ZoneImaging Photochemicals: A new photochemical company

pentaxuser · Jul 8, 2022

All good replies, friends so "members of the jury I rest my case" as they say in the British courts

pentaxuser

balmir · Jul 14, 2022

Ian Grant said:
It's odd that Jemzyboz/Lane keeps reading his posts here but doesn't reply.

At least he's removed the claims on his Zone Imaging website of working closely with Ilford. But he still claims working with PE/Ron Mowrey, despite the fact Ron passed away before he asked him any questions.

He's a total fraud.

Ian

Hello,this is my first post here... but long time reader... Today I bought 510 Pyro ( Zone Imaging version) and I was looking for instructions to use it,when I found the post written some time ago here about the lies of James Lane ... as I was a member of Analogue Wonderland facebook group where James Lane is selling his ''miracle developer'' I posted there a part of the discussion that took place here regarding his developer... well,guess what: less than 10 minutes later James Lane himself came to defend himself and his product,claiming that Ian Grant has a '' grudge'' against him on this website and everything bad that was claimed in here about his product was already debunked by some '' specialists '' of some sort.... another 10 minutes later,after I told James Lane that I want to be neutral and that I really don't care if his product is a ''miracle'' or not,one of the admins at Analogue Wonderland immediately removed my post along with all the comments,posting a new comment that my post was ''inflaming people around here''' ... he never mentioned who else was '' inflamed'' by my post....but I call it '' hiding the truth '' . Later I realised that James Lane is a very well known face at Analogue Wonderland when I saw a YouTube video with him in there given some sort of an interview advertising a new developer ( another ''miracle'' developer,of course...) And speaking about the article from Photrio I told James Lane to come here and answer all the questions that people here are trying to find answers for,and i mentioned about his fake ID that he uses to come here and read everything ... he was very quiet about that.... and after that,the post was gone,Poof.... Analogue Wonderland just lost me as a customer today...

pentaxuser · Jul 14, 2022

balmir, Analogue Wonderland's prime purpose is to sell (a) Analogue Wonderland and (b) its products, isn't it? If you or anyone like what it sells and its prices then fine but hoping that it is ever likely to welcome debate that consists of what it regards as awkward, unwelcome questions will remain a forlorn hope. Businesses do encourage friendships and brotherhoods of sort but usually these are of the mutual interest kind with other businesses. You appear to have experienced what happens when your interests and theirs are not compatible

It is not in even the loosest sense of the word a forum like ours. It is a business which is there to do what I mention above.

If that was the treatment meted out to you then voting with your feet accompanied by your wallet is a very sensible decision.

pentaxuser

MattKing · Sep 21, 2022

The later posts in this thread are concerned with Modern Staining Developers in general, and have been moved to this thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/modern-staining-developers-a-discussion.194341/
Congratulation Raghu on your new thread .

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Oct 24, 2022

'Incredible' claim in a recent review!

"510-Pyro, while not 100% safe, is incredibly non-toxic, based on studies by the EPA and ECHA."

"While it is still toxic, it isn’t as harmful as previous forms of Pyro developers."

"being less toxic is a great way to get into pyro developers without being in too dangerous conditions."

" being lower toxicity and having only a single bottle makes my life and development easier"

Developer Review Blog No. 34 – Zone Imaging 510-Pyro

Pyro developers hold a special place in my development tool kit. Despite being one of the oldest developers, being viewed as highly-specialised and highly toxic. I've found them to be one of the best developers

www.alexluyckx.com

faberryman · Oct 24, 2022

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
'Incredible' claim in a recent review!

"510-Pyro, while not 100% safe, is incredibly non-toxic, based on studies by the EPA and ECHA."

Developer Review Blog No. 34 – Zone Imaging 510-Pyro

Pyro developers hold a special place in my development tool kit. Despite being one of the oldest developers, being viewed as highly-specialised and highly toxic. I've found them to be one of the best developers

www.alexluyckx.com

James Lane provided some of the “nitty gritty”.

pentaxuser · Oct 24, 2022

"And recent work by Zone Imaging is showing that it is even less harmful to the environment than Kodak Xtol"

The above is a quote from the article so wow I wonder what we Xtol users should now decide to do?. Thanks to Zone Imaging and James Lane and assuming that Alex Luyckx is reporting correctly what Zone Imagining's findings are, we now need to look at 510 Pyro's toxicity in a whole new light, surely?

I wonder if Omer knows? I hope so as he sells Zone Imaging's 510. Mind you Zone Imaging is bound to have told him surely? So perhaps not a concern really

I had thought we were perhaps finished with the Zone Imaging saga but clearly there is more life in the old dog yet

But wait! Alex adds the following: " Although it is still wise to take precautions, not dumping a whole bottle of concentrate down the drain, keeping it away from children and animals and seeking medical treatment if swallowed

Hmm... it doesn't sound from the second quote as if it is really less toxic that Xtol. Does Kodak issue the same kind of statement about Xtol? Perhaps but I ask because I don't know

Just as an aside I wonder why having bought this stuff at £25.50 you'd then pour the whole concentrate down the drain? Perhaps the author should have added that if you had taken such a dislike to the stuff before opening the bottle you should be public spirited enough to send it back to Zone Imaging

Apparently you can get Zone Imaging's 510 from the Parallax Photo Coop. Didn't Warren Beatty work there in 1974?

pentaxuser

faberryman · Oct 24, 2022

I was watching a show last night and learned that rat poison is less toxic than cyanide. Whew!

gone · Oct 24, 2022

faberryman said:
I was watching a show last night and learned that rat poison is less toxic than cyanide.

That may be, but one would need to ask a dead, poisoned rat to find out for sure :-]

Having worked for the E.P.A. back in the stone age, my scheme is to assume everything is toxic. We asked thousands of businesses about toxic and hazardous chemicals and materials in their work places. They told us everything, only because it was anonymous.

Some of the stuff would make your hair stand on end. Even benzine...it's in lots of solvents, one should try to avoid it. Hospitals had the worst. Radioactive urine from cancer patients (CDC and EPA), OSHA for workplace safety, EPA for burned cancerous materials, and more.

Tom Kershaw · Oct 24, 2022

It is odd how Zone Imaging got off the ground and gained so much attention in the first place; but then I'm not sure why any company would want to work with Mr. Lane or stock his products.

faberryman · Oct 24, 2022

Tom Kershaw said:
It is odd how Zone Imaging got off the ground and gained so much attention in the first place; but then I'm not sure why any company would want to work with Mr. Lane or stock his products.

Must be the wholesale price and associated profit margin, though I am not sure why anyone in the US would buy Zone Imaging's 510 Pyro when you can get it for half the cost from Bostick and Sullivan.

Alan Johnson · Oct 24, 2022

Registration Dossier - ECHA

echa.europa.eu

$4.1.2 refers.

pentaxuser · Oct 24, 2022

I wonder if Zone Imaging has told Alex of its findings about the toxicity being less than Xtol and how this conclusion was reached or has simply told him what he has repeated in his article? Alex says that he bought his Pyro from B&H but this was the 2006 formulation. Strangely he doesn't mention B&H as one of his sources for Pyro at the end of his article. Is that because it is the old Jay de Fehr's 2006 stuff and not the new 510 improved by Zone Imaging with less toxicity than even Xtol?

pentaxuser

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Oct 25, 2022

faberryman said:
I am not sure why anyone in the US would buy Zone Imaging's 510 Pyro when you can get it for half the cost from Bostick and Sullivan.

This could be the reason:
"A new formulation has fixed some of the issues noted in 2012. I should mention that I purchased my 510 from Bostik & Sullivan, the older 2006 formulation."

Why's Bostik & Sullivan still selling 2006 formulation as claimed by the reviewer?

Lachlan Young · Oct 25, 2022

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
This could be the reason:
"A new formulation has fixed some of the issues noted in 2012. I should mention that I purchased my 510 from Bostik & Sullivan, the older 2006 formulation."

Why's Bostik & Sullivan still selling 2006 formulation as claimed by the reviewer?

The only difference is that one variant has 50% more Phenidone in it. And the only way to make it meaningfully less toxic would be to remove the Pyrogallol - and that returns us to Mr Lane's bizarre understanding of photochemistry. Frankly, you'd be better off with Ilfosol 3 - or XP2 Super in C-41.

faberryman · Oct 25, 2022

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
This could be the reason:
"A new formulation has fixed some of the issues noted in 2012. I should mention that I purchased my 510 from Bostik & Sullivan, the older 2006 formulation."

