Is food grade chemistry OK for use for photography?

Sirius Glass · May 13, 2009

Gadget Gainer,

Why don't you set up a website dedicated to high risk, low yield photography on the cheap?

Steve

gainer · May 14, 2009

Because that is not my aim in photographic life, and never has been. When I went to work as an aeronautical research engineer for NACA in 1952, we were taught to filter out the hogwash when we read reports, and to leave it out when we wrote them. My learning began when I graduated from WVU. It has never ended. The thing one should learn in formal education is how to learn. If you don't, you are stuck in a rut.

Kirk Keyes · May 14, 2009

Re: Borax -

I believe the main concern is not the actual assay (% borax content) in any particular grade of borax. The concern is the presense or absence of other unwanted constituents, especially undissolved solids.

Photo Engineer · May 14, 2009

gainer said:
Because that is not my aim in photographic life, and never has been. When I went to work as an aeronautical research engineer for NACA in 1952, we were taught to filter out the hogwash when we read reports, and to leave it out when we wrote them. My learning began when I graduated from WVU. It has never ended. The thing one should learn in formal education is how to learn. If you don't, you are stuck in a rut.

You have actually become a proponent of substandard "on the cheap" photography and you will not change that position here. You have admitted to getting cloudy developers with a suspension in them that cannot be filtered out, but only when I pressed you on the matter.

You can get Calcium salts in Borax which do much the same as starch in Vitamin C.

So, for every dollar spent on buying these on the cheap chemicals, reptuable companies go without sales and soon they will begin suffering if they are not suffering already by the current economy.

I really don't want to leave that kind of legacy behind Patrick. I want analog photos to have high quality now and in the future, I don't want to see a deterioration in quality due to marginal advice, nor do I wish to see the potential for accidents in any instructions that I may give out.

Sorry.

PE

Sirius Glass · May 14, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
I really don't want to leave that kind of legacy behind Patrick. I want analog photos to have high quality now and in the future, I don't want to see a deterioration in quality due to marginal advice, nor do I wish to see the potential for accidents in any instructions that I may give out.

Well, at least one person can see through the chaff. Well said.

Steve

gainer · May 14, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
You have actually become a proponent of substandard "on the cheap" photography and you will not change that position here. You have admitted to getting cloudy developers with a suspension in them that cannot be filtered out, but only when I pressed you on the matter.

You can get Calcium salts in Borax which do much the same as starch in Vitamin C.

So, for every dollar spent on buying these on the cheap chemicals, reptuable companies go without sales and soon they will begin suffering if they are not suffering already by the current economy.

I really don't want to leave that kind of legacy behind Patrick. I want analog photos to have high quality now and in the future, I don't want to see a deterioration in quality due to marginal advice, nor do I wish to see the potential for accidents in any instructions that I may give out.

Sorry.

PE

If you were sorry, you would tell the truth. I reported the cloudy solution obtained with vitamin C tablets in the very first article I wrote about the subject, in 1998 IIRC. I did NOT recommend their use, but I did say that I saw no evidence of damage to negatives. I have already described how to reduce soluble impurities in borax and wind up with a standardized solution that is more consistent in weight of sodium tetraborate per unit volume than the analytical reagent dry borax is per unit weight. I have a feeling I have been doing high quality photography at least as long as you have been doing chemistry. Some of my photographs from my days as Principal Oboist of the Norfolk Symphony have been and may still be in the Chrysler Museum in Norfolk, VA.

gainer · May 14, 2009

gainer said:
If you were sorry, you would tell the truth. I reported the cloudy solution obtained with vitamin C tablets in the very first article I wrote about the subject, in 1998 IIRC.

That article was in "Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques" in 1994. If you really want to see what I "Preach" you can find the article reprinted verbatim at www.unblinkingeye.com.

gainer · May 14, 2009

Kirk Keyes said:
Re: Borax -

I believe the main concern is not the actual assay (% borax content) in any particular grade of borax. The concern is the presense or absence of other unwanted constituents, especially undissolved solids.

Have you ever seen undissolved solids in a Mule Crap solution that were not just the result of exceeding saturation?

