• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Is Xtol Significantly Safer Than D-76?

Tom1956

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
1,989
Location
US
Format
Large Format
Sounds like we've got a Felix Unger in the chatroom.
 

Xmas

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
I work with the tank or trays in the bath leaning over the edge of bath on knees.

Same when weighing out chemicals even the phenodines are not that nice.

If there is a spill the dilution before the water treatment plant is large. Rinse out bath and wipe down with rag.

Be different with a septic tank.
 

BradS

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
8,130
Location
Soulsbyville, California
Format
35mm
.....I've been a chemist for 20 years...

If you are a chemist, why don't you read the MSDS for each of these products and draw your own conclusions? :confused:
 

Tom1956

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
1,989
Location
US
Format
Large Format
Rattymouse, you're an OK guy over there in China. I enjoy seeing your name next to a post. Listen friend, I'm a printer. A printer of chemical company labels and welding supply labels. The only credibility I lay claim to in answering your questions is from a standpoint of a fellow who has to print text as long and tedious as War and Peace, on very small labels, concerning safety precautions. But that's the way law is.
The point is, that Eastman Kodak for instance, is bound by the same law as anybody else to have to print all that safety nonsense, if their chemistry was a nasty poison, do you see any print on the package like that? Just enjoy your photography, life is short.
 
OP
OP

RattyMouse

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format
If you are a chemist, why don't you read the MSDS for each of these products and draw your own conclusions? :confused:

Good point. I was thinking more of individual chemicals rather than the complete formulation. I should step back and read the safety sheets ASAP.
 

Jaf-Photo

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
495
Format
Medium Format
Hmm... HC-110 is far more toxic than D76 and is far more dangerous in concentrate form. It's actually poison. The possible benefit is that it may be easier to keep the small bottle of concentrate away from your children, compared to a gallon of stock solution.

Comparing photochemicals to household cleaning products is a bit like apples vs pears. Neither of them are particularly healthy if you drink or bathe in them. But cleaning products are generally not carcinogenic and are reasonably harmless to pour down the drain.

Again, XTOL will give you sharp negatives, with fine grain and good tonality. If stored properly it will keep as well as D76. It is relatively harmless. What's not to like?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP

RattyMouse

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format

Yes, the MSDS for both parts of XTOL read much better than for D-76 and HC-110. The only downside I can see to XTOL is that I have to get a 5 liter container to make the solution. I think 4 liters is as large as I have right now.
 
OP
OP

RattyMouse

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format

I just don't get why you call safety information nonsense. Virtually every piece of information contained on an MSDS is backed up by data. No one is guessing that a chemical is bad for you without *SOME* data of some kind.

Thanks for the kind words.
 

Xmas

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF

Borax is not available as a wash aid here any more, I need to buy it as a hazchm for photo use.
 

Jaf-Photo

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
495
Format
Medium Format
Yes, the MSDS for both parts of XTOL read much better than for D-76 and HC-110. The only downside I can see to XTOL is that I have to get a 5 liter container to make the solution. I think 4 liters is as large as I have right now.



Actually, it's better to keep an XTOL batch in several smaller bottles than one large one. That way you can fill them to the top to avoid air exposure, and use them up one at a time. I use brown glass bottles, but you could use plastic water bottles etc.

All you need apart from that is a bucket for mixing (which you'll need anyway).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Neal

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
2,029
Location
Chicago, West Suburbs
Format
Multi Format
Dear RattyMouse,

I picked up a cheap bucket at the local home center for less than $5 that I use for mixing. After mixing Xtol, I pour it into individual 8oz bottles that I then put back in the bucket for storage. The empties go in a cardboard box until it's time to mix the next batch.

Neal Wydra
 

CropDusterMan

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 7, 2014
Messages
711
Location
Southern Cal
Format
35mm RF
Ultimately, all photo chemicals, when used according to the label directions, are safe. It's safe work
habits during processing and handling that make them safe to use...I have used PMK for years and
never had a drop on me.

Jason
 

BradS

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
8,130
Location
Soulsbyville, California
Format
35mm
Borax is not available as a wash aid here any more, I need to buy it as a hazchm for photo use.

Borax is still available in the laundry detergent aisle of the supermarket here.
 

Jaf-Photo

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
495
Format
Medium Format
Sure, but ad I interpreted the OP, he would be storing and using the chems in the communal areas of a family home. In that case I think it's sensible to opt for the least toxic stuff.
 

Sal Santamaura

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
7,535
Location
San Clemente, California
Format
Multi Format
...I do think that fumes are a concern as well as spills. If, god forbid, a 1 gallon container of D-76 were to spill in my house, it would spread over an ENORMOUS amount of area. Area that my kids play in every day...
You are a parent concerned about risk to your children. As such, a balanced perspective might be helpful. The numerical probability of you, a chemist with 20 years' experience, spilling D-76, XTOL or any other developer in the house is miniscule compared to the certainty that they're inhaling Shanghai's "air" daily. I'd be much more worried about lung damage from that exposure than potential deleterious effects of photographic chemicals.

For what it's worth, I use XTOL. My tests of it at 1+3 dilution with Delta 100 sheets in a Jobo Expert drum showed higher film speed, greater sharpness and less grain than D-76/ID-11 1+3 when developed to the same contrast index. I store it as described in this post:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)​

Keep the bottles in a secure, padded container and the risk of spillage would be almost zero.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format

There are more household cleaning products that are extremely toxic than there are developers as an example. Although both are toxic. I could compare Drano to Rodinal, both of which are acutely toxic and can destroy eye tissue almost instantly. I can compare two household products that when mixed generate a poison gas. No photo product does that. It can make smelly gases but not acutely poisonous gases, nor can photo products generate gas in huge volume.

I could go on, but I do think that you have overstated the safety of household products and understated the safety of photo processing products.

PE
 

Tom1956

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
1,989
Location
US
Format
Large Format
I remember when I was a small child about 1959, 1960 or so--not entirely sure of the year. But I do have a vivid memory of being in the kitchen one day when nobody else was around. I remember opening up the cabinet under the kitchen sink to check out the bottles. (that's where Mom kept the cleaning supplies, drano, and such). I remember pulling out a bottle that had a skull-and-crossbones on it, and it looked scary. So I put it back and never looked in that cabinet again.
Sometime in my lifetime, lawyers and politicians traded in the skull-and-crossbones for volumes of text. Little kids can't read all that, and are more likely to drink it because of that fact. But lawyers make a lot more money arguing the case in court, after the child's funeral.
 

Truzi

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
2,685
Format
Multi Format
The question should be considered in context of the household, NOT simply which chemical developer is the "safest" of two choices.
To add to the comments about household chemicals, some people erroneously believe all over-the-counter medication is "safe" and do not take precautions.
 

Richard Jepsen

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 1, 2006
Messages
875
Location
Oklahoma, US
Format
Multi Format
The Film Developing Cookbook under the chapter titled chemical safety states , "if metol were discovered today it would probably not be approved by any regulatory authority."

Perhaps an overstatement. The way I look at it Kodak made the case XTOL is a tad better than D-76 for image quality. Plus it is more environmentally friendly and probably safer to handle. The only reason not to use XTOL is you dispose unused developer because it expired. If you infrequently develop consider sharing with a friend.

From personal experience if stored in 1L hard plastic water bottles XTOL will produce great negs after 9 months proper storage in full bottles. As the shelf life gets longer I increase the stock solution while maintaining the 1:1 ratio. Yesterday I developed perfect negs from a full 1L bottle of stock solution mixed 5/13.

So by sharing or using technique to extend storage, you may get 1 year use from stock XTOL. The FDC recommends using 500ml of stock if diluting. I bet most folks don't follow that advice. 5l of XTOL lasts me 9 months. I no longer try to stretch stock quantities since I have so much on hand at a reasonable price.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jaf-Photo

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
495
Format
Medium Format

Hmm... I remember reading a caution that a certiain developer would generate toxic gas if mixed with an acid. I don't remember which one, maybe my C-41.

Don't get me wrong, I use the cleaning product analogy when my environmental friends question my use of photochemicals. It's some relief to be able to say that my developer is based on ascorbic acid, which usually quietens the debate. But I am aware that the analogy is halting and that many people have abandoned the older lethal detergents for gentler products.

There may also be cultural and geographic differences. In my country, most of the truly toxic chemicals are banned from domestic use and many consumers deliberately seek out eco-friendly cleaning products. A lot of people I know actually use a product based on wood ash lye to clean their floors. In Northern Europe many people refuse to use bleach to clean their homes, while in Southern Europe they use it by the gallon, etc.

On an anecdotal basis, I once got both eyes covered in liquid detergent concentrate (Persil). I did suffer temporary blindness, but after a few days my vision was back to normal. If it had been a certain photochemical, I would have been walkning with a white stick now (and not writing this post).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tom1956

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
1,989
Location
US
Format
Large Format
BTW for the sake of the argument that is the topic of this thread, I'd say of-hand that the X-tol was probably safer. I'm not sure when they invented it probably in the 80's maybe, but it is the typical progression of companies to R & D for safer products.
Here's the symbol that frightened me as a little child, into not guzzling out of the pretty bottle.
 

Truzi

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
2,685
Format
Multi Format
As a child I thought the skull and cross-bones was cool. What kept me from drinking stuff (when old enough to access it) was my parents telling me why it was dangerous.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Wood ash lye is very friendly to make, but is still lye and as such is very toxic to humans, fish, plants and well, just everything in general! It even makes the water and ground more alkaline.

Just because something is made in a friendly fashion does not make it itself safe. Consider Lye Soap. Made by cooking fat with lye. Great cleanser! Very good for the environment as it uses up lye and fat both. Ruins skin when you bathe with it. Your wife would look like an old crone by the age of 30 if she used it.

So, we use soaps with all kinds of chemical addenda such as TEA which is the alkali in HC110 BTW. Go figure!

PE
 
OP
OP

RattyMouse

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,045
Location
Ann Arbor, Mi
Format
Multi Format

Hi Sal,

You should see what I spill while in the at work!!

Inside the house I have two very large and very expensive HEPA air filters going round the clock. At least at home I have decent air.

Thanks for the feedback on XTOL.