Low toxicity, Eco-friendly B&W processing

[benjiboy]

Analogue photography darkrooms have working methods, not "work flow"

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Analogue photography darkrooms have working methods, not "work flow"

I like that!

Jeff

 

[removed account4]

threads like this pop up once in a while claiming photochemistry is harmless,
i don't know if these threads do more harm than good. it is more than obvious that certain things are not
good to be in contact with, to consume, to have in the reach of children, and to treat without respect. including many of the things found in a traditional or alternative process darkroom.
i can't imagine why anyone would say anything different ...
it's like someone suggesting that selenium toner is harmless because selenium is found in vitamins or brazil nuts or the ocean.
or that it is not dangerous to make your own silver nitrate.

kind of reminds me of the guy in repo man with the alien in his trunk

 

[Athiril]

Maris. Thi is an old story about glacial aceitic acid. I graduated High School during the Ford administration. On the way home from my last day I stopped at the lab and and made a long term loan of a gallon bottle of glacial aceitic acid. The chemistry teacher ordered it for us earlier in the year. I had stop bath for years. The bottle was glass and very thick. I took it home on the subway and no one would have any idea what it was. If I tried that today I'd get locked up.

I did that a few months ago half a litre though not 1 gallon. Was my only way of getting it back, since it's a pick up only item.


I also got a box full of old many unlabelled chemicals a certain store was wanting to get rid of. I had them sitting on top another box (a Kodak box), but the top box was just an open top box, with dodgy looking dusty things.. very intimidating looking actually. Anyway it was sitting there outside coles in Melbourne Central station, and I had my Indian friend holding them at one time too.

Lots of police wandering around.. they didn't appear at all interested.

 

[Photo Engineer]

threads like this pop up once in a while claiming photochemistry is harmless,
i don't know if these threads do more harm than good. it is more than obvious that certain things are not
good to be in contact with, to consume, to have in the reach of children, and to treat without respect. including many of the things found in a traditional or alternative process darkroom.
i can't imagine why anyone would say anything different ...
it's like someone suggesting that selenium toner is harmless because selenium is found in vitamins or brazil nuts or the ocean.
or that it is not dangerous to make your own silver nitrate.

kind of reminds me of the guy in repo man with the alien in his trunk

Treat with care and respect, YES. Treat with fear and loathing, NO. That is part of my point. And, as pointed out above, many household cleaners are far more toxic and can do more damage to the individual.

PE

 

[removed account4]

makes me wonder if the folks that claim photochemistry is harmless
have young kids running around your house did you leave
did you leave photochemistry in powder form, jars or jugs in the cabinet under the sink where kids could get to them.

the problem is on both sides of this issue people lack common sense

 

[Photo Engineer]

John;

I have, and have had for years, a fully stocked color and B&W darkroom and chemical store room. We had 3 young children who grew up around these chemicals, and our son learned the basics of photography as did a few neighbor's kids who were friends. We treated the chemistry with respect and care which is what I taught them. We never had an accident with them.

I have never known a researcher at EK to have problems, nor did any of us when I worked at the Cape and in the photofinishing industry.

Household and medicine cabinet chemicals are more of a problem.

PE

 

[cmo]

On the other hand, there are definitely people out there who neither raise their children properly nor use chemicals responsibly. There is always a shmuck who dries his hamster in the microwave, and I heard that - in extremely rare cases - children do not exactly do what their parents tell them. There might even be cases of children who do the exact opposite. There could be children in some homes that think the way Bart Simpsons does...

In the United States nearly 82 people die as a result of unintentional poisoning, and another 1,941 are treated in emergency departments - per day. Of course, most shmucks prefer drain pipe cleaner or heroin over fine-grain developer, most children find medicine and not Rodinal. But if we can keep just one more child healthy, why don't we simply stop using harmful chemicals? If there are less harmful chemicals in a household there are less cases of poisoning.

 

[Athiril]

"But if we can keep just one more child healthy, why don't we simply stop using harmful chemicals?"

Absolutely ridiculous, that is the oldest bs excuse in the book.

Dead Link Removed



Just look at what's happening to my country. That is the excuse use to pummel through legislation quickly to induce censorship as a gateway to pretty much state regulated thought police abused for any political agenda. As there are now many other things that are simply blacklisted, with no process for review, and exempt from FOI requests. And fines of $11,000 per day for any Australian individual posting such material, including political material. Even political satire sites posted by Australians have been completely shut down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia

While it may "only" be the internet, this is the medium upon which all ideas are shared now.

To get back to the point, the "think of the children" line is just that, a line used by people for their own agenda, to be honest with you anyone who uses that to impose their own sensibilities needs to be taken out the back and shot, or at least slapped some sense into. It completely undermines the foundation of any free country - the ability to hold your own individual beliefs/morals free of oppression by other's beliefs/morals as long as they do not impose on another's <-- see how that last part applies when you look at it from the point of view of a person "thinking of the children"? They are not only preventing those individual rights, but are also violating that foundation of not imposing their own will on another.

After all, children are the responsibility of their legal guardians, and not the state - unless taken into state custody. All this knee-jerking and shifting responsibility around in a circle is detrimental to the non-brain dead of society. There are also after all, plenty of people that do not have children. Something enacted by a "think of the children" line then unfairly affects people without children and responsible parents alike.


Irresponsible people should be held accountable for their actions, including irresponsible parents. Everyone else shouldn't have to suffer Nanny-state syndrome in order to make their irresponsibility less dangerous, as you are only treating symptoms and not the cause (their irresponsibility).

 

[dr5chrome]

@ RIT they cant do their own COLOR.... how are you supposed to learn it???

John;

I have, and have had for years, a fully stocked color and B&W darkroom and chemical store room. We had 3 young children who grew up around these chemicals, and our son learned the basics of photography as did a few neighbor's kids who were friends. We treated the chemistry with respect and care which is what I taught them. We never had an accident with them.

I have never known a researcher at EK to have problems, nor did any of us when I worked at the Cape and in the photofinishing industry.

Household and medicine cabinet chemicals are more of a problem.

PE

 

[removed-user-1]

So, as an APUG member, go out and at least try to do your bit for Science and Technology in the HS systems across the country.

Sorry for the rant. Rant over!

PE

Best rant I've read in a long time. Well said!

 

[removed account4]

To get back to the point, the "think of the children" line is just that, a line used by people for their own agenda, to be honest with you anyone who uses that to impose their own sensibilities needs to be taken out the back and shot, or at least slapped some sense into. It completely undermines the foundation of any free country - the ability to hold your own individual beliefs/morals free of oppression by other's beliefs/morals as long as they do not impose on another's <-- see how that last part applies when you look at it from the point of view of a person "thinking of the children"? They are not only preventing those individual rights, but are also violating that foundation of not imposing their own will on another.

After all, children are the responsibility of their legal guardians, and not the state - unless taken into state custody. All this knee-jerking and shifting responsibility around in a circle is detrimental to the non-brain dead of society. There are also after all, plenty of people that do not have children. Something enacted by a "think of the children" line then unfairly affects people without children and responsible parents alike.


Irresponsible people should be held accountable for their actions, including irresponsible parents. Everyone else shouldn't have to suffer Nanny-state syndrome in order to make their irresponsibility less dangerous, as you are only treating symptoms and not the cause (their irresponsibility).

maybe i have misunderstood your rant, but i have kids, small kids ...
and until they were a certain age we had locks on all the cabinets
and latches on all the doors, covers on the plugs, no knobs on the stove,
and a gate at the top of the stairs, knives out of their reach ... and ...
because small kids just wander into bad situations.
so ... by preventing a catastrophe, i am irresponsible ?
and by NOT putting photo chemistry under the cabinet in the kitchen
to prevent my kids from wandering into THAT situation is a knee jerk response to
the fact that i believe some photochemistry is harmful ?

if that is the case i guess i have "good reflexes"

you need to tell a kid something around 100 times before they "hear" it ...
sometimes they don't make it to the 100 times and feed their sibbling draino
by mistake, or open a d-cell battery and smear battery acid on themselves, or ...

if being a responsible parent shows that i am actually irresponsible,
and by making it harder for a young kid who will do something dangerous when i don't see them
show that i am irresponsible ... i feel sorry for kids whose parents are "responsible".

i know someone who was fed drain cleaner, and someone who lit a plastic
container filled with gasoline on fire in his garage and then threw it,
and a kid who pulled a lawnmower back over his bare feet and ... all by accident
kids don't think much ... so if i can avoid my kids having an accident because i am "irresponsible"
i think i will ...

 

[Colin Corneau]

If you can't keep kids from getting into (potentially) dangerous chemistry, to my mind the problem isn't the chemistry it's people procreating who maybe should think about it a bit more. Part of having children is looking after them.

I tend to side with Photo Engineer on this one. This is microscopically small potatoes, compared to household cleaners or even industry.

What's wrong with teaching children respect for handling chemistry, or mindfulness in what they're doing? That will keep them safe much more reliably than simply keeping them away from anything that might potentially harm them, which is a mug's game anyway.
That's the mindset that keeps kids locked away inside houses, makes parents drive them 2 blocks to school, and then we wonder why so many kids are fat and miserable.

*my* rant over....

 

[Athiril]

maybe i have misunderstood your rant, but i have kids, small kids ...
and until they were a certain age we had locks on all the cabinets
and latches on all the doors, covers on the plugs, no knobs on the stove,
and a gate at the top of the stairs, knives out of their reach ... and ...
because small kids just wander into bad situations.
so ... by preventing a catastrophe, i am irresponsible ?
and by NOT putting photo chemistry under the cabinet in the kitchen
to prevent my kids from wandering into THAT situation is a knee jerk response to
the fact that i believe some photochemistry is harmful ?

if that is the case i guess i have "good reflexes"

you need to tell a kid something around 100 times before they "hear" it ...
sometimes they don't make it to the 100 times and feed their sibbling draino
by mistake, or open a d-cell battery and smear battery acid on themselves, or ...

if being a responsible parent shows that i am actually irresponsible,
and by making it harder for a young kid who will do something dangerous when i don't see them
show that i am irresponsible ... i feel sorry for kids whose parents are "responsible".

i know someone who was fed drain cleaner, and someone who lit a plastic
container filled with gasoline on fire in his garage and then threw it,
and a kid who pulled a lawnmower back over his bare feet and ... all by accident
kids don't think much ... so if i can avoid my kids having an accident because i am "irresponsible"
i think i will ...

By "parent" do you mean you're the state and by "kids" do you mean citizens?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I think between them, Dan and John are skirting a very profound issue.

In this case, it seems to be the "state" that is mandating the control of chemicals; in this case school systems. How would you feel John, if the state mandated the way you lock up household chemicals and also said that you cannot have analog photochemicals in your home? This seems to be a reasonable progression of what is going on now.

In my recent experience, NYS has mandated the type of gate lock on yards with pools. This lock must be 4' off the ground on a tall pole so that children cannot get in. Well, how could a child get by a hasp lock? The lever arm on a 4' pole is huge and anyone can get into the yard with a simple twist of the pole. A small child on our garbage can can open it. And, it has been broken several times due to this type of entry. We are on our second lock and 3rd or 4th fix! This is what comes of government mandates telling us how to protect ourselves. The law is designed to fit all and ends up fitting none!

The same is happening with chemistry, but oh heaven forbid if household chemicals should be regulated in any way.

BTW, a few years ago, I had bug spray on a shelf in the basement. As I walked by one evening, a can ruptured along the seam and sprayed me from head to foot with foamy liquid. We called the poison control # on the can and they said just take a shower and wash the clothes in a separate bath. Wow, what good luck that ograno phosphorous insecticide is harmless in that quantity! Right? Well, it is probably quite toxic but they would not admit it, I am sure.

Anyhow, you have my ire up over this one. Maybe it is a plot by digiheads to rid themselves of analog once and for all!!!!!

PE

 

[Athiril]

Once we're out of school and away from our parents living our own lives... when do we actually get to graduate from someone else telling us what we can and cannot do?

 

[JBrunner]

There isn't anything special about photo chemicals, and I think that's where people get confused. Following established protocol for any chemical is advisable. Most of the stuff in bottles around peoples houses are chemicals. Some things should be kept from kids, pets, and idiots. Most aren't, and most that should be, don't have to do with photography.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I always get a kick out of seeing a sign on the Santa Monica Mall in a Holistic Pharmacy [Half-Asstic?] "Our Vitamins and Minerals Contain Absolutely No Chemicals".

More than once when I questioned the pharmacist about how "he could encapsilate a vacuum in a non-chemical container and sell it as a product" he threw me out telling me that I did not understand medicine or chemistry. :eek:

 

[MattCarey]

No one is saying that there aren't toxic chemicals in photography. But (a) dose makes the poison and (b) "toxic" isn't some sort of trump card that means "keep away!"

As noted many times already, we accept "toxic" chemicals in our lives. We ingest toxins every day (they are in food). The question is how to treat them with respect. How to act appropriately with them.

For example, I found myself being foolish recently. I looked at my store of liquid photo chemistry and thought--"why aren't these in secondary containment?" I took some old trays I don't use and put the bottles in them. The cabinet is locked. I minimize contact with the chemicals themselves. Heck, they get treated with more respect than most household cleaning agents (which are much more toxic).

 

[Athiril]

Some people like to mix their ammonia based cleaning products with their chlorine based products thinking they're clever and it'll clean better.

 

[Worker 11811]

Thanks for the detailed response; however, the principal issue is respiratory exposure, thus my emphasis on ventilation systems. I'm not concerned about mixing chemicals as spills can be cleaned up without problems.

I sort of overlooked respiratory exposure, mainly because, with chemistry today, there are a lot fewer problems than in days past.

In developing film, everything is in sealed containers until the time of use. What is exposed, doesn't cause many problems. Developer and hypo clearing agent probably won't cause respiratory problems unless the person is allergic. Acetic acid stop baths do give off odor but, again, unless somebody is sensitive it won't be a problem. The only thing that could cause a problem is the fixer but, if you use an odorless variety, that will be minimized.

While printing in the darkroom, chemistry is exposed to the air a lot more while in trays. When it is out in trays, it could be somewhat problematic but that is easily minimized by only putting out trays full of chemistry immediately before the darkroom will be in use and cleaning up as soon as you are finished.

In both cases, it comes down to what I said before. A student who takes due diligence and caution should not be at any greater risk than they would at home. Most bathroom cleaning products that people use are as dangerous or even more dangerous than photographic chemistry.

If you mix developer, stop bath, fixer and hypo clearing agent together you get a bucket full of useless, purple slop. If you mix toilet bowl cleaner with tub and shower cleaner you get poison gas. That is much more dangerous than anything you might expose them to in the darkroom.

I assume that you're not going to be using any toners or alternative processes. Those things would be over the heads of the average student taking "Photo 101." Therefore, things like selenium, silver nitrate or similar stuff would never even be considered.

Therefore, I go right back to what I said originally. Use ordinary caution. Clean up after yourself. Keep food out of the lab and don't drink any of the chemicals. Wear gloves, goggles and aprons. Use your head and don't worry.

BTW: I like XTOL anyway. I would recommend using it on its own merits. The fact that it is made from ascorbic acid (Vitamin-C) which potentially makes it even less toxic is just a serendipitous bonus in my book.

When I was taking photography in high school, the photo lab was in the same part of the building as the wood shop. The shop teacher and the photography teacher basically "team taught" both classes. On the door to the shop, engraved into the glass window was the following:

"Do what you are told, when you are told and how you are told. Thus, you will succeed."

That motto should be on the door of every school!

 

[jeffreyg]

Ditto with Randy S. If ventilation is an issue the school's maintenance dept. or shop class if there is one could install an exhaust fan and light proof grille. The first thing the students should be taught is the correct and safe handling of the equipment and materials. assuming this is an elective course they should be interested and eager to learn the correct way to do things. If the school officials are hesitant they should be educated as to the intent of and precautions taken for the students safety. (they are probably more apt to be harmed coming and going from school)

My children and grand children all received cameras at the tender age of two and have been in and out of my darkroom many times without any problems or mishaps.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[CBG]

The "do whatever it takes to protect the kids from just one more accident" argument is superficially appealing, but ignores a huge set of issues. In the drive to eliminate all risk for kids (and everyone else too), we are producing a generation with no practical experience of dealing sensibly with risk. We are lying to ourselves that life can be lived without risk. Life is risk.

Our kids need to actully take measured risks to learn how to act in a way that reduces risk without stifling them.

Now, why can't we use vinegar/acetic as stop bath? It's safe enough for salad for people to eat.

Why can't we use thiosulfates for fixer, they are used in public swimming pools for crissake?

Pyro or amidol are clearly unsuitable for the general run of high scoolers, but what in the world is wrong with an ascorbic /sulfite etc developer with a minute trace of phenidone?

A set of well chosen BW chemicals are utterly safe if used as intended, and barely a problem when badly misused (and are wildly safer than your basic houshold drain cleaners etc, that no one is arguing with).

By trying to make a photographically risk free world, we may save one or two children worldwide, but produce a whole generation who have missed out on important chunks of childhood.

 

[removed account4]

Some people like to mix their ammonia based cleaning products with their chlorine based products thinking they're clever and it'll clean better.

and the green smoke looks so pretty

 

[Colin Corneau]

Talking of proper protocol surrounding handling of chemicals, especially in school environments, reminded me of a story.

Van Halen (the rock band) was famous for years for its concert contract riders, especially on the topic of the exact colour of Smarties to be in the band's rooms. If a certain colour was present, the concert was off and the promoter was responsible for all costs...the band was paid in full and would vamoose.

This was derided as decadence, arrogance, etc. but it actually was profoundly clever. The band had a gigantic stage setup, with high powered electrical wiring everywhere. There were hundreds of ways the band could be killed if someone was sloppy in set up. The "Smartie" clause was often buried in the back of the contract, among the technical specifications.
So, when the lead singer went to his room and saw a certain colour of candy, he knew the promoter wasn't paying attention to fine details...and the odds were that something could go wrong that could very well kill them.