Photo Engineer · May 14, 2009

I said that you admitted it HERE which is a far cry from a previous article that many had not read. Prior to admitting it here, you made statements dismissive of this possible problem, with no countering proofs and there still is no reliable evidence that this will or will not work (but see the following).

You said that the colloid was unfilterable which is my experience as well, and we have seen problems with tests like that at Kodak regardless of what you say with some simple observations.

Imagine a 10 micron unfilterable colloid in your developer, ending up trapped in your film. These particles are as large as some detail in 35mm format. In LF or MF they may be invisible but can appear as grain in small formats and may be misinterpreted as such as well. So, if you see grainy film, it may be caused by "grainy developer".

I really don't wish to follow the preachings of a false religion. And, I don't wish to advise others to do so. Sorry.

I would like to add as an afterthought that if your advice does harm to the reputable distributors of photochemicals as people rush to economize with cheap equivalents using your advice, you will have done a huge disservice to analog photography. I would liken it to a stab in the back from what seems to be a friend. Think carefully on this please, I urge you!

PE

Photo Engineer · May 14, 2009

gainer said:
Have you ever seen undissolved solids in a Mule Crap solution that were not just the result of exceeding saturation?

Actually, I have seen it in good borax with bad water or bad borax with good water. It is usually due to metal salt impurities. I never use either the cheap borax or bad water, but I have tested both. See my last post.

PE

Jon King · May 14, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
... but it is one like the speeder who can get away with speeding "almost all of the time". <snip>

Sometimes you get a speeding ticket.

PE

I have read, over the years, countless detailed arguments back and forth over this topic. PE, you've summed it up perfectly with that statement.

To push the analogy further, each person needs to determine the value of the time(cheap chemicals) saved by speeding and weigh that against the cost of the ticket(negatives/pictures with problems).

In the interests of full disclosure, I've used both approaches. For film developers I used either pre-mixed chemicals or mix up with 'good' chemicals. I've mixed up print developers with some 20-Mule borax, with no problems yet, but the cost of a print problem is far less than a negative problem. My choice, my savings or problem.

gainer · May 14, 2009

No one on this forum has made any comments on my suggestion to purify borax by saturating a solution at high temperature and decanting the liquid at a coller than normal temperature. You should lecture me on what happens to the colloidal particles each time this process is repeated?Do they get carried off with the decanted liquid along with the normally soluble impurities or not? Maybe I have been lucky. Over the 30 odd years I have been using 29 Mule Team Borax in photography I have seen no errors that were not due to my faulty exposure or temperature measurement or lack thereof.

It looks to me as if the sellers of photo grade borax would profit, not lose, if they could be convinced that a lesser grade would work as well. The American National Standard for Photography chemicals requires 101% minimum and 105% maximum Sodium Tetraborate, either pentahydrate or decahydrate, 0.002% maximum heavy metals, 0.003% iron, carbonate, reaction to Ammoniacal Silver Nitrate, and appearance of solution to pass individual tests as specified in the document.
The test for appearance is interesting. "A solution containing 50 grams of the sample per liter of water shall be clear at the end of 1 hour. A slight flocculence or coloration may be neglected." What would cause such flocculence or coloration? I have not seen either in Mule Crap after the first recrystallization and decantation.
I have not seen the results of an analysis of the Mule Excrement such as that described in the American National Standard document. The appearance test is the only one I can do easily.

Sirius Glass · May 14, 2009

Gadget Gainer,

So let me get this straight. Because the producers of Borax will not do what you want done so that you can save $10 by avoiding Kodak or Ilford products and measuring the chemicals yourself, you are saying that you want us to use your processes and spend $25,000 each for laboratory equipment to fix a problem that would be avoided by spending $10 for Kodak or Ilford products?

I get better logic out of 10 year olds.

Steve

alanrockwood · May 14, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
... you want us to use your processes and spend $25,000 each for laboratory equipment to fix a problem that would be avoided by spending $10 for Kodak or Ilford products?

$25,000?

You are joking of course!

Photo Engineer · May 14, 2009

It strikes me as if you are avoiding the issue of what it will do to the sources of photograde chemistry that we use. If we buy from the supermarket and pool store, then what happens to Artcraft, B&H and The Photographers Formulary to name 3?

