Is food grade chemistry OK for use for photography?

sanking · May 15, 2009

Yes, I am aware of some chemicals in the things I eat. I drink a fair amount of wine so I see sodium sulfite a lot. And I also know about the carbonates and bicarbonates.

But exactly what is photo grade? Is there an ANSI standard that is followed by chemical manufacturers? Or is this something specific to a company like Kodak that establishes a company standard. I have seen labels such a "technical grade", "APS" grande and practical grade, but have no idea what standards are used. And I have even seen what is called a practical grade, which Steve Anchell wrote in one of his books is good for most photographic applications, and I definitely recall that Steve somewhere in one of his books suggested buying borax from the grocery store. I would wager that Steve makes a hell of a lot more money than Gainer from his advice since he sell a lot of books. Perhaps you fellows should be all over his ass about this as well since I would suspect that his impact on where people buy their chemicals is a lot greater than that of Gadget.

Sandy

Photo Engineer said:
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

richard ide · May 16, 2009

Hard to believe that this thread is still alive! So it looks like I should spend an unknown length of time pharting around with a chemical of unknown purity (photographically speaking) so that I can save maybe $7 on a pound of borax. Unbelievable!!
There are purity specifications for photographic chemicals. American National Standard Specifications.
PH4.xxx etc. Purity of which is such that contaminants which can cause anomalies in photographic processes are in such reduced quantity as to pose no danger. Chemistry was one of my smallest expenses even when I was buying $75k per year of photographic products. Even at that time; I would not even consider trying to save money on chemicals in that fashion. If there was a problem - what caused it? As I said before. It is not worth the risk to my film and paper.

Sirius Glass · May 16, 2009

When one uses products from Kodak, Ilford, ... they are buying consistancy and convenience.

When one mixes from reagents, [and I might start doing that] they are looking for control and the simulation of working with the chemistry and building the chemisty.

When on goes beyond reagents and starts using off the grocery shelf items, they are doing it for the adventure to see what they can discover on their own. They are moving further away from consistancy and possibly adding to the risk factors.

Choose what you want to do, but when one want to gain converts, a full disclosure and a vetting process is in order.

Steve

sanking · May 16, 2009

The reason I joined this thread was because of the suggestion that Gainers use of grocery store chemicals might lead to the demise of stores that supply photographic grade chemicals. As I see it, Gainer does his experiments, reports them here, or in magazines, and people are free then to do as they please. Some of the experiments he has reported have been useful to me, other stuff I ignore as I see fit.

What some appear to forget is that the great majority of persons on this list are hobbyist who enjoy experimentation. I don't buy my chemicals at the grocery store, or promote doing so. I also would not dream of develeoping film in coffee or tea. However, if there are those who want to do these things they have every right to do so, and to write about it if they choose.

People who make their living from photography are not going to waste their time with grocery store chemistry, outdated film and paper, or second rate cameras. But if others want to do that what is wrong with them doing so?

The key is to have enough common sense and intelligence to know what works and what does not work, to understand the risks. But rest assured that the world of photography will not come crashing down if a few people buy Mule Team Borax at the grocery store. So let's go easy on the exaggerated outrage.

Sandy King

Sirius Glass said:
Choose what you want to do, but when one want to gain converts, a full disclosure and a vetting process is in order.

Steve

Photo Engineer · May 16, 2009

Experiment all you wish, but I suggest that you do not trust your serious photographs to grocery store or swimming pool chemistry. I love to experiment, and grocery store chemistry is an inexpensive way to make a trial run of something that might otherwise be a bit more expensive, but the results are discarded eventually, and I am trained to look for the defects caused by the experiment and those caused by the potentially substandard chemistry.

Most here are not trained that way. I would go so far as to say none are trained that way.

Photo grade chemistry is especially low on insoluable salts, chemcials that may cause insoluable salts, and heavy metals! Thsi is just for starters. Halides are strongly segregated, so that there is no bromide in chloride and no iodide in chloride. All caking prevention items, prevelant in food grades, are forbidden in photographic grade chemistry. This includes silicates and others.

That about summarizes things.

