Home made D76 with raw chemistry?

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,945
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
dcy said:
@retina_restoration Thanks for the clarification. I really did think that hydroquinone was a hazard. So you're saying that in D-76 it is only toxic in the sense of environmental concerns?
Click to expand...

Can I ask what was/were the sources that led you to believe that hydroquinone was a hazard and in what way(s) did you believe those hazard(s) would manifest itself/themselves? It also leaves the question in my mind of what the difference(s) between Metol and Hydroquinone is/are in terms of the definition of "hazardous"

Certainly Metol is cited as likely to cause dermatitis but does it have any other hazardous aspects and how do they compare to the hazards of Hydroquinone ?

These are not rhetorical questions to which I know the answers as are commonly used by someone adversarial who is hoping to catch you out. They can be answered by anyone with the knowledge which excludes me

pentaxuser
 

retina_restoration

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2023
Messages
1,147
Location
Wilammette Valley, Oregon
Format
35mm RF
dcy said:
@retina_restoration Thanks for the clarification. I really did think that hydroquinone was a hazard. So you're saying that in D-76 it is only toxic in the sense of environmental concerns?
Click to expand...

What I’m saying is that it is FDA-approved to include in special skin creams, which are applied to human skin - repeatedly - and left on. It’s up to you to decide what, if any, meaning that has.
Do your own research. Don’t just accept it as fact when a dozen Reddit people say “oh, Hydroquinone is dangerous!”
 

F4U

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2025
Messages
471
Location
Florida
Format
8x10 Format
This is an old thread with apparently new interest. I have a question. Is there any significant difference or advantage in D-76 above the simple D-23 developer, which only requires the 2 simple ingredients? I think D-76 is a great film developer, but for all intents and purposes, D-23 seems to give identical results as far as I can tell.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,832
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
dcy said:
You offered the example of my half frame to say...
Click to expand...
Uhh....I know why I say the things I say. It doesn't make much sense to 'correct' me on my intentions. I also have doubts about your guesstimation of the demographics of shooting half frame and DIY mixing chemistry. AFAIK they're both common practices in the analog domain (and beyond the photographic scope, hobby chemistry is a pretty big field). But let's drop this tangent; the horse is at the water now, the drinking part is not my department.
 

Milpool

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
728
Location
Canada
Format
4x5 Format

You can use D-23 in place of D-76 for all intents and purposes.
 

retina_restoration

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2023
Messages
1,147
Location
Wilammette Valley, Oregon
Format
35mm RF
Tonal Scale & Contrast

Hydroquinone is a contrast-enhancing agent, and is more active in the highlights. Therefore:
  • D-76 generally gives slightly more highlight contrast and a longer tonal scale.
  • D-23, with Metol only, is said to yield softer contrast, especially in highlights.
BUT: This is heavily influenced by dilution, agitation, and film choice.

Sharpness & Grain
  • D-23 is considered a fine grain developer, just like D-76.
  • Any claim that D-76 is “sharper” is probably exaggerated.
  • Some practitioners report sharper acutance with D-23 if used at 1:1 dilution, because the lower activity allows for slightly more edge effect.
Empirical and Anecdotal Evidence

Darkroom Cookbook
(Stephen G. Anchell):

“D-23 is a soft-working developer ideal for pictorial work and enlargements, with slightly lower contrast than D-76, but otherwise gives similar results.”

See also what Kenneth Lee has to say on the subject.

As for personal experience, I can state that when diluted 1:1 (and development time appropriately adjusted), D-23 performs exceptionally well. I recently did a comparison between D-23 @ 1:3 with PMK 1:2:100 and the results were nearly identical, barring the stain.
Several practitioners have stated that D-23 gives more subtle highlight values (a “softer shoulder”) where D-76 can be hard on highlights (risk of blocked highlights). Which develops you choose depends on your work style and intent, but at the point where you’re diluting 1:1, the differences are very subtle.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,945
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
dcy So far I am no nearer that you may be in deciding if using Metol is less hazardous, as hazardous or more hazardous when making developers.

Maybe each of us will have to do our own research as has been suggested or we can wait and hope for more answers Sometimes Photrio replies are like waiting for a bus. At some point one will arrive that is worth getting on

Roger Thornhill didn't get on the bus and just look at what happened to him

pentaxuser
 

retina_restoration

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2023
Messages
1,147
Location
Wilammette Valley, Oregon
Format
35mm RF
Ya know, salt (NaCl) has an LD50* of 3 g/kg of body weight, so I think it would be best if it were handled with nitrile gloves and kept locked up in a chemical safe!

*Lethal Dose that kills 50% of test subjects
 

bluechromis

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
654
Format
35mm
kiemchacsu said:
I know D-23 but by judging the photos online; I found them a bit *dull* which is understandable due to lacking of hydroquinone
and, once mixing it doesnot keep well as long as D-76.
Thats why, I think I will stick to D-76 now.
Click to expand...

Anchel and Troop in The Film Development Cookbook state that undiluted D-23 is virtually indistinguishable from D-76. The fact that there are versions of D-76, like D-76 H, that lack hydroquinone suggests that hydroquinone is not essential to making high-quality negatives.
 

Wolfram Malukker

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 13, 2024
Messages
167
Location
Kentucky USA
Format
35mm
Hydroquinione is a "dangerous chemical" and is "restricted for transport" because of it's toxicity to aquatic life, NOT necessarily human life.

It's because when you spill it into a lake, it kills *everything*. Not because it kills *you*.
 

ags2mikon

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
634
Location
New Mexico
Format
Multi Format
I would like to see a link to a study or research on it's toxicity to aquatic life. I have seen this claim before but I have not seen anything to explain it. I am NOT trying to start a controversy going here.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,832
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
ags2mikon said:
I would like to see a link to a study or research on it's toxicity to aquatic life.
Click to expand...

Hydroquinone: Environmental Pollution, Toxicity, and Microbial Answers - PMC

Hydroquinone is a major benzene metabolite, which is a well-known haematotoxic and carcinogenic agent associated with malignancy in occupational environments. Human exposure to hydroquinone can occur by dietary, occupational, and environmental ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Section 3.1, you can check the references given there. this is just one of many, many publications on the subject. Additional articles are easiky found using e.g. google scholar; there's really plenty of research done on this compound.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dcy

Subscriber
Joined
May 9, 2025
Messages
456
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
35mm
pentaxuser said:
Can I ask what was/were the sources that led you to believe that hydroquinone was a hazard and in what way(s) did you believe those hazard(s) would manifest itself/themselves?
Click to expand...

I cannot remember exactly, but I think it was hearsay and/or misinterpretation on my part. It is entirely possible that a year ago I learned that XTOL was made to be less harmful to the environment than D-76 and over the course of 12 months my brain converted that into a false memory of it being hazardous to humans.
 

Wolfram Malukker

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 13, 2024
Messages
167
Location
Kentucky USA
Format
35mm
I mean, anyone who works with any kind of chemistry should be reading the SDS for it. You never know when an accident may happen and you *need* to know what to do. It will also include information on toxicity, routes of ingress, and safe disposal.

Especially if you have children, pets, or a spouse. Just because you think you know what to do, doesn't mean they know, or that they know the hazards.
 

kiemchacsu

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
22
Format
35mm
kiemchacsu said:
@dcy : you missed my post earlier actually,
I did this solution based on an advice above.
edit: i could answer all of your questions but no need any more as @koraks has stated all. Thank you.

View attachment 402529
Click to expand...
as promised, here's the feedback:
now; after 10 days, the packages still keep well in original condition,
i would say that this 2 packages solution works.
- A: sodium sulfite and borax
- B: developing agents which are metol and hidroquinone
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,649
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format

I've been doing it for years; not so much for economics, but more to make as much as I need when I need it. I bought the raw chemicals several years go, kept them cool and dry, and never noticed any change or deterioration. I keep the stock solution in airtight glass containers and use it 1+1 one shot when needed.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,740
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
kiemchacsu said:
i would say that this 2 packages solution works.
Click to expand...

There's no reason it wouldn't - it's exactly what Ilford has been doing for decades with ID11. However, when you mix D76 from bulk chemicals, you're supposed to add a pinch of sodium sulfite to the water before dissolving the metol. That is to remove oxygen from your water to prevent that oxygen from oxidizing your metol. So, if when you dissolve your small packet the water turns a bit brown, that's the metol oxidizing. I don't know what Ilford does to prevent that - there could be some small amount of something else in their A packet to scavenge oxygen (small enough to not need to be listed on the msds, which only lists metol and hydroquinone).
 

kiemchacsu

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
22
Format
35mm

Thanks for confirmation, even though this seems quite obvious, it’s still took me few testings to find out that.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,832
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Don_ih said:
However, when you mix D76 from bulk chemicals, you're supposed to add a pinch of sodium sulfite to the water before dissolving the metol. That is to remove oxygen from your water to prevent that oxygen from oxidizing your metol.
Click to expand...
So I've read. I've also read that the pinch of sulfite is supposed to help the metol to go into solution. In reality, I never noticed anything in particular when I didn't follow this advice. I think the effect, if it exists, is marginal to the point of insignificant.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,740
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
koraks said:
I think the effect, if it exists, is marginal to the point of insignificant.
Click to expand...

Very significant if you mix phenidone into plain water - it ruins the phenidone immediately.

Hot water may be better - it has less air dissolved in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…