time to use it. I'm much happier mixing up when I need it and tossing it. That makes home mixed cheaper for me. I also tend to buy larger amounts of bulk chemicals. Outside of metol I rarely buy smaller then 5lb packages and often bigger.

FWIW the local shop has 1litre d76 for $4. Off the top of my head that's what?

100 gram sodium sulfite
3 grams of metol [amount?[
small amount of hydroquine

Basically it?

Even the gallon package is $6. Better deal if it doesn't go bad.

 

[jim appleyard]

a couple of years old, but still fun to read:http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Developers/Cost/cost.html

 

[craigclu]

I'd hate to rationalize self-mixing as a cost basis model and show the cross over point of where one begins saving money! Add to that a decent scale or two, a magnetic heater/mixer, proper lab vessels/graduates, initial inventory, all of the "what-if" runs made just because you can, etc. and the moderate home darkroom user is likely beginning to see the thrifty side of things after about ten years! Add also, all of the testing, validating, cast-off/dated material that goes old before use and I believe it would be the rare situation where the financial aspects would be a reasonable factor in decision making.

I do it because I've grown to enjoy the tinkering and dialing in a look that I'm after. The gratification of tuning my materials to a successful end is easily worth the accumulating inventory in my shelves. I've got my go-to basics settled on now but I still enjoy giving someone's posted concoctions a try in the hope of seeing something new or that can become another go-to, proven answer for particular needs.

 

[gainer]

Whenever I get the urge to try something different or to replenish my supplies of the same old same old, I must either travel 100 miles north or south or do it by mail or UPS. If you caount the cost of shipping or travel, it's a lot cheaper to buy a bunch of raw materials and mix my own than to buy ready mixed or ready weighed developers and the like.

I have about decided on home made Rodinal or its Metol equivalent, PC-TEA and Pyrocat MC. These are all long lasting highly concentrated stocks. 500 ml can do as many as 100 rolls or 8x10 sheets. One or the other can suit just about any of my purposes. I keep ascorbic acid on hand for me and my darkroom, and a tray full of Metol, carbonate, ascorbic acid print developer is as quickly measured and mixed as what I might get pre-packaged.

I'm not preaching, just describing my practices.

 

[nworth]

Mixing your own makes a lot of sense. It's inexpensive, you get just the amount you need, and you can experiment. It takes me only a few minutes to mix up exactly the amount of D-76 (or anything else) I need for a session. I also can mix fresh fixer for each session without going broke. And I don't have a lot of bottles of questionable liquids cluttering the darkroom.

A good scale is essential. Good scales are expensive, but don't skimp. A good scale will be easy to use, will keep its calibration, and will last for many years. I've had my Ohaus Dial-O-Gram for 36 years, and it's still going strong.

You can find plenty of formulas in the articles section of this website, on www.unblinkingeye.com, in many books, and in other places on the web.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If you caount the cost of shipping or travel, it's a lot cheaper to buy a bunch of raw materials and mix my own than to buy ready mixed or ready weighed developers and the like.

You mean the raw materials AREN'T shipped, and that you can buy them locally?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

....It takes me only a few minutes to mix up exactly the amount of D-76 (or anything else) I need for a session...

Working from scratch -- and as I say, I've been doing this over 40 years -- it takes me a good deal longer to mix and temper fresh film developer than it does to dilute some DD-X and develop the film.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ryuji]

When you calculate the cost, make sure to compare at the scale of usage you are in. It makes no sense to compare the cost of a 1 liter of store-bought developer and per-liter ingredient cost of chemical ingredients bought in the scale of 100+ liters, if all you use is a couple of liters every month. You'll also have to consider intial investment like extra beakers and scale, time required to mix the chemicals, etc. If the cost is the primary reason, the price difference is not worth pursuing.

However, I don't necessarily discourage homebrewing, as they can be fun at times, especially when starting, and that's why I publish formula for some.

 

[Roger Hicks]

When you calculate the cost, make sure to compare at the scale of usage you are in. It makes no sense to compare the cost of a 1 liter of store-bought developer and per-liter ingredient cost of chemical ingredients bought in the scale of 100+ liters, if all you use is a couple of liters every month. You'll also have to consider intial investment like extra beakers and scale, time required to mix the chemicals, etc. If the cost is the primary reason, the price difference is not worth pursuing.

However, I don't necessarily discourage homebrewing, as they can be fun at times, especially when starting, and that's why I publish formula for some.

Dear Ryuji,

This is the point I was trying to make, and you have made it better.

Cheers,

R.

 

[craigclu]

I had already commented earlier in this thread, but.... If you are approaching this in a manner intended to save money on darkroom activities, homebrew can be very economical if you keep your approach simple and aspire to thriftiness. In my case, it has triggered radically extra spending on darkroom chemistry as I've become interested in experimenting and tweaking the work of others and developing combinations that I can rely upon for specific duty (35, MF, LF, hi/lo contrast, etc). I recently ordered some things from PF, TechChem and The Chem Store and the total came to $300+. It included a few things that I never had in my darkroom before and restock on some things I was low on. It didn't make sense to order 1 or 2 pounds of something that had minimum shipping charges or minimum quantities larger than that. To me, I'd be spending much less if I simply ordered my old-days standby, FG7, some Dektol and some TF-4 fixer. $40 here and there felt like almost a free hobby where these days, it seems I'm also spending and accumulating so much material and equipment (also $$$). Because of the endless-seeming testing and tinkering, I'm certain I also burn twice the film that I would need to if I wasn't playing with these things so much. I enjoy it and I've revived my interest and activity again and gladly pay the price. I support others doing the same thing but unless you use extreme quantities, to approach it as a point of economy is self-delusional...

I coach firearms target shooting. This is a sport that quickly consumes a good chunk of money, just in ammunition costs. New shooters are quite eager to start reloading as the factory loads in some of the target calibers can be quite pricey when doing much practice shooting. If they seem like serious converts to the sport, I watch and support them as they buy presses, dies, reamers, case cleaners, depth gauges, case trimmers, primers, powders, bullets, chronographs and endless gimmicks and necessities accumulate. Now, their irritation with $15/box shells has triggered a $1500 investment to load shells at $5/box. In time, this looks to perhaps be a paying proposition. Then they realize that they are shooting 3-4 times as much because it feels so inexpensive and they're also rationalizing their new toys and investment. The positive effects outweigh the negative as they can tune their loads to their guns and shooting more improves their skill level but the fact that they expected to save some money starts to appear a bit comical. I am an active reloader and get great pleasure from it just as I do homebrew darkroom work. I do these things because I derive pleasure and satisfaction from it but I'll never defend the activities as a great way to save money!

 

[Nick Zentena]

It makes no sense to compare the cost of a 1 liter of store-bought developer and per-liter ingredient cost of chemical ingredients bought in the scale of 100+ liters, if all you use is a couple of liters every month.

Why?

If I buy 10lbs of sodium sulfite it's alot for developer but it ends up in almost everything else. It also keeps. At least it seems like it keeps fine. I can buy bulk chemicals in large amounts and other then storage issues I don't see a downside from buying that way.

I can't buy large premixed chemicals and hope they'll keep. Ignoring the things that will keep in a stock solution and get diluted for use.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

The powdered components to make most darkroom chemicals last a very long time before mixing up. Therefore, if you are a very very light user of chemistry, it might make sense to mix up from powders, as you need it. For the rest of us that use a moderately large amount of chemistry (developing 50 sheets or a dozen rolls every week or so) it only makes sense to mix up from scratch what is not readily available as a commercial product, such as Ansco 130 print developer, etc., as we can purchase ready-made chemistry in a quantity that we can use before it goes bad, and at a competetive price.

I can tell you it can get mighty tiresome mixing up from scratch enough D-76 to fill a 3.5 gallon deep tank. No way.