PE

gainer · May 16, 2009

Let me reiterate. My motive is not cost, unless you add in the cost of travel or of waiting for delivery. I cannot buy photo grade borax locally, nor within 100 miles of where I live. So far as I can tell from a thorough search, Kodak does not sell borax, and probably wisely so, since there are several other sources. Dial (20 Mule Team) can provide the NF grade, which seems to be slightly better than Photo grade, and I could get from them a 25 kg bag, which I might be able to use if I live another 82 years. The grocery store that is 10 miles away has 20 Mule Team borax. I do not have to wait, sometimes as long as 2 weeks, for delivery. I have been using it in D-76 and similar developers for years. I described a method of removing soluble impurities 90% at a time, at the same time making a standard solution that is not susceptible to variation due to the unknown mixture of penta- and decahydrates. If I cold not get that borax, I would probably contrive a way not to use borax for my purpose. In fact, I have already contrived and published several ways. Why are these alternatives not just as threatening to suppliers of "Photo Grade" borax?

Photo Engineer · May 16, 2009

Patrick;

I too live very far from chemical supply houses, and cannot buy from most of them. I buy from the reputable suppliers of chemistry on the internet. And, I wait for shipment.

There is absolutely no evidence that grocery store chemicals of any sort are equal to or better than photo grade chemicals and unless you have the training to prove this, I don't think we will get any solid proof. The methods you suggest are best used by those wanting a quick and dirty test of non-valued photos.

Every pound of chemistry bought elsewhere than from a photochemical supplier is threatening as it reduces the revenues of the reputable photochemical suppliers by the amount of your purchase from a grocery or pool store. If you cannot understand that you have a serious problem. I cannot understand at this point why you cannot grasp the simple fact of what you are saying, as others have gotten it!

PE

wogster · May 16, 2009

gainer said:
Let me reiterate. My motive is not cost, unless you add in the cost of travel or of waiting for delivery. I cannot buy photo grade borax locally, nor within 100 miles of where I live. So far as I can tell from a thorough search, Kodak does not sell borax, and probably wisely so, since there are several other sources. Dial (20 Mule Team) can provide the NF grade, which seems to be slightly better than Photo grade, and I could get from them a 25 kg bag, which I might be able to use if I live another 82 years. The grocery store that is 10 miles away has 20 Mule Team borax. I do not have to wait, sometimes as long as 2 weeks, for delivery. I have been using it in D-76 and similar developers for years. I described a method of removing soluble impurities 90% at a time, at the same time making a standard solution that is not susceptible to variation due to the unknown mixture of penta- and decahydrates. If I cold not get that borax, I would probably contrive a way not to use borax for my purpose. In fact, I have already contrived and published several ways. Why are these alternatives not just as threatening to suppliers of "Photo Grade" borax?

You know, you and Ron seem to have backed into your respective corners and neither one seems ready to budge on the issue.

Let me try and break the standoff, for some chemicals household versions available from grocery stores may be acceptable, others may not be, any changes in chemistry must be considered experimental and must be tested before being used for images that are important or critical. Sometimes the experiment will be successful, sometime it will be a failure. So mix up that batch of home brew D76 using 20 mule team borax. Now go shoot a couple of rolls of the cat sleeping or the dog acting goofy, and run those your home brew first.

Photo Engineer · May 16, 2009

wogster said:
You know, you and Ron seem to have backed into your respective corners and neither one seems ready to budge on the issue.

Let me try and break the standoff, for some chemicals household versions available from grocery stores may be acceptable, others may not be, any changes in chemistry must be considered experimental and must be tested before being used for images that are important or critical. Sometimes the experiment will be successful, sometime it will be a failure. So mix up that batch of home brew D76 using 20 mule team borax. Now go shoot a couple of rolls of the cat sleeping or the dog acting goofy, and run those your home brew first.

You must have missed several of my posts.

I agree with you to an extent in that you can run simple tests with this chemistry, but in some cases, you can run into a "gotcha" with cheap chemistry and ruin your photos. You may not even be aware of the source of the problem as the developer or fixer may have been ok 9 times before.

See my analogy to the speeder. Someday you will be nailed by your chemistry if it is not up to par.

PE

alanrockwood · May 16, 2009

Just for fun and to play devils advocate, or to stir the pot, or whetever, let me mention something. Photo grade chemicals are not always all they are cracked up to be either. Consider, for example, the famous XTOL sudden death syndrome.

gainer · May 16, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
You must have missed several of my posts.

I agree with you to an extent in that you can run simple tests with this chemistry, but in some cases, you can run into a "gotcha" with cheap chemistry and ruin your photos. You may not even be aware of the source of the problem as the developer or fixer may have been ok 9 times before.

See my analogy to the speeder. Someday you will be nailed by your chemistry if it is not up to par.

PE

Enough already! You have the apparatus, knowledge, and probably the chemicals on hand to disprove my point, which simply put is that the borax from the supermarket is either suitable for making such developers as D-76 or can be made so by a simple crystallization, but you will not do it. I have neither the analytical chemicals nor the proper equipment to do the analysis, But I think I know more about the purity of my borax than you do. You have not commented at all on the random errors in measurement of borax caused by weighing even the highest grade in the presence of air.

jim appleyard · May 16, 2009

I wish this would end...

Photo Engineer · May 16, 2009

Alan;

Your comment on XTOL is a non-sequitur here. The problem was unrelated to chemical purity.

Patrick;

Why should I take time away from emulsion making to do experiments I did nearly 40 years ago when I converted Some developers from borate to carbonate? Why should I prove something is wrong that will require complex and extensive testing?

Why should I do something that will never convince you?

But more importantly, why should I be on the defensive?

PE

Photo Engineer · May 16, 2009

jim appleyard said:
I wish this would end...

So do I. Believe me!

PE

cinejerk · May 16, 2009

So....... at what temperature does sodium bicarbonate transform into sodium carbonate?

jim appleyard · May 16, 2009

cinejerk said:
So....... at what temperature does sodium bicarbonate transform into sodium carbonate?

What grade of sodium bicarb??? We really need to know!

cinejerk · May 16, 2009

food grade. Of course !!

alanrockwood · May 16, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Alan;

Your comment on XTOL is a non-sequitur here. The problem was unrelated to chemical purity.

PE

Please expound.

alanrockwood · May 16, 2009

gainer said:
You have not commented at all on the random errors in measurement of borax caused by weighing even the highest grade in the presence of air.

Patrick,

I think I understand a little bit of what is going on in the discussion about borax.

If I understand it, you are largely concerned about the degree of hydration. This is one form of purity, which in simple terms would translate into variations in concentrations of solutions.

Others are here talking about other purity issues, such as other impurities other than water that may have bad effects on photographic processes.

It seems like to some degree people are not even having the same conversation. I think the common term is "talking past each other."

Photo Engineer · May 16, 2009

Alan;

XTOL had (has) 2 problems. Ascorbate based developers are subject to sudden death due to water quality. Sometimes, any ascorbate developer may fail if the water has high metal salt content. In addition to that, Kodak had a packaging problem with the initial offering of XTOL which caused it to spoil on the shelf with long term keeping. This was quickly solved with a new package. It had nothing to do with chemical purity of the ingredients in the developer.

In addition, Patrick, Kirk and I are all on the same page talking about impurities or potential impurities in cheap versions of any chemical, but borax has been the main topic. It is not about water of hydration although that does enter into it peripherally. You can see this in Patrick's comments on purifying borax and the following comments on cloudy developers from included calcium and other metal salts.

PE

alanrockwood · May 16, 2009

A comment about distribution of products in specialized markets.

Paying more for something may or may not result in receiving a better product. I will mention two examples where it does not result in a better product.

The first is bottled drinking water. In most cases bottled water is no better than tap water. In fact, some brands of bottled water are simply repackaged tap water. (There are exceptions. Some tap waters are terrible, such as the water in the town where I live, and some brands of bottled water really do have something that distinguishes them from ordinary tap water.)