They suffer and if they go, where do we get the HQ, Metol, Dimezone and etc? Are you all going to go to Vitamin C tablets and coffee?

PE

gainer · May 14, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
Gadget Gainer,

So let me get this straight. Because the producers of Borax will not do what you want done so that you can save $10 by avoiding Kodak or Ilford products and measuring the chemicals yourself, you are saying that you want us to use your processes and spend $25,000 each for laboratory equipment to fix a problem that would be avoided by spending $10 for Kodak or Ilford products?

I get better logic out of 10 year olds.

Steve

I got you beat on that one. I get better logic than yours out of my 2 year old great grand daughter. The only thing I have that cost as much as 25K is my house. My process uses a couple of Pyrex measuring pitchers and a microwave oven. Where in the netherworld did you get that 25000 number? And how much does 5 lbs of this ultra pure borax cost from Kodak or Ilford? Do we have the specs that guarantee it to be any better than what I can get at the grocery store? If you know them, please post them.

Where is the logic that proves I would put suppliers of photo chemicals out of business if I got everyone to use Mule Excrement borax? And when did I urge or even approve in APUG the use of Vitamin C tablets or capsules in developers?

Kirk Keyes · May 15, 2009

Perhaps we can stay a little on topic - is food grade suitable or not?

I have a Food Chemicals Index, 3rd Ed. from the early 1980s, and at that time, borax is not listed and there is would not be a "food grade" borax. (This is not surprising as borax is toxic and not used in foods (except in some historically traditional methods, like for Virginia-style ham)).So all this discussion of borax is a bit off topic.

As I have said earlier, for most of the compounds that are available as food grade and are also useful in photographic applications, there is typically no specification for undissolved solids. As PE mentioned above, that can be a big concern. As these chemicals are prepared by a wide range of methods (some from plant products, some from evaporite deposits, some from other sources), they may or may not be suitable.

Sirius Glass · May 15, 2009

alanrockwood said:
$25,000?

You are joking of course!

You got the point that I am making. Some times one must exaggerate to get the idea across. [It is called hyperbole.]

Steve

Sirius Glass · May 15, 2009

gainer said:
I got you beat on that one. I get better logic than yours out of my 2 year old great grand daughter. The only thing I have that cost as much as 25K is my house. My process uses a couple of Pyrex measuring pitchers and a microwave oven. Where in the netherworld did you get that 25000 number? And how much does 5 lbs of this ultra pure borax cost from Kodak or Ilford? Do we have the specs that guarantee it to be any better than what I can get at the grocery store? If you know them, please post them.

You loose! You have not passed peer review here or any other review here with your chemistry on the cheapl

You are unable to see that you are trying to rationalize an irrational idea that you can save money on chemistry by spending much more on getting unwanted suspended particles out the solutions. If you are looking to save money, at least be rational enough to take a stand that is defensible.

Instead you are promoting ideas which could cause problems for the guests and members who are just learning about the darkroom. When you get caught about not making proper disclosures, it takes days and multiple post to get you to admit to it.

gainer said:
Where is the logic that proves I would put suppliers of photo chemicals out of business if I got everyone to use Mule Excrement borax? And when did I urge or even approve in APUG the use of Vitamin C tablets or capsules in developers?

I never brought up the subject of "Mule Excrement", but it appears that someone is full of it and it is not me!

Steve

Photo Engineer · May 15, 2009

Regarding photo suppliers, people buy carbonate, borax, Metol and HQ among others. Some, such as the alkalis are bought in bulk and the others in much smaller quantities. It would be foolish to assume that Artcraft, B&S and the Photographers Formulary could exist selling only small bottles of developing agent. They must sell a well rounded group of photo chemicals or their profit will drop. I would imagine that if those who mix their own brews bought only the developing agents from such companies, these companies could suffer up to a 50% loss in sales.

Do you want that as an unthinking and unintended byproduct of your advice Patrick?

So, education is not enough for one to look at the consequences of ones actions and words. I have learned this well here on APUG. One must also gain wisdom. You are "fighting" for a position, but I am "fighting" for a future that I hope will outlive me.

As for being vetted, I have been well vetted at EK. If you think anyone can pubish there without lots of peer review, you are out of your mind! I have served as both the writer and editor in publication. The internet requires none. We get what we deserve, I guess.

