Maco eco kit - Anyone tried it?

[Siompa]

Hi everyone!

Just did a big order on macodirect and decided to throw in a maco eco kit.

https://www.macodirect.de/en/chemis...-eco-kit-universal-processing-chemistry-3x-1l

I've been exclusively using Rodinal 1:50 for film development, lford multigrade for paper and ilford rapid fixer for fixing.

Have anyone tried this chemistry and in that case, at what times? Cant find any on massive dev chart at least.

 

[LarsAC]

Looks like a print developer to me, accompanied by stop and fix.

Lars

 

[Siompa]

Looks like a print developer to me, accompanied by stop and fix.

Lars

Well if you read the description you'll see that it works with both

 

[locutus]

Print developer for film is usually not a great idea, its far to active.

As for the kit, i use the developer for paper and it gives good results. The Stop and Fixer i also use for film and again its fine.

At the price its hard to beat.

 

[Siompa]

Print developer for film is usually not a great idea, its far to active.

As for the kit, i use the developer for paper and it gives good results. The Stop and Fixer i also use for film and again its fine.

At the price its hard to beat.

Yeah i know thats usually the case but from what i understand it doesn't usually say that a developer does both. However maco does:
MACO ecoprint universal developer 1l
MACO ecoprint is a universal developer for black and white film and paper. For paper development in trays ecoprint delivers a neutral black. The dilution is 1 + 7. For film development ecoprint is softer. The dilution is 1 + 19.

Thats why im wondering how it performs as a filmdeveloper.

 

[michaelfoto]

Some time ago,i was out of Xtol, so i used the Macoprint developer instead. Film RPX 400, Camera RZ 67.

Skillevejen. by Michael G, on Flickr

If you click on the picture, you will get to Flickr, where you can see a larger format and som more pics taken with this combination.
I was in fact quite pleased with the results.

Regards Michael.

 

[MattKing]

Nice shot Michael.
That looks like how I imagine Scandinavian skies and light might appear - similar to our skies and light between October and March.
An active developer is probably well suited to those conditions.
An active developer may not be well suited to conditions where light is harsh, and contrast is high.

 

[michaelfoto]

Thank you Matt. Harsh highcontrast conditions are allways difficult, even using Xtol, unless you compensate with exposure and developement time.
Michael.

 

[plq]

Hello, bringing this one up again since its been around for some time.

Has anyone tried the MACO eco kit? Is it really eco?

 

[AgX]

Has anyone tried the MACO eco kit? Is it really eco?

What does eco mean to you?

 

[AgX]

The idea behind many of these developers is to substitute Hydroquinone by a modified form about which no data on environmental effect yet exists...

 

[koraks]

Is it really eco?

This reminds me of the Top Gear episode from many years ago where they tested I think a Ford Focus. They got one in an absolutely glaring, toxic frog green color at the point of being fluorescent. So at some point, Clarkson asks the rhetorical question, "is it green?" Promptly answering: "very!"

So, as @AgX also mentioned: how eco do you want it to be?
Btw, if you're lucky, the hydroquinone is replaced by ascorbate, which indeed is virtually non-toxic. There will still be phenidone in the developer, and that certainly is toxic. But its present in a fairly low concentration.
Fixer generally isn't toxic to begin with, but as soon as it's used, regardless if it's "eco" (whatever the heck that may mean for fixer), it will have silver complexes in it that surely aren't very good for the marine environment.
As to stop bath, it eludes me how this could sensibly be called "eco" as a differentiation from any old stop bath as stop bath is generally acetic or citric acid, both of which are common chemicals in nature. Pretty much any random stop bath could therefore be labeled "eco" without this meaning anything in terms of improved environmental performance.

You'll get the same degree of "eco" by using XTOL or any of its clones and any random stop bath and fixer. The only "eco-ness" you might reasonably add on top of this is if the product is shipped in bottles and cartons made from recycled materials and if these materials in turn allow for waste separation and recycling (which in practice is really downcycling, as real recycling is very, very seldomly possible in reality, but that's a whole different story).

If I were to market a product today, I'd make sure to stick a big label with terms like "green", "eco" and "vegan" on there just for good measure. After all, don't we all want vegan fixer to fix our pig gelatin emulsions with?

/rant.

 

[AgX]

Is it really eco?

In Germany for instance there is no legal obligation to present the consumer a material-safety data-sheet, thus making it easy to veil critical components (as in a Xtol clone).
But obliged for instance in the EU are hazard icons, both for human health and environmental impact, if such hazards exist.
Thus get yourself a table explaining these (meanwhile "globally applied") icons and see what you find of these on the package of respective photographic baths.
And if available read the MSDS.

And as said, the term "eco" as such is not standardized. It is thus up to yourself what you make from the information above.

And then there is local restriction. My county admistration for instance explicetely prohibited me from pouring any spent photographic bath into the sewage system. Their interpretation of the law.

 

[miha]

Eco as economic (=good value). Maco labeled chemicals are their budget offerings, at least this is how I see it. Nothing to do with being "eco friendly" or such.

 

[AgX]

Good point !

Maco started around 1990 with an ECO range that they only offered in fixed, large lots to large resellers to undercut pricewise their brand range. Then they took these products also into their own retail, at low prices...

The current range likely somehow is based on this concept.

 

[koraks]

Eco as economic (=good value).

Man, totally missed that.

So, is it eco(nomical)?

 

[plq]

Thanks for all the input.

In regards of the term "eco", I was more interested in the "ecological" side of it.

Mainly in terms of non or little damage to the environment, skin, eyes, etc.

I understand the fixer will no longer be "eco" once it is used, since it will collect silver and is not longer safe.

But regardless of each country's regulation, I was interested in reducing the amount of the most toxic components in the chemicals I use, even if I won't be pouring it into the sewage system. That is, that the chemicals themselves do not present any type of harm to the environment, until they are used with film/paper. If there's such a choice, I'd prefer that.

Another alternative I found is the Bellinifoto D100 here, which indeed seems to replace hydroquinone with ascorbique acide, and "dimezone" which I can only hope is a better alternative. Also offered as a kit here. As mentioned by someone here, not sure how much more "eco" a stop bath and fixer could be, but the fixer claims to be based on "ammonium-iposolite".

 

[koraks]

and "dimezone" which I can only hope is a better alternative

It isn't. It's just phenidone, basically, and will have a similar environmental load as that.

Mainly in terms of non or little damage to the environment, skin, eyes, etc.

So don't rub any of the stuff in your eyes and wear gloves if you're concerned about skin exposure (not a bad idea, btw).
As to the environment: do spend some thought about how to treat the waste chemistry. E.g. stop bath: are you going to collect this and cart it out to some waste collection station where it will be processed (e.g. incinerated) together with other toxic waste? If so, what is the environmental load of transporting this liquid, the energy cost of processing it etc. vs. the environmental load of chucking it down the drain?

To do this well, you'll need to basically run a light-weight version of a life-cycle analysis (LCA).

the fixer claims to be based on "ammonium-iposolite".

Ammonium thiosulfate, probably. It's also used as a fertilizer. Does that make it environmentally safe? I don't know. Depends on how you weigh the issue of eutrophication of surface waters, for instance.

It all depends. How complicated do you want to make this?

 

[plq]

It isn't. It's just phenidone, basically, and will have a similar environmental load as that.

Okay, as you said before, it might be in small concentration. At least it claims not to contain any hydroquinone.

what is the environmental load of transporting this liquid, the energy cost of processing it etc. vs. the environmental load of chucking it down the drain?

Hard to say, but I think the best for now would be to take them to the waste collection. I definitely need to be more informed of what their process is.

It all depends. How complicated do you want to make this?

In summary, I've been using other laboratories where I basically did not have much of a choice about what chemicals to use or what to do with them afterwards. But since I'm setting my own at home I thought I may as well try to reduce the environmental impact of it.
I thought that reaching for chemicals that would be less harmful would be an easy way to start, but at this stage I don't want to complicate things. Eventually probably yes, I've seen there are home made alternatives to the chemicals, and also ways of extending their life span so to generate less waste.

 

[koraks]

It's a commendable effort; I hope my probing questions/ remarks encourage you to assess critically what's going on. For instance your remark on the fixer; this is exactly the kind of assumption (that it's better to take it away than somehow process and discard yourself) that may turn out to be the opposite of what you want to achieve. You'd have to hit the books to figure out if it's not smarter, say, to do the old steel wool/ tinfoil trick with the fixer and collect the silver sludge, have that processed responsibly, and discard the liquid.

It's challenging to make and argue for solid choices in a tiny-scale home lab situation in terms of environmental optimization. So much depends on all kinds of boundary conditions that are usually left out of the equation (nature of liquid & solid waste processing facilities used in your area, what kind of car you drive, how far the waste collection point is etc.) because they seem irrelevant, but in actual fact aren't and may just tip the balance between different options.

Remain critical, also try not to let it get in the way of setting up and enjoy your darkroom. If you take a sizeable city like, I don't know, Bordeaux or Lille or so, you figure out what the environmental load is of one darkroom user chucking is used fixer down the drain. I'd suspect that rather silly things like the silver from the earrings and cutlery of your tens of thousands of fellow city dwellers constitutes a bigger environmental load to the system. Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but it's easy to get carried away.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

At least it claims not to contain any hydroquinone.

The major use of hyroquinone is in skin cream.

Googling in the US: https://www.google.com/search?as_q=...ch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&tbs=

Taking minimally (if at all) harmful chemicals to a hazardous waste facility for disposal can be more ecologically harmful than simply putting them down the drain.

If you are worried about it then silver laden fixer can be de-toxed by collecting it in a bucket and tossing in some steel wool - the silver will plate out on the steel.

After all is said and done, the Great God of Thermodynamics put us on this Earth to waste energy and make garbage; the best we can do is try to make the production of both as efficient as possible.

 

[AgX]

In regards of the term "eco", I was more interested in the "ecological" side of it.

As indicated, in that case "eco" most lilely refers to economic.

Another alternative I found is the Bellinifoto D100 here, which indeed seems to replace hydroquinone with ascorbique acide, and "dimezone" which I can only hope is a better alternative.

Bellini do not say so on their site. (Most likely they substituted Hydroquinone by a modified version of Hydroquinone as I indicated above.) But maybe that dealer got their information from Bellini's MSDS.
Ask resp. manufacturers for MSDS yourself.

EDIT:
I looked at the resp. MSDS: no mentioning of Dimezone S.


You might try "eadible" developers. We got a thread here with such title and there is another one with spices or herbs in the title.

 

[koraks]

MSDS: no mentioning of Dimezone S

I'm not sure at what concentration dimezone would have to be included in an msds. My expectation is that they left it out of the document, but not the developer. If memeroy serves, I've seen more msds' that didn't list phenidone or one of its relatives while in fact they had to be in the mix.

 

[AgX]

But they list another ingrediant in the <1% range...,
Well, that Hydroquinone derivative, needs just the same warnings they put on, but still has to be listed.

Unless they made a sole Ascorbic Acid + Alkali developer.


What made me wonder was that in their descriptions of their two "eco" developers they differ, and actually their eco film developer is the more benign one.
(I thought I already presented that one here weeks ago, but seemingly I forgot. Shall do it today.)

For the OP, the Bellini eco film-developer contains a substance being of aquatic toxicity, and they advise "to avoid pollution into the environment", but it does not need safety labels of any kind, which makes it unique.

 

[koraks]

Your guess is as good as mine as to why they manage to leave out the likely presence of a dimezone-like substance, and at the some time list another substance at a very low concentration. The first thing that would come to mind is a loophole with the dimezone-like substance not being assessed (yet) and thereby slipping through the legislative cracks. But that's just a wild guess. I don't know much about MSDS rules.