• 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

Should I switch from Dektol to Liquidol?

Photo Engineer said:
Charles;

Don't pour it out. Check it out. If it is still good, use it. It goes until the last gasp and then begins to turn dark yellow then orange. That is when to throw it out. Don't waste it!
PE
Click to expand...

OK as an experiment, I made 42 5X7 prints on Sunday with a litre of the mixed Liquidol. (100Ml of concentrate) At the end of the day, I stuck the remainder in a Amber Glass 1 L bottle.

(I have been printing some 30 year old negatives taken when I did not know how to develop film so I could post them at:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2030677&id=1573530156&l=86e6ac5195 )

Today I put it back in the tray and found it was a sort of Grey/Purple colour. Pressing on I made another 20 5X7 prints, and found the the colour of the developer was getting Darker, but still basically grey. The prints had good dark areas so I put it away again.

I did find that the darkening made it hard to see the pint comming up, but the image was still appering at 30 seconds. I let everything "Cook" for 90 seconds in the interest of consistancy.
 
Same here.. I think I will order some for the printing fest that will ensue upon my return from New Mexico.
 
Now, here is an environmental question then.

If you have an environmentally safe developer with low capacity and an environmentally less friendly developer with high capacity, which one is more environmentally friendly. Hypothetically, you dump one of them daily and the other weekly as an example. Or, perhaps one has a higher oxygen demand (BOD or COD) in streams, lakes or sewage treatment. As a result, both are equal despite the fact that one uses Ascorbic Acid and the other uses HQ. The AMOUNT dumped per unit time is a factor.

As it turns out, you cannot just blithely claim that something is "friendly" unless you know capacity, use rate and BOD and COD.

As you have observed Charles, Liquidol has very high capcity! It is therefore quite friendly to the environment due to the fact that it has high capacity and long shelf life in spite of the fact that it contains HQ. There are a lot of factors to consider here.

PE
 
I'll be ordering some of this once my huge jug of Multigrade runs out.
 
Photo Engineer said:
Now, here is an environmental question then.

There are a lot of factors to consider here.

PE
Click to expand...
yes, it can get frustratingly complex to analyse this sort of thing. I suppose you would have to consider the process' involved in making the constituant ingredients as well. Do they create nasty byproducts or are they inefficient to produce. The answers to the questions are also subjective, depending upon if you're using 100g or 100tonne per month.
 
I just spent my first weekend printing with Liquidol. Great stuff! This is just what I've been looking for, a developer that has long tray life ... for various reasons, even though my darkroom is in my basement its still better to print only when the sun has gone down

Anyhow I did about 30 prints over the course of the weekend, add on to that test strips and crap prints --- started on Friday evening, printed Saturday and last night as well. I made a point to note the first print I made on Friday, and reprinted it last ... same settings from notes ... print looks exactly the same. I know 30 prints isn't much above the 25 8x10's recommended by the Liquidol literature, but I'm sure I could continue printing tonight as well.

Liquidol worked just as fast on the third night as it did the first. I never had to develop any print longer than two minutes (part of that was I didn't really believe one minute was enough - but it does seem to work that fast.) Only other developer I've used with this good tray life was Sprint, but I don't like using Sprint (tonality.) Dektol always went weak in trays after 24 hours.

So yea, I'm sold FWIW, I was using Ilford Multigrade FB and Adox MCC 110
 
hello

Dektol or it´s close related origin d-72 are the most common paper developers (dektol in liquid form being more concentrated), Tektol is not a generic product, although the results are a bit equal, tektol has phenidone and ascorbate as main developing agents and also as Tea as the accelerator (commonly known as a improver useful activity time),together with potassium carbonate! i mostly use d-72, is highly dependable, but usually with a variation in the developing agents, i use vita-c instead of hidroquinone, the results are so close that i prefer less toxicity. I tested some developers in the past, several known formulas and some comercial products with the most various developing agents and also some strange alkalis, mainly in agfa mcc 111, no measurable difference in blacks density, just color change, but i prefer to start in b/w and if i want some color i tone. d-72 is cheap and easy to make, dilution is 1+2 and it works great. but are others that work well, ilford multigrade, PQ universal, or so, avoid toxic developing agents as amidol, pyro, catechol and even hidroquinone
 
Ruilourosa;

If you dump one HQ developer every day and another every week, (same weight of HQ and volume of developer), then which is more polluting? If you dump an HQ developer once a week and an Ascorbate/Phenidone developer daily, then which is more polluting? This is the essence of some of the discussions above.

We just cannot say that one is better or worse unless we have a lot more information such as alkaline content, other ingredients and pollution from making the ingredients.

Granted that some developing agents are more toxic to human beings and wild life, but so is the alkali and sulfite present.

Consideration of all factors is very important and also very difficult.

PE
 
Ray Rogers said:
Do look at their site before forming conclusions....



-------------------------------------
Warm Kitty, Soft Kitty, Little Ball of Fur...
Happy Kitty, Sleppy Kitty, Purr Purr Purr.
Click to expand...
I had just looked, and DigitalTruth had it listed as discontinued(Tectol Black) now replaced with Tectol Standard.
 
cmacd123 said:
... I did find that the darkening made it hard to see the pint comming up, but the image was still appering at 30 seconds. I let everything "Cook" for 90 seconds in the interest of consistancy.
Click to expand...
I don't know the value in concerning one's self about what you can see in the developer, since processing for a consistent time is what matters. I'm glad you have a standard time - 90 sec - that you develop prints. I wonder if you might think about a somewhat longer standard developing time in future. Some developers and papers are faster and some slower, so time is something to think about. The paper I have used most recently shows not much of an image till just past a minute in fresh developer. Other papers in the same developer pop in about half the time.
 
ralnphot said:
I had just looked, and DigitalTruth had it listed as discontinued(Tectol Black) now replaced with Tectol Standard.
Click to expand...

Yes... there is a bit of confusion here perhaps... I have not followed closely nor have I used any of these products... however there seems to have been 3 names (or products?) used for Tektol... Black, Neutral and Standard; Neutral, I believe, was the cold tone version.

You may very well be correct that "Black" has died as the ECO labled Paper Developer is said to Replace the "Standard" nevertheless I don't see much in the way of a real explanation as to what happened nor to the whereabouts of Black and Neutral.

That the connection to their orignator does not seem to have been severed was my original point, however. What happened to Neutral (confusingly named being the cold tone version?) More confusing (for those who care about such things) is the LegacyPro double labeling... Who is Legacy Pro?
I dounnoh...

I am pretty sure a polite question to DT Memorial in Houston or Beauty this Summer in Boston would clear it up, but I don't know. Anyway, my only point was that the LINE per se sill exists albeit, under new names of eco & legacy pro...

Humm... If anyone has an empty bottle they don't need any more... (or just the label from one) I wouldn't mind paying postage to get it. I'd sort of like one as a souvenir....

Ray
 
hello

yes Photo Engineer, there are a lot of pollutants to take care and control and i´m not the best person to talk about them, i try to use my common sense and try to avoid the ones that come with the most nasty Msds sheets, and since i send nothing down the drain (i send all the chemicals to a treatment facility, although i do not know if they just charge me to dump everything down the drain) i care more with health issues, mine and my students, almost all developing agents are powerfull reductors and some based on benzene, and obviously, results being almost the same i try to avoid the most toxic ones, and vita-c and phenidone are (based in my readings and a bit common sense) the less toxic. clearly carbonates, sulfites and ethanolamines aren´t particulary healthy to handle, but mostly unavoidable, soooooo.... i try to formulate the best possible, keeping me and my students with reasonable b/w capabilities!

i also teach alternative processes and color processing so i see b/w "normal" chemistry almost as good for my health!


cheers and keep active!!
 
Ruilourosa;

I certainly can agree with what you say, but as Grant Haist has pointed out, wine, urine, orange juice and many other common items contain reducing agents that can develop film. In fact, the benzene derivatives that are reducing agents in urine are produced by the human body. Sulfites are used in most grocery stores and restaurants to preserve fruits and vegetables on salad bars or in produce departments. We are surrounded by chemicals. Phosphate insecticides are found in fruits and vegetables due to their use on farms.

So, although I agree, I cannot get too excited about supposed problems or we will just have to abandon analog photography. And, as I have pointed out, digital products pollute as well with heavy metals and azo or pigment dyes. The world is so complex, we cannot avoid some level of interaction with potentially harmless chemistry.

Grant Haist is nearing 90 years of age, and has worked with these photo chemicals for most of his life. I know of few people at Kodak that have suffered from working with photo processing chemistry. And, unless you understand chemistry well, you can be seriously misled by an MSDS sheet. I have seen people claim that EDTA is very toxic, but it is given by injection in heavy metal poisoning and in reality is not very toxic at all. There are many "overstated" things like that in the press and in MSDS sheets as well.

BTW, Phenidone belongs to a class of chemicals called "hydrazide". It is made from Phenyl Hydrazine which is quite toxic and the Phenidone ring can open on decomposition to give troublesome byproducts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenidone
http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/PH/1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone.html

Toxicity of the Phenidone class decreases with Dimezone and then Dimezone S according to my information.

PE
 
hello


thanks for the valuable information, i didn´t think that phenidone could be that hazardous, but it raises a question: is it better to use metol?, my students usually complain, when phenidone runs out, with more cases of dermatitis and rash!!!

My father handled photo chemicals most of his life and he just developed a strange allergy to sodium bisulfite, but i suspect that it is just a easy way for him to avoid my lab and helping me!!! he is 80 and tough as a rock!

I really just want to minimize damage, but i usually do dicromate gums, selenium toning, wet collodion, pyro developing, and already did daguerreotipes for some time, all of these highly toxic, i suppose, and so treated with respect, gloves, glasses, apron and when mixing powdered chemicals a nice 3M protection mask.

i like to do these things, i want to do them, so i just try to avoid most of their toxicity

cheers PE, and thanks for your knowledge

Rui Lourosa
 
Just to let you know...I've used photography chemicals for fifty plus years without using filter masks, gloves, glasses, aprons or special ventilation and haven't worried too much about the contents of the photography chemicals I use. I have more dangerous chemicals that I watch more closely, products in stored in the garage for products contained therein, chemicals stored under the sink to use around the home, products in a room for painting, varnishing, removal, and items used when working with this stuff as well as chemicals for outdoors.

When my wife & I were building our home I ruined at least one Shop Vac motor vacuuming up drywall dust! Anybody work with wood? Dust?

At any rate, perhaps I'm wrong, but photography chemicals are pretty tame compared to some of the stuff that gets used every day. And my exposure, use, of photography chemicals is quite a bit less than some of these others.
 
cmacd123 said:
Best stuff I have tried so far. Have to try and persuade someone in Canada to carry it. but I will be ordering from Freestyle in the meantime.
Click to expand...

Just some further follow up on my experiments.

Shortly after the post I just quoted, my wife became ill, and so I did not get a chance to make any prints this summer. I had a 1 litre brown glass bottle of MIXED liquidol on my darkroom shelf. Last week I finally went back to making proof sheets and SO I started with that bottle of Liquidol. First sheet, t worked just fine, perhaps a bit slower to come up. I had another litre from an experiment 2 weeks ago where I was helping a friends son make paper negatives with a pin hole camera. I added that to the tray and made 35 8X10 proof sheets. At that point I dumped the developer as it was starting to turn colour and I figured that I was probaly risking results.

Next day I mixed another 2 liters from the now nearly empty plastic stock solution bottle. I made another 40 proof sheets (mostly 10X10 this time) and the developer still looked clear. I poured it into a "JOBO" style 2 liter bottle but I noticed today that it is turning colour slightly. MUST use Glass! I still have a lot of film to make proof sheets from so I will try this in a few days.

Paper was Ilford MG IV RC

Thanks to Ron and the crew
 

and i use it for a print developer now too !
 
Thanks guys for the tests. Liquidol keeps ticking along.

FYI, it is bad when it is lemon yellow. Before that it begins to turn slowly darker and darker yellow and loses some potency, but increasing development time a bit helps. When it is a rich lemon yellow it is dead. Of course, I always suggest a test beforehand anyhow. It can probably turn other colors too! I try to use mine before it turns light straw colored.

Enjoy.

PE
 
I'm almost out of my big jug of Ilford Multigrade dev. I'm probably going to order some Liquidol to replace it. Looking forward to trying it.
 
The pollution issue is easily handled by simply taking all your chemicals to a proper government-sanctioned disposal facility. It ain't hard to do, and puts the decisions on what to do with the stuff in the hands of hazardous waste experts, not a bunch of people on the Internet. We need to quit acting like we all know what is best for the environment and just put it into the hands of professionals. As PE points out, there are many factors to consider, and I highly doubt that many of us are able or willing to do so. There is no need to argue about it. Just take the stuff in and be done with it.


(Not singling you out, PE. Just grabbed a passage that had something to do with the environmental issues.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register