 

[gainer]

You mean the raw materials AREN'T shipped, and that you can buy them locally?

Cheers,

R.

By "a bunch" I meant enough to make a lot of quarts of stuff. I forget you're not all from West Virginia. I'll bet many of you don't know what a poke is. The old expression "Don't buy a pig in a poke" has had some strange interpretations by TV announcers. Around here, I can say "I waded right into the free for all" and everyone knows what I mean. Some think I should have said "I weighed in."

I can buy almost all the ingredients for an ascorbate developer locally. All of them if you allow for using p-aminophenol from the perversion of Tylenol in place of metol or phenidone. Ascorbic acid, p-aminophenol and sodium carbonate is a good combination even without sulfite if used right away. I sometimes use lye and borax in place of the carbonate, but lye is getting hard to get, unless you want to mix lime and washing soda and filter the heck out of it.

 

[asaphoto]

It's already here

Have a look in the articles section on this site, you'll find the information there.
However it is being updated currently and many formulae posted on the earlier system are still to be re-listed.

Also have a look at the formulae section of Digitaltruth, the link is in the Business Directory.

Ian

Was hoping to get personal about what people are using and there experience with them

 

[Roger Hicks]

As far as I'm aware, a poke is a bag or purse, so I just checked the OED and indeed it's the first meaning given, probably cognate with pouch. As for 'waded in', I'd have thought that was a more common (and comprehensible)usage than 'weighed in'.

I take your point about developers mixed that way, but I can't say I fancy the idea of trying it: 'survivalist' photography has little appeal to me. But to each his own.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ian Grant]

Was hoping to get personal about what people are using and there experience with them

Well bring the thread back on topic

Probably like many others on the forum I prefer to work with only 2 or 3 different films and a couple of film developers, likewise with my papers and print developers.

For many years I used Rodinal with Agfa AP25 & AP100, (later the APX25 & APX100) and Tmax 100 & 400.

About 5 years ago I switched to Xtol (used with replenishment) and more recently also Pyrocat HD. I'm almost certain that I'l switch completely to Pyrocat HD.

Rodinal, Xtol and Pyrocat HD all give me excellent results but somehow Pyrocat has an "edge" over the other two. It's so simple to make up and keeps well.

For printing I used Record Rapid & Classic, and now Polywarmtone and have always used Agfa Neutol WA, or Ilford ID-78.

Mixing the formulae up yourself allows you to use excellent developers that are not commercially available such as Pyrocat or ID-78. Choice is very personal and mixing your own gives you flexibility at relatively low cost.

Ian

 

[jim appleyard]

Was hoping to get personal about what people are using and there experience with them

I use a lot of D-76 1+0 (hey, if it ain't broke...) for medium and fast 35mm and Rodinal for slow 35mm and medium 120. I used to homebrew Rodinal, but it seemed to be stronger than the commercial stuff, so I went back to the commercial.; the commercial is so inexpensive anyway, and, as Patrick said, lye is hard to find locally.

WD2D+ was very good for the brief time I tried it and I look forward to using it again.

I'm still working with Pyrocat HD and tweeking the times and EI's. So far, it's doing the job.

777 isn't what I expected; highlights are burning out. I may have to use that dev for cloudy days.

 

[gainer]

As far as I'm aware, a poke is a bag or purse, so I just checked the OED and indeed it's the first meaning given, probably cognate with pouch. As for 'waded in', I'd have thought that was a more common (and comprehensible)usage than 'weighed in'.

I take your point about developers mixed that way, but I can't say I fancy the idea of trying it: 'survivalist' photography has little appeal to me. But to each his own.

Cheers,

R.

I would expect you to know these phrases, Roger, as they came to West Virginia, when it was till western Virginia, with my ancestors from the British Isles. I don't know what brought them here. It was before the potato famine, and before our Revolution.

The way things are going, survivalist photography may be all that remains before we kick the bucket.