PE

Sirius Glass · May 15, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Regarding photo suppliers, people buy carbonate, borax, Metol and HQ among others. Some, such as the alkalis are bought in bulk and the others in much smaller quantities. It would be foolish to assume that Artcraft, B&S and the Photographers Formulary could exist selling only small bottles of developing agent. They must sell a well rounded group of photo chemicals or their profit will drop. I would imagine that if those who mix their own brews bought only the developing agents from such companies, these companies could suffer up to a 50% loss in sales.

Do you want that as an unthinking and unintended byproduct of your advice Patrick?

So, education is not enough for one to look at the consequences of ones actions and words. I have learned this well here on APUG. One must also gain wisdom. You are "fighting" for a position, but I am "fighting" for a future that I hope will outlive me.

As for being vetted, I have been well vetted at EK. If you think anyone can pubish there without lots of peer review, you are out of your mind! I have served as both the writer and editor in publication. The internet requires none. We get what we deserve, I guess.

PE

Good advise, PE, but perhaps we should encourage him to go into the photochemical business and let him prove to the market that he knows better.

Steve

gainer · May 15, 2009

OK, just tell me where to buy Kodak or Ilford borax or sodium tetraborate decahydrate. I will not travel any farther than 50 miles for it, so it will have to be done by mail or the net. And don't tell me I'm stupid for not being able to find it on either Kodak's photo chemicals list or Ilfords unless you are able to show me exactly where it is listed. Furthermore, the product I buy, if indeed I am able to find it, must have documentation showing that it meets the American National Standard for photographic grade borax. I know I can get borax from the Formulary. Do you know its specs? If you do not, you might be well advised to use the method of saturation and recrystallization to better your chances of getting what you think you have bought.

sanking · May 15, 2009

Just curious. What "food grade chemistry" used for photographic purposes is edible? I just can not imagine chowing down to a bowl of borax, sodium sulfite, or one of the hydroxides, with or without radical particles.

Sandy King

Photo Engineer · May 15, 2009

Sandy, every time you have a drink of wine, you probably have some food grade sodium sulifte. There are food grade carbonates and bicarbonates and these are not often checked for Calcium, but are checked for Arsenic, Lead and other ingredients such as other heavy metals. Photo grade might be checked for Iron and Cadmium as an example.

Patrick, Kodak sold Borax, Bromide and Carbonate and use them yet in their own chemicals within the plant. The prepared Kodak mixes use approved photograde. The Formulary Ammonium Thiosulfate is the same as what Kodak uses and many of their chemicals are of the highest purity. The drums are marked photograde.

In general, photo grade materials also include checks for insoluable matter, but food grade materials may not as long as the insoluables do not contain any of the harmful heavy metals and other items such as this.

Oh, and Patrick, if you want to get Kodak grade chemicals, try the Photographers Formulary.

PE

gainer · May 15, 2009

sanking said:
Just curious. What "food grade chemistry" used for photographic purposes is edible? I just can not imagine chowing down to a bowl of borax, sodium sulfite, or one of the hydroxides, with or without radical particles.

Sandy King

I agree, but somebody at the beginning of this thread thought anything you buy at the grocery store was Food Grade. 20 Mule Team Borax comes in Technical grade, European Pharmacopeia grade, National Formulary grade, and Special Quality grade. Maxim Muir once stated as fact that the grade Kodak charged $8 a pound for is the very same thing that the grocery store sells now for less than a dollar a pound. There are very good reasons, if you are a stickler for purity and accuracy of measurement, for making a standard solution and storing it at a temperature somewhat higher than its saturation point. This is true even if your dry borax is absolutely nothing but sodium tetraborate and water of crystallization because there are two crystal states that can vary with humidity. Its pretty hard to weigh out a precise amount of borax without exposing what you are weighing to the local humidity. So I am getting chewed out for trying to assure the quality and quantity of what goes into my developer because it will put the suppliers of photo chemicals out of business if I don't buy their merhandise. I am accused of being highly unorthodox since many years ago. You and I know that is true because we are, I think, kindred spirits.

Oh. well.

Is food grade chemistry OK for use for photography?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency