Reading koraks' description, it sounds a bit difficult. I don't feel I have a good sense of where the midtones are; especially under a safe light where it's just really hard to see what's going on.
wearing nitrile gloves or similar PPE is always good practice when handling caustic chemicals.
Of course.I am going to assume that "you" in that sentence is the "generic you" and doesn't refer to me specifically.
Believe me, but see note below about ‘caustic’.I have never seen a YT video where people intentionally dipped their bare hands into caustic chemicals.
Not quite, but I do mean the kind of people who offer advice gratuitously for no obvious reason other than to get “likes” or income. Here on Photrio I believe the main reason people offer advice is out of kindness, because they’ve already learned the hard way.I do not follow any YT channel that I think a typical viewer would consider an "influencer", unless you adopt a definition where any and all YT channels are influencers.
Once compounded, home photography chemicals aren’t really caustic (or corrosive), especially at working strength. The main issues to think about are dermatitis, and contamination of your materials and darkroom.PPE is always good practice when handling caustic chemicals
I use tongs - one for every step - and leave the prints in a tray of water until I'm finished the session, then wash them all.
Same here.
The only time I put gloves on are when bleaching and selenium toning, even if I still use tongs to get the prints in and out of solution.
Is Liquidol the developer that the late P.E. had a hand in devising, if so I thought that was by far the longest lasting one It has been a while since I saw it mentioned but in a variation of this thread I had thought that longevity of several days at least was mentioned?
pentaxuser
I use tongs - one for every step - and leave the prints in a tray of water until I'm finished the session, then wash them all.
Well, to state the obvious, "similar" is not "the same".
Don't forget that, apart tone, the developer is another level of contrast control of your black and white print (i.e., it doesn't end with the contrast filters). D-72 at a 1:1 dilution gives me a bit more contrast than Ansco 130 at the same dilution, and I prefer the depth of the blacks with Ansco 130. I think the glycin in Ansco 130 has something to do with that, but I'm not sure.
Of course, this all also depends on the paper. Fomabrom Variant 112 looks absolutely glorious in Ansco 130, to a point where it doesn't look like a matt surface. I have to work a bit harder under the enlarger to find the right levels of contrast to get Ilford's MGFB paper, glossy and matt, to sing as well in Ansco 130.
It is good practice. No paper developers are caustic, though. Alkaline, yes. So is ramen. So is baking soda.
I use tongs - one for every step - and leave the prints in a tray of water until I'm finished the session, then wash them all.
Not quite, but I do mean the kind of people who offer advice gratuitously for no obvious reason other than to get “likes” or income.
Once compounded, home photography chemicals aren’t really caustic (or corrosive), especially at working strength. The main issues to think about are dermatitis, and contamination of your materials and darkroom.
It does make a difference, warm tone, cold tone, neutral tone. I like Carson Graves, but paper has changed to some degree over the past 32 years. I find that most RC paper needs less time than FB, the emulsion on RC is thinner than on FB, I guess, well Multitone which is a bargain grade paper. I use Multitone for work prints, and with most developers 1 minute seems to work fine, FB different story, 2 to 3 minutes depending on the brand and type. Currently I have Foma FB VC and graded 2 and 3, with Dektol 1:2 2 minutes seems to be right. I use a step wedge with each new box as there might be changes from on run to another. I will retest when I mix up a batch of Clayton. Many say that Amotol developers such as Westons give rich blacks and hold mid tones better than standard developers, some report that they leave prints in the developer for as long as 5 minutes. Ansal Adams used Dektal sometime mixed with Selectal Soft. ILford seems to be the most popular paper, I dont use it much, times for ILford might be differnt from Foma. If one developer was as good as the next then we would all be using Dektol.
Photographers Formulary has stock of liquidol.
Good, once I've use the Clayton will reorder Liquidol.
Liquidol's been discontinued, seems like they cant get ingredients for it to make it, so whatever's out there is pretty much it for now.
Liquidol availability
Liquidol seems to be out of stock everywhere (including the Formulary), and has been for a while. I’ve been printing with Ilford MG instead, and the results are fine, but I’m disappointed in the short tray life. I know there are various alternatives, of course, but I’ve gotten used to Liquidol...www.photrio.com
While in the Air Force before the big change to mostly color we had floating lids. When not in use we kept the lids on no oxidation, for most part we used Detkto or GAF version and could keep a fresh batch of developer in the tray over a weekend. We had 16X20 SS trays.I usually leave my Dektol 1+2 paper developer in an open tray over night when using it on two consecutive days.
There is a small loss of activity on the second day and this shows up as tiny reduction in the blacks and a slightly longer development time. But there is a work-around.
I routinely test strip every negative before printing it full size and the test strip shows me how to compensate for the change in developer activity.
A print that might need 8 seconds of enlarger exposure to develop maximum black on day one might need 9 seconds on day two to allow for the weaker developer. The test strip reveals this.
A print that looks good on contrast grade 2 on day one might ask for grade 2 1/2 on day two. The test strip reveals this.
A print that develops to completion in two minutes on day one might need three minutes on day two. The test strip reveals this.
Are the prints made on day one and day two identical? Probably not going by the second decimal place reading of a reflection densitometer but to the eye I reckon the prints look fine even next to each other.
For RC papers Ilford recommends against prolonged washes (longer than 15 min).
extended soaking isn't recommended by Ilford
I wouldn't even call fixer "hazardous", unless you call a whole bunch of things found around the typical household or garden "hazardous".
The biggest hazard you will encounter with fixer - unless you drink it - is that if any of it gets on your hands/gloves and then gets transferred to your prints you will either end up with the sort of marks you have already encountered.
That and any transfer to a finished print might eventually end with discolouration.
And as for worrying about getting your hands into water, the only concern is that not yet dried hands can result in damage to not yet developed prints, so diligent hand drying is the solution.
I wouldn't even call fixer "hazardous", unless you call a whole bunch of things found around the typical household or garden "hazardous".
I wouldn't even call fixer "hazardous", unless you call a whole bunch of things found around the typical household or garden "hazardous".
The biggest hazard you will encounter with fixer - unless you drink it - is that if any of it gets on your hands/gloves and then gets transferred to your prints you will either end up with the sort of marks you have already encountered.
That and any transfer to a finished print might eventually end with discolouration.
And as for worrying about getting your hands into water, the only concern is that not yet dried hands can result in damage to not yet developed prints, so diligent hand drying is the solution.
I work with bare hands and tongs when print making. Occasionally, especially with larger prints, I have to - gasp! - touch developer, stop, fixer, or toner when moving a wet print around. I do so very surgically and immediately rinse my hands thereafter. I have no known ill effects from this.
I do glove up when handling pyro in open tanks.
Well, the standard here is "should you wear gloves?". I'm sure you've seen people wearing gloves when handling certain household cleaning products.
Both fixers and household bleach, for example, can cause skin and eye irritation, and can even be dangerous if used carelessly.
Fixer is not hazardous. ... Caution does not take the place of being properly informed.
IME Ilford warmtone FB is the exception (among the Ilford papers). I consider it in a class by itself (from Ilford). Having lost Forte, I settled on Foma's superb papers.....but even they are harder to get these days.Well, to state the obvious, "similar" is not "the same".
Don't forget that, apart tone, the developer is another level of contrast control of your black and white print (i.e., it doesn't end with the contrast filters). D-72 at a 1:1 dilution gives me a bit more contrast than Ansco 130 at the same dilution, and I prefer the depth of the blacks with Ansco 130. I think the glycin in Ansco 130 has something to do with that, but I'm not sure.
I haven't tried D-72 at a 1:3 or 1:4 dilution, so I can't say if it would get me closer to Ansco 130.
Of course, this all also depends on the paper. Fomabrom Variant 112 looks absolutely glorious in Ansco 130, to a point where it doesn't look like a matt surface. I have to work a bit harder under the enlarger to find the right levels of contrast to get Ilford's MGFB paper, glossy and matt, to sing as well in Ansco 130.
The difference is even more striking when using warmtone papers.
But I recommend gloves now, because over the years I have encountered a small number of people who developed a sensitivity to the chemicals, and I try to help others avoid that.
It is possible and in fact easy, with good habits and while exercising reasonable care, to safely work without gloves. But as commonly available gloves are now much easier to use and much less expensive than they once were, I recommend them instead.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?