The other is electronic parts. I once worked for a scientific instrument company. We would sell replacement parts, some of which were standard off the shelf components, such as TTL chips. Our price for a plain vanilla TTL chip was $50. (That's dollars, not cents.) These were not specially selected parts, but plain old run of the mill TTL chips. You could buy the exact same product from electronic suppliers for around $1 per chip, plus or minus a factor of two, depending on where you bought them.

These two examples are clear examples of where you can pay more for a product that does not have superior specifications or performance, all depending on your supplier.

Does this apply to photographic grade chemicals? I'll tell you truthfully, I don't know. However, I would hazard a guess that the markup on chemicals obtained through photographic distributors (photo stores, or whatever) is much higher than the markup on chemicals from commodity suppliers (like grocery stores.) This probably largely accounts for price differences.

As to whether there is a quality difference, I would be open to being convinced in either direction. I do not know if Kodak or other suppliers of photographic chemicals have specifications and testing programs that make their products superior (for the purposes of photographic usage) to commodity versions of the same chemicals. I hear a lot of speculation in the discussions here, on both sides of the debate, but I don't recall reading much in the way of real evidence.

alanrockwood · May 16, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Alan;

... In addition to that, Kodak had a packaging problem with the initial offering of XTOL which caused it to spoil on the shelf with long term keeping...

PE

Here we are in a borderline situation, depending on whether packaging problems that lead to product failure due to chemical degradation should be termed a "purity" issue or not. It may not be a purity issue at the moment of packaging, but it would be a purity issue at the moment of use.

On the other issue (which I didn't include in the quote) of metal ions in the water leading to product failure, it is my understanding that what is known in the public domain provides only partial support for that theory. I am basing this on anecdotal reports of users who have used high quality water but still had unexplained product failure, sometimes happening so suddenly that a solution that was fine on one day fails a few days later.

However, I have no doubt that Kodak has a lot of knowledge about XTOL that is not publicly disclosed (trade secrets), so there is probably more to the story than we hear in places like APUG.

MattKing · May 16, 2009

This would be a much less fractious thread if it was headed with something like:

"When is food grade chemistry OK for use for photography, and how can you test to make sure?

Matt

Kirk Keyes · May 17, 2009

MattKing said:
"When is food grade chemistry OK for use for photography, and how can you test to make sure?

That really is the big question.

And the tests are generally not very complex for most of the tests. The catch there is finding a copy of the actual specifications that are used. Go to www.iso.org and search for what you are interested in.
http://www.iso.org/iso/search.htm?qt=10349&sort=rel&type=simple&published=on
They can be bought, online, for about 40-60 Swiss Francs or so for each test in question. I have one at home (I'm about 600 miles away right now from there) for photographic grade borax. I'm pretty sure Patrick has a copy of the specification as well. Perhaps Pat would be willing to test his 20 Mule Team and let us know if that box of borax does pass the specifications for photo grade borax.

If you don't want to spend that money one standards or have the time to do the testing yourself, let someone else do it for you and buy photo grade.

Ray Rogers · May 17, 2009

Perhaps... a better idea would be to pass this discussion on to 20 mule tech team and encourage them to certify their product... they could afford to increase their sales I would guess....

Of course, that would be a (potential) blow to Pat's position,
if they, after serious review, said it was not possible.

On the other hand, if they did offer it as photo grade,
what would the opposition say then?

Anyway, the argument that something MIGHT go wrong is a wild card that each player holds in his hand, whether he realizes it or not.

Kirk Keyes said:
That really is the big question.

And the tests are generally not very complex for most of the tests. The catch there is finding a copy of the actual specifications that are used. Go to www.iso.org and search for what you are interested in.
http://www.iso.org/iso/search.htm?qt=10349&sort=rel&type=simple&published=on
They can be bought, online, for about 40-60 Swiss Francs or so for each test in question. I have one at home (I'm about 600 miles away right now from there) for photographic grade borax. I'm pretty sure Patrick has a copy of the specification as well. Perhaps Pat would be willing to test his 20 Mule Team and let us know if that box of borax does pass the specifications for photo grade borax.

If you don't want to spend that money one standards or have the time to do the testing yourself, let someone else do it for you and buy photo grade.

Is food grade chemistry OK for use for photography?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency