No more Dektol - what dev should I buy?

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,507
Messages
2,776,294
Members
99,634
Latest member
Bokaj14
Recent bookmarks
0

Nick Zentena

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
4,666
Location
Italia
Format
Multi Format
Divided D-23 is just a marketing term-( D-23 is basically a neutral pH developer. That second bath surely must raise the pH and change how things work.
 

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
gnashings said:
I feel I should give it a try. This mixing seems like someting I can do in my laundry sink without need for special equipment or ridiculous adherence to temperatures, etc. One more thing - how dangerous are these processes. Is there anything here that is so harmful that it requires more than the usual common sense and workplace clenliness?

As has already been said, most of the chemicals needed to mix your own developer aren't any worse than what you've probably already got on hand in your laundry room or under your kitchen sink. For that matter, if you stick with D72 (similar to what Kodak sells as Dektol), you'll just be mixing the same chemicals you would have gotten in a single bag anyway. The added risk is mainly just a matter of having more of it on hand.

If you're concerned about safety, research the chemicals involved. The worst that are very commonly used are probably hydroquinone and metol. (There are far worse that are used in some formulas, but they're not common enough to qualify as "very commonly used.") There are formulas that use neither, though. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) can often be substituted for hydroquinone, and phenidone can often be used in place of metol. (Phenidone has a reputation for being less of a health/environmental negative than metol.) In fact, there's a formula that makes these substitutions (and I believe a few other tweaks) to the D72 formula, known as E72. I've not yet tried it, but the description says it works much like D72.

Some of the nastier somewhat-common chemicals include sodium hydroxide (aka lye), potassium hydroxide (used in Rodinal and probably some others), pyrocatechin, and pyrogallol (the last two are common in "pyro" formulas). There are also some nasties used in toning solutions. Check here for a description of most common and somewhat-common chemicals used in photography. Be aware that many of these descriptions are a bit on the alarming side. Try reading up on sodium carbonate (sold as Arm & Hammer washing soda), sodium borate (sold as 20 Mule Team Borax), sodium hydroxide (lye), and ascorbic acid (vitamin C) to provide some connect between these descriptions and real-world experiences.

For general safety, you might want to buy some rubber gloves (there are some special considerations when working with certain chemicals, but I don't recall the details), splash-resistant goggles, and a dust mask. You might not need them when mixing all formulas, but you'll definitely want them for some. Note that this same equipment is good to have when creating solutions from pre-mixed packaged chemicals. Some formulas should be mixed in well-ventilated areas (their descriptions generally point this out), and of course exercise extra care when working with nasties like lye. The D72 formula's fairly tame, though, so you don't need to take really extraordinary precautions with it. E72's even safer.
 

Tom Hoskinson

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Messages
3,867
Location
Southern Cal
Format
Multi Format
Nick Zentena said:
Divided D-23 is just a marketing term-( D-23 is basically a neutral pH developer. That second bath surely must raise the pH and change how things work.

According to the JT Baker MSDS on Sodium Sulfite, the pH of an aqueous solution is around 9 and thus is alkaline.

Both D23 and POTA Developers rely entirely on Sodium Sulfite for their alkali.

If you add a "B" bath containing a stronger alkali (Sodium or Potassium Carbonate or Hydroxide or one of the Borates) that will increase the activity of the developer.
 

dancqu

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
3,649
Location
Willamette V
Format
Medium Format
[QUOTES = Tom Hoskinson]
"According to the JT Baker MSDS on Sodium Sulfite, the pH
of an aqueous solution is around 9 and thus is alkaline."

At www.solvaychemicals.us will be found their ph numbers.
Photo grade S. Sulfite has a ph of 10 and their MSDS for
S. Sulfite specifies a ph of 9.6 to 9.8. From their home
page search for, products .

"Both D23 and POTA Developers rely entirely on Sodium
Sulfite for their alkali."

"If you add a "B" bath containing a stronger alkali (Sodium
or Potassium Carbonate or Hydroxide or one of the Borates)
that will increase the activity of the developer."

The implication above is that borax has a higher ph than the
sulfite he now uses for his "B" bath. That is not the case.

I read most often phs of very close to 9.2 for borax while
sulfite's ph will range from 9.5 to 10. Dan
 

jim appleyard

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
2,413
Format
Multi Format
srs5694 said:
Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) can often be substituted for hydroquinone, and phenidone can often be used in place of metol. (Phenidone has a reputation for being less of a health/environmental negative than metol.) In fact, there's a formula that makes these substitutions (and I believe a few other tweaks) to the D72 formula, known as E72. I've not yet tried it, but the description says it works much like D72.



E-72 is a nice dev., but I've found it doesn't last very long. My own Dektol/D72 does ok, but nothing seems to last as long as packaged Dektol and I'm not sure why. Dektol just seems to keep going, and going, and going...
 

Tom Hoskinson

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Messages
3,867
Location
Southern Cal
Format
Multi Format
Suzuki has published recipes for two ascorbic acid based print developers, DS-14 and DS-15.

http://silvergrain.org/Photo-Tech/print-dev-recommend.html

DS-14 contains Dimezone S (a phenidone derivative) and ascorbic acid. It is a neutral tone paper developer.

DS-15 contains Metol and ascorbic acid and is a warm tone paper developer.

Both of these developers contain salicylic acid which improves their keeping qualities.

In my opinion, both of these developers perform very well indeed.

See the APUG Chemical Recipes for my concentrated TEA versions of these developers, modified for long shelf life and one-shot use.
 
OP
OP

gnashings

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
1,376
Location
Oshawa, Onta
Format
Multi Format
OK, lots of book marks, lots of reading!!! Thank you all once again, very much indeed - as usual, I am equally overwhelmed by the amount of knowledge on this forum as I am with the willingness to put forth the effort and time to share it! I may buy some off the shelf stuff for right now, and study the sites mentioned so that I feel up to mixing up my own "brews" correctly and safely!

I have to say, from what I see, the common conception of traditional photography being wraught with super-deadly chemicals is blown waaay out of proportion! I remember when I first started dabbling in it, I expected some really hazardous, nasty stuff to lurk behind ecery step of the way... and I was usually proven wrong!

Thanks again,

Peter.
 

Nick Zentena

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
4,666
Location
Italia
Format
Multi Format
I think a better way to think of it is that many of the chemicals we keep in the house with no fear can be fairly dangerous. You can hurt yourself buying stuff from the grocery store. Lots of stuff with skull and crossbones at the hardware store to.
 

Nick Zentena

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
4,666
Location
Italia
Format
Multi Format
Tom Hoskinson said:
According to the JT Baker MSDS on Sodium Sulfite, the pH of an aqueous solution is around 9 and thus is alkaline.

Both D23 and POTA Developers rely entirely on Sodium Sulfite for their alkali.

If you add a "B" bath containing a stronger alkali (Sodium or Potassium Carbonate or Hydroxide or one of the Borates) that will increase the activity of the developer.

My understanding is that the pH of stock D-23 is just under 8. With D-25 being buffered to closer to 7.0.

So you're saying that changing the pH isn't going to change how it works? I'm not talking about just the speed?
 

kwmullet

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2004
Messages
891
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Format
Multi Format
I'll add my suggestion that you consider Ansco 130 (the photoformulary.com kit is just as easy to mix as XTol or Dektol). As a single developer, it lasts a long, long time, even in the tray, which is great for intermittent darkroom users.

If you do a search on ansco 130, also look for the threads on using it as a separated developer, where it's mixed into a part "A" and a part "B". It should last even longer that way, and should provide very very consistent results, eliminating developer age/strength or time as variables, letting you concentrate on print exposure (and filtration, if you're doing VC).

-KwM-
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,833
Format
Hybrid
i'd also suggest ansco 130. you can get the kit from formulary, but you can also buy chemicals from photochem in canada.
 

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
gnashings said:
OK, lots of book marks, lots of reading!!!

Don't forget the real books, either. In particular, Stephen G. Anchell's The Darkroom Cookbook (in a second edition now) contains lots of information and formulas. Anchell also co-authored another book with Bill Troop called The Film Developing Cookbook. You might also want some pointers to some chemical suppliers, one or two of which may have already been mentioned in this thread:

  • Photographer's Formulary -- Overall the widest selection, but a bit pricier than most. B&H resells most of their chemicals for marginally less money, but they're mostly "special order" items from B&H.
  • Digital Truth -- A good, reasonably-priced supplier, but with a less comprehensive selection than PF. (An exception: They carry Dimezone-S, which PF didn't the last time I checked.)
  • Art Craft -- Another popular photographic chemistry supplier. I haven't ordered from them myself, though.
  • Dead Link Removed -- I've not ordered from this place myself, either, but I've seen positive comments about them from others.
  • The Chemistry Store -- This is basically a non-photographic chemistry supplier (they seem to focus on the hobbyist soap-making market), but they've got very good prices on some items that are used in photography. (They've got the best prices I've seen on vitamin C, for instance.) They tend to gouge on shipping, though.

FWIW, I've got a spreadsheet with prices for many items and cost comparisons for various developers, fixers, and hypo clear formulas and commercial products. If you're interested, contact me. It's in OpenOffice.org format, but I can export to Excel format if you prefer.
 

jim appleyard

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
2,413
Format
Multi Format
Ed Buffaloe has a developer cost section as well on his site, unblinkingeye.com. It would be interesting to compare the two.
 

Nick Zentena

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
4,666
Location
Italia
Format
Multi Format
Fotochem is often cheaper on most things. Add in the border issue and I think Peter will be better off. I think he'll save the PST to.

Fotochem seems to stock most things. The only thing they couldn't get me a good price on was some dyes for a toner.
 

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
jim appleyard said:
Ed Buffaloe has a developer cost section as well on his site, unblinkingeye.com. It would be interesting to compare the two.

Here are a few points of comparison, per liter of solution:

D76 (store-bought, full strength): me: $1.98; Buffaloe: $1.12
D76 (home-made, full strength): me: $1.13; Buffaloe: $1.33
XTOL (store-bought, full strength): me: $2.18; Buffaloe: $1.39
PX (home-made XTOL variant, full strength): me: $1.16; Buffaloe: N/A
Dektol (store-bought, 1:2): me: $0.69; Buffaloe: $0.40
D72 (home-made, 1:2): me: $0.42; Buffaloe: $0.60

Basically, I get exactly the opposite conclusions on the store-bought versus mix-it-yourself cost question. I think there are two or three things going on in terms of these differences:

  • Store-bought prices have gone up since 2000, when Buffaloe did his survey. For instance, he lists Dektol as $4.49 for a gallon package, whereas the current B&H price is $5.79.
  • I've got slightly to significantly lower prices on some of the raw chemicals. For instance, Buffaloe lists sodium sulfite as being $4.95 for a pound, whereas I've got it as $3.76 for two pounds (plus $3.80 for shipping). Even more dramatically, Buffaloe lists sodium carbonate at $4.50 for a pound, whereas I've got it at $2.19 for 3.4 pounds (in the form of Arm & Hammer Washing Soda from the supermarket). Other items aren't much different, like metol. A good part of this is that Buffaloe is getting all his prices from Photographer's Formulary, which is more expensive than most suppliers. I've pretty much cherry-picked the lowest prices from several suppliers.
  • I include shipping in my spreadsheet, but Buffaloe doesn't. This might or might not create a systematic difference between the home-brew and store-bought prices; I'd have to make significant changes to my spreadsheet to find out how much shipping is contributing to each formula and compare it to the $2 per package I assume for shipping on the store-bought stuff.

FWIW, I've just posted my spreadsheet as a raw file to my Web site: http://www.rodsbooks.com/formulas.zip. The zip file includes both the OpenOffice.org original and a Microsoft Excel export. Please keep in mind it's a (perpetual) "work in progress" and probably contains errors.
 

fotch

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
4,774
Location
SE WI- USA
Format
Multi Format
Where to find a Good Scale

Zathras said:
Why not get a good scale and bulk chems and make D-72, a genuine Kodak formula that is for all purposes the same as Dektol. Then you could have the satisfaction of using a developer that behaves exactly like like dektol, from an official Kodak formula, without paying a penny to Kodak.

Mike Sullivan

What would a good scale cost? What type is recommended? I did a search for the old fashion scale that you put weight on one side of the beam, then use the other side to measure out a matching amount. Came up empty. Only found triple beam or electronic. Seemed expensive although I may just be cheap. Any suggestions would be appreciated. T
 

John Bartley

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
1,386
Location
13 Critchley
Format
8x10 Format
fotch said:
What would a good scale cost? What type is recommended? I did a search for the old fashion scale that you put weight on one side of the beam, then use the other side to measure out a matching amount. Came up empty. Only found triple beam or electronic. Seemed expensive although I may just be cheap. Any suggestions would be appreciated. T

When I started mixing my own D23 I needed a scale. In the kitchen section of our local Canadian Tire store (also available at Walmart, Ace, etc.) we found a digital scale that reads down to 1gram and up to 5kg. I figured that if you need to weigh less than a gram, you're either mixing too little at one time or you're being excessively fussy, so we bought it and it's perfect. This scale, with battery cost about $50.00cdn, and stores in an space about 8" diameter and about 2" high. The difference in price between buying developer and mixing my own will pay for the scale very quickly, plus it allows me to experiment.

cheers
 

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
fotch said:
What would a good scale cost? What type is recommended?

I'd have to disagree with John. Most formulas include amounts of 1g, 2g, 3g, or so. For instance, D76 includes 2g of metol and 2g of borax, and D72 has 3g of metol and 2g of potassium bromide. (Both are for 1 liter of stock solution.) Worse, some formulas use even smaller quantities of some things. Phenidone is routinely measured in tenths of a gram (0.4g in E72, for instance). Remember also that a scale that measures to, say, 1g could be off by a significant amount when measuring small quantities. For instance, when measuring 2g, if the scale is working correctly, you might get anywhere from 1.5g to 2.5g of the substance, which is a pretty big range, and could easily affect the batch-to-batch consistency of your home-brew creations. (A tip: If you can't accurately measure the quantity because it's too small, you may be able to create a solution containing ten times or more what you need and then use an appropriate volume of the solution, measured with an eyedropper or baby medicine syringe. The solution could be in alcohol, water, propylene glycol, or something else, depending on the substance.)

Most sources I've read, including Anchell, recommend a scale with 0.1g readings for most formulas, and 0.01g if you'll routinely be measuring substances that are used in very small quantities, like phenidone. Such scales frequently have maximum capacities that are much lower than the maximum capacities of 1g scales, though, so for measuring substances in large quantities (say, 250g of sodium thiosulfate for a fixer), you might want to use a less expensive but less accurate kitchen scale -- it might be off by several grams, but given the 250g quantity, that doesn't matter very much.

If you check B&H or the like, you'll find that scales by respected manufacturers (Ohaus and Acculab, say) that can do 0.1g measurements start at close to $100 and go up to over twice that amount. If you check eBay or various Web retailers who specialize in cut-rate scales, you'll find less-established brands selling scales for much less. I bought such a cut-rate "Escali" scale that does 0.05g measurements for $20, for instance. From what I gather, the cut-rate scales will have lower maximum capacities (mine tops out at 100g) and are likely to break much sooner than the costlier models, so in the long run paying $100 or more for a scale may be worth it. I went cheap because I wasn't certain I'd be going the mix-it-yourself road for the long term. If I do, I'll replace the cheap Escali scale with something better when the Escali breaks. For now, I've mixed up a few batches of developers using the Escali, and the developers work, so clearly the Escali isn't too far off the mark. :wink:

FWIW, some people prefer to use volumetric measurements (in teaspoons, say). This can be simpler, and it's arguably more accurate in some cases because some chemicals absorb water from the air, which changes their weight but not their volume, making weight measurement rather dodgy. The trouble is that few formulas are expressed in volumes, and the conversion isn't constant -- it varies with the density of the substance and perhaps its form (how finely it's ground into a powder, say). Anchell provides a conversion table for the most common substances in The Darkroom Cookbook, if you're interested in going this route.
 

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
Before one knows how accurately one must measure, one must know the tolerances of the process. If I am going to mix a batch of print developer that will sit for hours in an open tray and be used for development by inspection, I will not worry overly about the accuracy of weights. I'm not going to make fun of anyone who is scrupulous about such things, but it is true that many who are scrupulous in following a formula are so because they do not know the results of unscrupulosity.

Such things can happen when adapting a formula in metric to avoirdupois or vice versa as believing that 1 gram must be translated to exactly 15.432 grains or that one ounce must be translated to exactly 28.35 grams. The engineering custom is that when specifying weights and measures, the number of digits after the decimal indicate the necessary accuracy of measurenment. Thus, 1.0 grams means that the actual weight should round off to 1.0 grams. Take this into account when specifying a formula for others to use and don't specify any more accuracy than the process calls for.
 

Nick Zentena

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
4,666
Location
Italia
Format
Multi Format
You can pick up a small digital gram scale for less then $25 US. It won't handle large weights but it'll be fairly accurate.

Or many things can be handled with just a set of measuring spoons and making up solutions.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=11814&item=7500094641

That's the one I bought. Mine came with only one battery and was even cheaper. I guess the seller has raised his prices since I got mine.

Over kill for most B&W formulas.

On the Escali scales. Small scales are often more accurate. They have a greater need. If you buy one of the big scales odds are you aren't that worried about super accuracy. The difference between 1000 grams and 999 is 1/10%. OTOH the difference between 1 and 2 grams is 100%.
 

Nick Zentena

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
4,666
Location
Italia
Format
Multi Format
srs5694 said:
Basically, I get exactly the opposite conclusions on the store-bought versus mix-it-yourself cost question. I think there are two or three things going on in terms of these differences:


My big issue with the Unblinkingeye list is I think he used small purchases. I buy most of my chemicals in at least the 5lb size. Some times the 10lb size. Only metol and other developing agents get bought in 1lb sizes. The price break from buying bigger bags is often pretty big.
 

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
Nick Zentena said:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=11814&item=7500094641

That's the one I bought. Mine came with only one battery and was even cheaper. I guess the seller has raised his prices since I got mine.

That's the one I got, too, and from the same seller. (I think I saw a similar post of yours and followed the link, actually.) It was $19.97 with $7.95 shipping. IIRC, I noticed that the seller has some that are only "buy-it-now" with a slightly higher price and some that are regular auctions with slightly lower starting prices. Reviewing completed auctions, most of the latter had just one bid, so I picked one, bid on it, and won with no competing bids.
 

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
Nick Zentena said:
My big issue with the Unblinkingeye list is I think he used small purchases. I buy most of my chemicals in at least the 5lb size. Some times the 10lb size. Only metol and other developing agents get bought in 1lb sizes. The price break from buying bigger bags is often pretty big.

That'll certainly make a big difference -- but then, you've also got to consider how rapidly you go through an item. If you buy 10 pounds of something at $10 a pound but only use a pound a year, you'll be paying $100 up front and it'll take a long time to earn back any savings over buying a smaller quantity at a higher per-pound price. This gets into interest, inflation, shipping discounts, and is generally pretty hairy. I figured supplies for a year or two are plenty, made some wild guesses, and bought a bunch of chemicals. (I just started mixing my own about a month and a half ago.) Given the quantities involved, though, I'm sure my 100g of phenidone is a lifetime supply (actually I got Dimezone-S, since it's preferred for some formulas).
 

John Bartley

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
1,386
Location
13 Critchley
Format
8x10 Format
srs5694 said:
I'd have to disagree with John. Most formulas include amounts of 1g, 2g, 3g, or so. For instance, D76 includes 2g of metol and 2g of borax, and D72 has 3g of metol and 2g of potassium bromide. (Both are for 1 liter of stock solution.) Worse, some formulas use even smaller quantities of some things. Phenidone is routinely measured in tenths of a gram (0.4g in E72, for instance).

Ahhh - yes, in these cases where smaller amounts are measured then I am in total agreement. A better scale would be needed in thoses cases. My remarks about "fussy" were directed at myself. I had planned to "test the homebrew waters" by mixing D23 only and the (unsaid in the post) idea was that I can take the unmixed components of that particularly simple developer with me when we go our property in the Northern Ontario bush. There, I can use river water and filter it to mix from dry chemicals, use the D23 divided for both film and paper and while the images that I produce may not win any photo contests, they would certainly be unique, all mine and viewable on site so that if I have to redo a photo, I can.

cheers

cheers
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom