Travelling with film chemicals

[sloveless]

Was wondering if I could pick the collective brain about traveling with black and white chemicals for film processing? I'll be on the road in the near future and will need to bring chemicals to basically set up a field lab. Typically, I work out of one gallon jugs and have traveled with them in the past. But they're heavy and take up too much space in the car. In the interest of saving weight and space, I'd like to be able to pack enough chemical and equipment to process about 30 rolls of 135 and 120 into a milk crate (or something similar). Running water will be available.

I'll be processing for several shooters and won't know which films they're using until I get there, though I doubt there will be anything exotic. As such, I've decided on HC-110 for the dev. It's flexible, travels well and diluting from concentrate is not a problem. Our time is limited and fast processing is necessary, so stop, fix and clearing agent are necessary (I'm open to suggestions here, but in my experience a water stop is just too slow). As for the rest of the chemicals, I'd like to get them into quart bottles or smaller.

The equipment I'll be bringing along doesn't take much space - two daylight tanks that will handle two 135 rolls or one 120 roll, a few beakers, changing bag, timer, thermometer, etc. Standard stuff.

Any suggestions would be most welcome. Thanks in advance.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

My usual water stop time is about 30 sec. for film. I don't see an acid stop as a big time saver here.

For starters, I'd use larger film tanks, if I had to process a large volume of film quickly. It would be handy to have a few different sizes, since you don't know what films will be used, and then you could batch them as needed.

Zonal Pro fix or another fixer that comes in a liquid concentrate that you can mix from the bottle without having to mix a large quantity would work well for this application.

Permawash is easy to mix from the concentrate as a clearing agent.

 

[laverdure]

I've done this some. Water stop works fine... I don't know what would take long about it. Ditch it, save space. Also clearing agent, unnecessary. Research the Ilford washing method. Finish with distilled water. If you use a fixer without hardener, it ought to wash that much easier- I use just plain hypo crystals. The only liquid you need to carry with you is developer (or not, dry is fine, hell, folgernol is fine) and distilled water. Reels, tank, changing bag, clothes pins, voila.

 

[Travis Nunn]

I never use anything but water for my stop bath and have never had a problem with it being too slow. Like David said, Zonal Pro fix is a good choice, Ilford RapidFix is another option.

 

[Paul Howell]

When I was a working PJ covering Africa and Southern Europe I usally traveled with a metal tank with ss reels, quart size Dinafine, and a couple of quart size packets of fix, a small bottle of photo flow, and three plastic bottles, the kind that collapse. I liked Dinafine because it is almost impossible to foul up and does not need a stop bath, just plain water.

 

[Ian Grant]

I've been going camping and processing as I go along for about 20 years, 35mm, 120 and 5x4.

Take good sized measuring beakers, but stick them in with your clothes when travelling, it's remarkable what you can fit in them. As others have said use water as a stop bath, the only bulky items should be you fix and your developing tanks - and even dev tanks can be used for storage I took a Jobo 2000 to Turkey and filled it with socks while flying !

Ian

 

[craigclu]

Consider an alkaline fixer such as TF-4. It's fast, avoids second thoughts about stop bath and HCA issues, too.

 

[gainer]

Use TF4. Carry the concentrate. Forget the stop bath. 1 oz of TF4 concentrate added to the developing tank for each 8 oz of solution will stop and fix in 2 to 5 minutes, with the slowest time for the high iodide films like TMX, TMY. If need be, pour out as much developer as you will add of fixer.

30 rolls, 30 oz fixer, 15 oz HC110, water from a stream or well. It works. I have done it. I even do it in my darkroom. I think the developing is, if anything, more accurate than when using a water rinse. Use of a rapid pouring tank is more important than short stop.

 

[sloveless]

Thanks for the replies

Thanks a bunch for the replies. I'll re-examine my own reasons for not using a water stop. I guess I've just been doing things "the right way" for so long that I've accepted it as the best thing for me. I have about a month and a half before the trip, so I'll play around with your suggestions and see what works. Ordering some TF-4 today. Thanks again, folks. Much appreciated.

 

[Ryuji]

If you use chemicals in the field, please consider the proper method of disposal, even though I understand that the quantity you use will be rather small. Discharging of photographic chemicals in sewer system is preferred over dumping to the ground or dumping to septic system, although this may require you to accumulate the spent solution in a closed, leak-proof container until you visit a nearby area with sewer system.

Since the volume is so small, the compounds that can be decomposed by air, sunlight, and bacteria may not cause a major harm to the environment, but there are those that aren't decomposed by these ways in the products mentioned above. One is borate (standard for plant toxicity is about 100ppm; TF-4 concentrate contains about 800x this level, which is particularly high for a fixer) and another chelator such as EDTA and DTPA. These things are not biodegradable and they remain in the environment.

Disposal to septic system is more problematic, since more chemicals in the solution can disturb the septic system. Also, compounds like borate and EDTA will come right through the septic system and go into the nearby field.

Usually, disposal of photographic chemicals to the field and septic system is strictly regulated by local government body. As far as I know, there is no photographic chemical manufacturer that recommends disposal of their products in these ways.

 

[gainer]

Very interesting. How will I know when the septic system is being affected by the borates? I have two systems, one of which serves primarily the darkroom. Most of our soil is red clay. Some is tainted with carbonaceous material that burns. I jest, but not about the borate hazard.

I'm sure Death Valley is called so for good reason. 20-Mule teams have for many years dug borates from there to be used in diaper pails and washing machines in my house and many others. I haven't had to worry much since I live at least 100 yards from the nearest other residence which is at least 200 feet higher in elevation than mine. In addition, I don't do a commercial volume of work. The only reason I use borates in developers is the hardness of the well water which causes much, much cloudiness and precipitate when I use carbonates. When the humidity is high, I use water from a dehumidifier and carbonates. I have found that TEA in equal volume can replace the metaborate solution of PMK. I'll probably learn that it is hazardous as well.

Can I make a fixer that will take the place of TF4 without borax? Is there a way to sequester the borax in the darkroom effluent? Maybe that part could be recycled to make the fixer, keeping it "all in the family" so to speak.

 

[laverdure]

Used fixer is the contaminant to worry about (silver), or rather worry about the most. My understanding is that worrying about septic system fauna is a red herring. Besides, we can worry just as well about ground water pollution. Here are some of my thoughts:

Developer: Two bath such as Diafine (no waste, at least for a few years), stand development (very high dilutions from concentrate), non-toxic developers (such as folgernol). Another advantage of these is ease of use: time, temperature, and measurements are much less critical than usual.

Water stop

Fixer: I understand that the more heavily a batch of fixer is used, the more toxic the silver compounds it collects become, and the more difficult they are to wash out of your substrate. The best thing to do is to save your used fixer until you can properly dispose of it- if that's not possible, it's best to use if very lightly before you dispose of it, preferably then in a municipal sewer. Plain hypo is as nontoxic as you can get (it's a municipal water additive, like chlorine and fluoride), and is easily mixed on the spot from crystals. It is an aforementioned "alkaline fix."

Wash: HCA unnecessary for an alkaline process (i.e. no acid stop or hardener in the fix), especially with just film. Use the Ilford method for fastest washing times and least water waste. In some places, wasting water is a high moral crime. Final rinse with distilled water to prevent streaks and spots.

I don't think you can really beat this system for ease of traveling, ease of use, and environmental impact. At least, I haven't been able to yet.

This is all more or less what I do at home anyway. Because I live in a swamp and the septic mound is near a brook which feeds more than a few swimming holes. It takes very little tweaking to use this kind of system for paper, too.

Incidentally, if you choose folgernol, then the only chemical you have to carry with you anywhere in the world is hypo. Coffee, baking soda (or washing soda, or borax), and distilled water can be found everywhere. In fact, even hypo can be bought anywhere there are swimming pools.

Love to hear if anyone has any comments about all this.

 

[Ryuji]

Very interesting. How will I know when the septic system is being affected by the borates?[...]I'm sure Death Valley is called so for good reason. 20-Mule teams have for many years dug borates from there to be used in diaper pails and washing machines in my house and many others. I haven't had to worry much since I live at least 100 yards from the nearest other residence which is at least 200 feet higher in elevation than mine. In addition, I don't do a commercial volume of work.[...]

Patrick, we all know you have imagination but can you make it clear that your posting is based on imagination and not related to what I said in my previous post?

I did not say that borate in usual household use, or when used in equivalent or lesser quantity in photographic chemicals has negative impacts on septic systems. What I said are that borates are (1) toxic to plant; (2) can go right through septic system and discharged to the field; (3) can't be decomposed by usual factors like bacteria, sunlight or air. Different species of plants are affected by borates at different concentrations, but effects on viability, growth and crop yield are discussed in agricultural literature.

In the past, certain chemical compounds were made obsolete, generally from the least desirable or most harmful ones. Borates weren't anywhere near the top. But now very bad guys are gone, and borates are targeted because it is not always harmless.

On the other hand, developing agents, fixer, and perhaps more things can disturb the operation of bacteria used in the septic system. Furthermore, the what can go into septic system is subject to regulation and photographic chemicals are often prohibited.

I have found that TEA in equal volume can replace the metaborate solution of PMK. I'll probably learn that it is hazardous as well.

At the pH of PMK developer, triethanolamine is a very poor buffering agent and I don't recommend it.

Can I make a fixer that will take the place of TF4 without borax?

Clearfix is exactly that. The pH of both Clearfix and TF-4 are 7.8, but this pH is maintained without using any borate in Clearfix. I've also tested that Clearfix working solution can take quite a bit (more than 10% by volume) of acid stop bath before becoming acidic.

Is there a way to sequester the borax in the darkroom effluent? Maybe that part could be recycled to make the fixer, keeping it "all in the family" so to speak.

No. At least not an easy way.

 

[Ryuji]

Used fixer is the contaminant to worry about (silver), or rather worry about the most. My understanding is that worrying about septic system fauna is a red herring. Besides, we can worry just as well about ground water pollution. Here are some of my thoughts:

Many (including myself) do worry about ground water pollution. Compounds like borates, EDTA, DTPA, etc. are not removed or decomposed by the septic system and will be discharged. Septic system also discharge soluble phosphates, which is another problem.

Silver content is somewhat overrated among environmental policy makers, in my personal opinion. Unless a lot of silver is discharged, silver in used fixer is rapidly converted to insoluble silver sludge. This does have negative impacts on water treatment plants as well as septic system, but not in the way it is generally described in the context of regulations. In the quantity an average hobbyist would use, most sewer system would have little or no problem, but septic system is a different issue.

Discarding lightly used fixer solution is not recommended, especially in the case of rapid fixer. Fixer is a biologically available source of sulfur (and nitrogen in case of rapid fixer) and can lead to prolific plant growth and water quality problems.

Major photographic manufacturers spent effort in developing methods to convert chemical wastes to relatively harmless forms suitable for disposal by various means, but they all gave up in 1990s in favor of licensed chemical haulers and sewer system (aka publicly owned treatment works). I have considered various options, such as making a treatment kit to treat developers and fixers to make them suitable for disposal. However, all possible options are cumbersome, requires some equipment or time consuming. Also, I have considered possibilities of formulating photographic chemicals that are inert to microorganisms. In case of sewer system, the chemical waste goes through a long way before entering the treatment plant, giving plenty of opportunities to get mixed with other wastes, get diluted and aerated. However, this part is missing from septic system. With this limitation, practical solutions are very difficult.

After all, what can enter septic systems are subject to regulation, and there are very good reasons for this. When I checked last time, Eastman Kodak, Ilford, and Fujifilm all discouraged their customers from sending chemical wastes to septic system, and they also mention that the septic system is subject to strict regulation. Between difficult technical problems and existing regulations, this is not something amateur opinions can do better than experts.

 

[Sparky]

THIS - would be the way to go!

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst/car/307772234.html

 

[gainer]

Ryuji,
I guess I got the shoe on the wrong foot. The fact that the septic system is not itself affected by borates means that borates are not affected by the septic system and come out with the effluent to affect the surrounding soil. The septic field of mine that is in most visible and olfactory trouble is the one that serves the ordinary household waste including washing machine and dishwasher. I think the biggest problem is that the volume flowing in is too high to allow time for the septic process to work on the effluent. Even so, the grass always grows greener in the septic field. I have no idea how much borax is in the detergent mix that comes in. I know that Borax is touted as a water softener, deodorizer, and anything else the providers can think of.

I live where there is no city government interference with most of what I could do. My well water comes from 110 feet below surface and is not likely to be affected by runoff from either of the septic systems I have because it is protected by a layer of soapstone clay. If it were not so protected, my water would taste like iron and sulfur as does every other well in the vicinity. That is more good fortune than good planning, although my father did hire a water witch to find the best spot for drilling the well. Well, his Doctorate was in philosophy and philology of the English language. Anyway, don't laugh. It's not magic. It has to do with slight anomalies in the gravitational field due to different densities of water and soil. For the same reason but on a larger scale, the vertical indicated by a surveyor's plumb bob does not always show true vertical, especially in West Virginia. But I digress.

I have tried TEA in PMK and can tell no difference in end result. Not that I doubt your statement about buffering. I can also mix the Pyrogallol and Metol base in glycol for use as solution A. No sulfite, although it could be added as a solution C if desired. I'm not so sure that Pyrogallol and Phenidone in glycol with TEA as activator wouldn't work as well. Proper proportions of TEA and glycol might lead to a good single solution pyro developer with good storage properties, though to tell the truth, there is nothing wrong with the storage life of the A component of PMK.