Why's Bostik & Sullivan still selling 2006 formulation as claimed by the reviewer?

I don't know that Bostick and Sullivan is selling the older formula. Did Bostick & Sullivan confirm that to the reviewer? Is it common knowledge in the photographic community? Did the reviewer have the Bostick and Sullivan 510 Pyro chemically analyzed? Did James Lane tell the reviewer that the Bostick & Sulllivan 510 Pyro is the older formula? If so, how did James Lane determine that it is the older formula? Is James Lane credible? Would anybody buy any product or service offered by Zone Imaging?

Ian Grant · Oct 26, 2022

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
"510-Pyro, while not 100% safe, is incredibly non-toxic, based on studies by the EPA and ECHA."

For clarity the EPA and ECHA have not studied the Toxicity of 510-Pyro or for that matter Xtol. So the above statement is false, which is why Raghu has brought this to the attention of Forum members.

Ian

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Oct 30, 2022

Now that Zone Imaging has increased the scale of production and distribution of 510-Pyro, I wish they engage competent and certified authorities to evaluate the toxicity of 510-Pyro and make the evaluation report public so that facts take precedence over claims and counter claims.

pentaxuser · Oct 30, 2022

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
Now that Zone Imaging has increased the scale of production and distribution of 510-Pyro, I wish they engage competent and certified authorities to evaluate the toxicity of 510-Pyro and make the evaluation report public so that facts take precedence over claims and counter claims.

A very reasonable wish, Raghu but reading every claim ZoneImaging make about "its" 510 Pyro as opposed to any other 510 suggests to me that this won't happen

I suspect that what you wish will be viewed as not to ZoneImaging's advantage

pentaxuser

faberryman · Oct 30, 2022

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
Now that Zone Imaging has increased the scale of production and distribution of 510-Pyro, I wish they engage competent and certified authorities to evaluate the toxicity of 510-Pyro and make the evaluation report public so that facts take precedence over claims and counter claims.

When pigs fly. It really doesn't matter. I am not planning on drinking it or any other photo chemical. It’s sort of a rule I have.

albireo · Nov 30, 2022

Here's the man himself hard at work again on one of the most popular (~72K members) film photography groups on facebook.

Cryptic marketing for his product essentially. Pretending he's a normal user who's surprised at the performance, failing to explicitly state he has clear stakes in the product. Self promotion at its worst, and the moderators don't seem to care. Breathtaking.

Here's another one, where he appears to just randomly flag a product, in passing, which had been 'reviewed' by some youtuber/blogger

Tom Kershaw · Nov 30, 2022

albireo said:
Cryptic marketing for his product essentially. Pretending he's a normal user who's surprised at the performance, failing to explicitly state he has clear stakes in the product. Self promotion at its worst, and the moderators don't seem to care. Breathtaking.

I hope for the sake of the photographic community that if James Lane reads this thread, at some point he comes to a realisation of his actions and how they reflect on himself and his business. Suspect we may be waiting a while...

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Nov 30, 2022

albireo said:
Here's another one, where he appears to just randomly flag a product, in passing, which had been 'reviewed' by some youtuber/blogger

Alex Luyckx's review of 510-Pyro left me with more questions than answers. I would recommend @Andrew O'Neill's review for the interested.

faberryman · Nov 30, 2022

Is the skull and crossbones symbol in the lower right corner of that post what James Lane had previously removed from the 510 Pyro labeling?

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Nov 30, 2022

faberryman said:
Is the skull and crossbones symbol in the lower right corner of that post what James Lane had previously removed from the 510 Pyro labeling?

Yes, it was also removed from 510-Pyro MSDS along with a few warnings ~~but subsequently added back after concerns were expressed in this forum about the removal.~~ [Edit: only the warnings were added but not the skull and crossbones symbol.]

Alex L used Bostic Sullivan 510-Pyro in his review (but recommended his readers to buy Zone Imaging's product) which still carries the skull and crossbones symbol.

ZoneImaging Photochemicals: A new photochemical company

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency