Commercial Devs. vs. Custom Chemistry

scottmcl · Sep 19, 2005

I shoot 135 films: HP5+, FP4+, APX100, Delta 100 mostly.

I use HC-110, Acutol and Rodinal to date. Clayton F76+ is waiting testing in the wings.

What are the potential benefits of mixing one's own chemistry vs. using these commercial developers?

Are there any particularly popular custom chem. formulas for use with these types of films in 135 format?

Scott

Nick Zentena · Sep 19, 2005

Benefits are freshness,choice,control and potentially cost. Cost can be either higher or lower. For me freshness is the biggest issue.

Donald Miller · Sep 19, 2005

Beyond the considerations already posted is the aspect of proportional stain in staining developers.

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 19, 2005

For me the main issues are wider choice of developers, freshness and less waste (mix as much as you need when you need it), and freedom from the whims/marketing decisions of manufacturers. In general, mixing your own is not that much more difficult than mixing from a commercial preparation.

jim appleyard · Sep 19, 2005

All of the above, however, for me it's the fun of playing Evil Scientist! )

seadrive · Sep 19, 2005

I don't really see the point of making your own film developer, unless there is an effect you're looking for that is not attainable with off-the-shelf developers. I haven't tried any of the staining processes, so off the top of my head, I can't think of any good reasons for making my own film developer. But that's just me.

Now, paper developers, that's a whole different ballgame.

Ole · Sep 19, 2005

One of the simplest developers you can make is the classic "Beutler's" (see Chemical Recipes for recipe and comments). The commercial equivalent, Neofin Blau, is one of the most expensive in use. It also happens to give wonderful results with many films, both fast and slow.

That alone would be reason enough for me to mix my own - but like Jim Appleyard, I also enjoy playing the Evil Scientist.

jim appleyard · Sep 19, 2005

seadrive said:
I don't really see the point of making your own film developer, unless there is an effect you're looking for that is not attainable with off-the-shelf developers. I haven't tried any of the staining processes, so off the top of my head, I can't think of any good reasons for making my own film developer. But that's just me.

Now, paper developers, that's a whole different ballgame.

It's like building a house, creating a custom car, tying your own flies, baking bread, whatever; you create your won creation.

I was given Anchell's "Darkroom Cookbook" for X-mas about 3 years ago and it's been great. One of the best devs I've ever used has been D2D, a two-bath dev that works on every film I shoot. You can vary the contrast of your film by changing the amount of sodium carbonate in the B bath. Try that with an off-the-rack dev.; not that there's anything wrong with them, (big Rodinal fan here) with homemade brews you can tweak things to get them just right.

Charles Webb · Sep 19, 2005

Well. I guess all of the above comments are right on, but they in no way fit me or my personality. I would totally give up photography (completely) if it became necessary for me to mix my own chemicals. This is easy for me to say because over the years I did the search for better results, I found the need to "play the testing game" with any thing I ever heard of in the effort to get or create a better looking image. First off I played with the pyro, panthermic developers and all of the then available stain developers way back in the early fifties. One by one I quit using them because I could get similar or near exact same results from pre packaged, pre mixed over the counter chemicals. For several years few if anyone used "staining' developers" today a new cult has grown up and they are the once again the hot item. I have no problem with this at all other than it is not my cup of tea. I have been there, done that and ended up disappointed. I believe many of todays camera technicians have a great desire to reinvent the wheel. I have no such desire, I have no desire to "play the Mad Scientist" and most importantly I am satisfied and my clients have been satisfied with the results I get by not having to mix my chemicals with anything but water. I am not looking for nor have I ever looked for a "cheaper" way to achieve excellent results. The developers that are still available today over the counter are just fine and deliver excellent results for a lot of folks myself included. If those same chemicals become unavailable or extinct in the near future I will address the issue at that time. I do not swallow the pill that mixing your own chemicals delivers better results, they only deliver different results! In my opinion. If that is what you are looking for have at it and good luck and have a ton of fun along the way. I now leave the list to go play with my big old brass JG Petzval, now that will be fun!

esanford · Sep 19, 2005

Charles Webb said:
Well. I guess all of the above comments are right on, but they in no way fit me or my personality. I would totally give up photography (completely) if it became necessary for me to mix my own chemicals. This is easy for me to say because over the years I did the search for better results, I found the need to "play the testing game" with any thing I ever heard of in the effort to get or create a better looking image. First off I played with the pyro, panthermic developers and all of the then available stain developers way back in the early fifties. One by one I quit using them because I could get similar or near exact same results from pre packaged, pre mixed over the counter chemicals. For several years few if anyone used "staining' developers" today a new cult has grown up and they are the once again the hot item. I have no problem with this at all other than it is not my cup of tea. I have been there, done that and ended up disappointed. I believe many of todays camera technicians have a great desire to reinvent the wheel. I have no such desire, I have no desire to "play the Mad Scientist" and most importantly I am satisfied and my clients have been satisfied with the results I get by not having to mix my chemicals with anything but water. I am not looking for nor have I ever looked for a "cheaper" way to achieve excellent results. The developers that are still available today over the counter are just fine and deliver excellent results for a lot of folks myself included. If those same chemicals become unavailable or extinct in the near future I will address the issue at that time. I do not swallow the pill that mixing your own chemicals delivers better results, they only deliver different results! In my opinion. If that is what you are looking for have at it and good luck and have a ton of fun along the way. I now leave the list to go play with my big old brass JG Petzval, now that will be fun!

"ditto"

Nick Zentena · Sep 19, 2005

For B&W I mix:

D-23 two chemicals
Stop one chemical
TF-2 three chemicals.

OTOH for RA-4 I'm using commerically made developer and blix. The current stuff I'm using is I think three parts for developer and two for the blix. For me mixing my own up is not any more involved then using commerical chemicals.

dancqu · Sep 19, 2005

scottmcl said:
I shoot 135 films: HP5+, FP4+, APX100, Delta 100 mostly.
I use HC-110, Acutol and Rodinal to date. Clayton F76+ is
waiting testing in the wings.

You've likely enough developer concentrates "waiting" to
processs hundreds of rolls of film. I wonder how much
will be down the drain before it ever sees any use.

The variety of developers which can be compounded at
home includes those you've mentioned and many more; not
that any more than one will do for some. A or a few
formulas can be compounded in small quantities.

There are those that mix their chemistry just prior to
use. They have no stored concentrates and no partially
used working strengths needing attention or takeing
up room. Dan

srs5694 · Sep 19, 2005

For the most part, I agree with your comments, Jay, but....

jdef said:
When you make up a developer from bulk chemicals you don't have to pay for advertising, packaging, shipping, R&D, manufacturing, etc., etc.

Actually, you do pay for many of these things when mixing from scratch. Certainly you pay for packaging, shipping (to your door or to a local store), and manufacturing of the raw chemicals. I doubt if R&D is a significant cost for these chemicals, but many of them are advertised -- if nothing else on their retailers' Web sites. Still, the main point that it's less expensive is very true. I put together a spreadsheet a while ago to help me assess the cost of various developers, and the mix-it-yourself type is almost always cheaper than the commercial type. Oddly, though, the reverse is true of fixers, at least those based on sodium thiosulfate -- the cost of that chemical (or more likely, of shipping it) is just so high that it wipes out the cost benefits of mixing it yourself. Maybe with an adequately cheap local supply source this would change, but so far I've not found one near me. (I confess I've not really looked all that hard, though.)

I can't count the number of threads I've read, dealing with the issue of availabilty of a favorite developer. These kinds of problems will persist, and worsen as the market evolves. By making your own developers, you free yourself from these concernes

One caveat on this one: A few critical developer components, such as metol and phenidone, seem to be readily available only from photographic specialist outlets, such as Photographer's Formulary and Art Craft. I don't know if these items are used for anything but photography. If not, the supply of these items could eventually dry up and/or the price could go up substantially in the years to come. Of course, I expect that somebody will continue selling such items to the general public for as long as commercial developers are available, so I doubt the home brewers are really in any worse a position than are those who use the commercial products. There are also developers like Caffeinol, which use no such specialist chemicals. In a worst-case scenario, a home brewer who notices the supply dwindling could purchase a lifetime supply of favorite at-risk components. (For phenidone, that'd be a few grams!)

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 19, 2005

I agree with the previous poster that there isn't much percentage in mixing your own fixer, unless you use a fixer that is only available as a liquid, and if you ordered the dry chemicals, you could mix it yourself, saving the cost of shipping a liquid. Fortunately, I can buy TF-4 off the shelf in New York, but if I had to have it shipped, I might make my own alkaline fixer.

Ole · Sep 19, 2005

Metol, phenidone, hydroquinone, pyrocatechol and pyrogallol are readily available from chemical suppliers. The "difficult" ones are amidol and glycin. Apart from those two, all my chemicals are bouth from chemical suppliers - not photographic chemistry specialists.

Nick Zentena · Sep 19, 2005

If I was worried about the cost of Hypo then I'd bite the bullet and get a 100lb bag. OTOH what do you do with 100lbs of hypo? For me any cost saving is a bonus. Freshness is the thing. Between making things up right before use or making things in wierd sizes to fit my tanks I end up with basically zero waste.

dancqu · Sep 19, 2005

David A. Goldfarb said:
...there isn't much percentage in mixing your own fixer ...

Well there isn't much that can be done to unmix off
the shelf fixers. Whatever they put in them stays put.
Nearly all include some acid component which can
turn some heads.

I agree though, "there isn't much ...". Fixer, Hypo, the two
Thiosulfates, sodium and ammonium need no additives. Dilute
or dissolve, your choice. Use once, very dilute, and toss. No
stop needed. Archival results with one fix and great
capacity.

I may expand upon that one day with an ARTICLE. One
shot, very dilute fix is a A key element of my alternative
processing methodology. Dan

Ryuji · Sep 19, 2005

scottmcl said:
What are the potential benefits of mixing one's own chemistry vs. using these commercial developers?

Are there any particularly popular custom chem. formulas for use with these types of films in 135 format?

The popular custom chem, which I know works very well with all those films, is D-76 (with or without hydroquinone). Cost of the packaged D-76 is irrelevant compared to the value of time as a photographer or as a darkroom worker.

It is very easy to get special feeling by doing amateur chemistry work in darkroom, but if you compare carefully, the kind of difference you get is minimial (if not worse!), especially if you make effort to learn how to use a few of the premade chemicals very closely.

Now, if you want to get maximum enlargeability from 35mm films, this is the tricky place. XTOL is probably the best developer you can buy, but it is notorious for reliability problems. People blame packaging problems but that is only one of a few problems. The main problem hasn't been solved. This is one reason I still make my own developer. HOWEVER, frankly speaking, if I didn't know chemistry, I would buy all photo chemicals and spend more time in the field and studio

srs5694 · Sep 19, 2005

Ole said:
Metol, phenidone, hydroquinone, pyrocatechol and pyrogallol are readily available from chemical suppliers.

As you're in Norway and I'm in the US, I'm sure you use different suppliers than I do. I haven't found those at general-purpose chemistry suppliers -- at least, not those that sell in quantities of a few dozen or hundred grams to end users. I know hydroquinone's used in some skin-care products and glues, but I don't know what the others are used in, aside from photochemistry. (A search at http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov turned up nothing, but maybe they'd be listed there under other names.) Any pointers on this? Mostly this is just for purposes of feeding my idle curiosity.

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 19, 2005

The amidol that is supposed to come from China is sold as a "dye intermediate," but I don't know that it is actually used today in the dye industry. It may just be designated that way for customs purposes. It does dye everything a color that can be difficult to remove, so I could imagine it might have uses in that industry.

I think pyrogallol has some uses in hair products.

Photo Engineer · Sep 19, 2005

srs5694 said:
As you're in Norway and I'm in the US, I'm sure you use different suppliers than I do. I haven't found those at general-purpose chemistry suppliers -- at least, not those that sell in quantities of a few dozen or hundred grams to end users. I know hydroquinone's used in some skin-care products and glues, but I don't know what the others are used in, aside from photochemistry. (A search at http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov turned up nothing, but maybe they'd be listed there under other names.) Any pointers on this? Mostly this is just for purposes of feeding my idle curiosity.

Try here:

http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=2&tabid=9&CategoryID=18&langID=0

PE

jim appleyard · Sep 19, 2005

srs5694 said:
As you're in Norway and I'm in the US, I'm sure you use different suppliers than I do. I haven't found those at general-purpose chemistry suppliers -- at least, not those that sell in quantities of a few dozen or hundred grams to end users. I know hydroquinone's used in some skin-care products and glues, but I don't know what the others are used in, aside from photochemistry. (A search at http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov turned up nothing, but maybe they'd be listed there under other names.) Any pointers on this? Mostly this is just for purposes of feeding my idle curiosity.

And try artcraftchemicals.com. Good prices.

Tom Hoskinson · Sep 19, 2005

Artcraft is excellent. And in Canada: Dead Link Removed

Ryuji · Sep 19, 2005

srs5694 said:
I haven't found those at general-purpose chemistry suppliers -- at least, not those that sell in quantities of a few dozen or hundred grams to end users. I know hydroquinone's used in some skin-care products and glues, but I don't know what the others are used in, aside from photochemistry. (A search at http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov turned up nothing, but maybe they'd be listed there under other names.) Any pointers on this? Mostly this is just for purposes of feeding my idle curiosity.

Those chemicals can be bought from scientific lab supply houses in small quantities.

Hydroquinone, catechol, pyrogallol, amidol, p-aminophenol, p-phenylenediamine, ascorbic acid are very common industrial materials.

Amidol is a trade name for dihydrochloride salt of 2,4-diaminophenol. I recommend to use more generic name or CAS number when searching for the chemical like this. There is a sulfate salt of 2,4-diaminophenol, which probably works the same in photographic developer solutions. Amidol is most conveniently synthesized by catalytic hydrogenation of 2,4-dinitrophenol. There are a few other ways to do it. One of them is shown in US Patent 2,525,515. This is an interesting patent but there are better ways to do the same for many of the compounds today.

Glycin is better known by N-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)glycine. It can be made from p-aminophenol and chloracetic acid. This method is 120 years old but this is probably the one used by current glycin producer(s).

Metol can be made from Glycin by decarboxylation.

Plus, there are lots of other compounds that can be used as developing agents.

So, we really don't need to worry about these compounds.

fhovie · Sep 19, 2005

If you buy D-76, you have D-76. If you buy a group of chemicals you can make what you need. I wanted to use some Delta 3200 with Microphen. I have never used Microphen. I grabbed the formula and 5 bottles of powder off the shelf and made some. I have enough variety now, I can make pretty much anything. What a time saver and a cost saver as well. Plus \\ there is the mad scientist thing.

Commercial Devs. vs. Custom Chemistry

scottmcl

Nick Zentena

Donald Miller

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

jim appleyard

seadrive

Ole

Moderator

jim appleyard

Charles Webb

esanford

Nick Zentena

dancqu

srs5694

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Ole

Moderator

Nick Zentena

dancqu

Ryuji

srs5694

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Photo Engineer

jim appleyard

Tom Hoskinson

Ryuji

fhovie

Commercial Devs. vs. Custom Chemistry

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency