Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > Analog DarkRoom / Printing

View Poll Results: D76 or XTOL
D76 160 44.20%
XTOL 202 55.80%
Voters: 362. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 06-28-2010   #81
filmfan
Registered User
 
filmfan's Avatar
 
filmfan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,861
I use both. XTOL for pushing/fast films.
__________________
Fuji X100S
Canon New F-1 w/ FD SSC 28mm f2, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2010   #82
CK Dexter Haven
Registered User
 
CK Dexter Haven is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,433
My Xtol experience is very limited. I had some film done by a pro lab here in NYC. I hated the results. It was the first time i actually called the lab to see what developer they were using, specifically so that i could avoid it in the future.

D76, though - i used it in high school and college, and since and in between i've seen a lot of fantastic results from other photographers. It's the 'classic' developer. I'm not interested in modern grain structures, or in improving upon things. I want a certain look, and its one that is inspired by the photographs in the books i collect. When i started souping my own film again, a year and half ago, i chose ID-11, which is supposed to be the same as D76, and right off the bat, i loved the results with Rollei Retro 100. I'm going to be using ID-11/D76 and Rodinal with Tri-X, Plus-X and Retro 100/APX100, and trying to ignore everything else. Oh, i did buy some Ethol UFG to use with 120 Tri-X, but haven't gotten around to trying it yet. THAT, though, was inspired by Irving Penn.....
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2010   #83
funkpilz
Registered User
 
funkpilz is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Berlin.
Posts: 213
I tried XTol, in fact I have another sealed package lying around. But for now, I'm back to Rodinal for convenience. I don't mind the grain, and I love stand development. Never change a winning team, they say.
__________________
I like taking pictures. Want to see them?
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2010   #84
JayGannon
Registered User
 
JayGannon is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 366
Am I the only one who loves the fact that xtol mixes into a large amount?
I find I go through 5l very quickly... mix of 1+1 and 1+3 sometimes.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2010   #85
KenR
Registered User
 
KenR is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 616
I never found anything in the Xtol negs that made up for the difficulty in mixing 5 liters of the stuff. I guess convenience has won out as I seem to have standardized on HC110 for 400 speed film and Rodinal for the slower speeds.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2010   #86
robbeiflex
Registered User
 
robbeiflex's Avatar
 
robbeiflex is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 999
XTOL, because of fine grain, push-ability, low cost, and low toxicity.
__________________
"They say, ‘If you use this digital camera, you can take a clear picture in the dark’. The dark should stay dark. You can’t really see that much, and you don’t really want to see that much anyway.” Nobuyoshi Araki 2006

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2010   #87
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayGannon View Post
Am I the only one who loves the fact that xtol mixes into a large amount?
I find I go through 5l very quickly... mix of 1+1 and 1+3 sometimes.
No, it's not just you. At one stage I was buying the 50 L packs (Cat # 818 4517 not sure if Kodak even makes them anymore) and was using them in about a fortnight at (mostly) 1+3, but I was processing film for other people.

Still like mixing it up and having 5L ready to go.

Marty
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2010   #88
JayGannon
Registered User
 
JayGannon is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freakscene View Post
No, it's not just you. At one stage I was buying the 50 L packs (Cat # 818 4517 not sure if Kodak even makes them anymore) and was using them in about a fortnight at (mostly) 1+3, but I was processing film for other people.

Still like mixing it up and having 5L ready to go.

Marty
They dont =)
At least not through my pro labs distributer.
I checked a while ago was there any larger pack.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2010   #89
healyzh
Registered User
 
healyzh's Avatar
 
healyzh is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 412
Personally I like either Ilford DD-X or Rodinal. I like the convenience of a developer that comes in liquid form.
__________________
Thanks,
Zane

My fflickr photostream

My Zane's Photography website
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2010   #90
DNG
Film Friendly
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Camby, Indiana. USA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,956
I use Xtol 1:3
with Delta 50/100/400 and tried Plus-X
I am still messing with time/agitation (tweaking), but, I do get fairly nice negs for scanning... a wee bit thin.. but scans nice.

Xtol and Plus-X is a nice combo shot at box speed.
Xtol does better with the traditional emulsions like Plus-X, I think.
1:3 allows 10m + develop times at 20c also.

Have not tried D76 for ages!
__________________
Feedback Link
Flickr: My Street
Other Gallories
Nikon: F2, FM2n, EM, Konica FS-1, Fuji X100T
Nikkor: 24mm f/2.8 Ais, 28mm f/3.5 Ai, 50mm f/1.4 N/Ai
Hexanon: 40mm f/1.8 AR, 57mm f/1.2 AR
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2010   #91
DNG
Film Friendly
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Camby, Indiana. USA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayGannon View Post
Am I the only one who loves the fact that xtol mixes into a large amount?
I find I go through 5l very quickly... mix of 1+1 and 1+3 sometimes.
I Like the 5L bag too. I have "taped" 6.5L liquid container you might have for Iced Tea at a party. It has 1L markings up to 5L, with a 3.5" round fill opening at the top. and it has a built in handle!
Although it takes me a few months to use 5L at 1:3
__________________
Feedback Link
Flickr: My Street
Other Gallories
Nikon: F2, FM2n, EM, Konica FS-1, Fuji X100T
Nikkor: 24mm f/2.8 Ais, 28mm f/3.5 Ai, 50mm f/1.4 N/Ai
Hexanon: 40mm f/1.8 AR, 57mm f/1.2 AR
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2010   #92
jmcd
Registered User
 
jmcd's Avatar
 
jmcd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 460
Quote:
DNG: Although it takes me a few months to use 5L at 1:3
Just curious if you are using a minimum of 100ml per roll?

I like both D-76 and Xtol, and find in general that D-76 is better at providing a harder look, Xtol more open, lighter. Either developer is quite capable, and provides different looks through dilution and agitation.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2010   #93
Mcary
Registered User
 
Mcary is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia USA
Age: 55
Posts: 1,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayGannon View Post
Am I the only one who loves the fact that xtol mixes into a large amount?
I find I go through 5l very quickly... mix of 1+1 and 1+3 sometimes.

At first I was worried about whither it would go bad before I was able to use but since I'm also processing medium format film turned out to be a non issue.
Mostly us XTOL at 1-1 but sometime use it full strength for Tr-X 120 at 1600 or at 1-2 1-3 if I'm down to the last of a batch.
__________________
M. Cary
Trying to see something new whither I'm visiting someplace new or a place that I've been a dozens of times before.
Tumblr http://www.tumblr.com/blog/mcaryartnude
Not work safe

  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2010   #94
delft
Registered User
 
delft's Avatar
 
delft is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 175
Xtol replenished. Makes using the 1ltr combiplan for 4x5 much more economical. I quite like the grain xtol gives with TMY. I still have HC110 and rodinal in stock, but haven't used them anymore for some time now.
Have used D76 before, liked the results, but switched to HC110 for ease of use.

Dirk
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2010   #95
Matus
Registered User
 
Matus's Avatar
 
Matus is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Frankfurt, DE
Posts: 1,843
I use mostly Pyrocat HD (tha same stock solutions since 2007 - still fine !) but recently got a bottle of Ilford DD-X for HP5+ and Delta (but also used it with Adox Pan 400). Still my experience is very limited.

I have never used either D-76 or Xtol though. Would you guys be so kind so say a few words about how the D-76 or Xtol compares to DD-X ?
__________________
________
Matus
... Flickr galleries: New Zealand , Spain
... per camera: Olympus XA , Jupiter J3 , Rolleiflex T, Mamiya 6, Ricoh GRDIII shots
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2011   #96
flip
良かったね!
 
flip's Avatar
 
flip is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 1,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Then again ... the US pres gets voted in without having to really prove that he can actually run the country!
Only dictators and incumbents run on proven ability.
__________________
Back in the Bay and looking for work.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2011   #97
Registered User
 
raytoei@gmail.com's Avatar
 
[email protected] is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,016
I am into my first serious xtol 5-litre pack. I find that the image is a little too contrasty at 1+1 dilution.
__________________
------------------------------------
Film is Photography.
------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2011   #98
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
I am into my first serious xtol 5-litre pack. I find that the image is a little too contrasty at 1+1 dilution.
Time and exposure, not dilution, controls contrast. If the negs are too contrasty, decrease your development time. If, as a result of that, the dark tones lose contrast, expose more.

Marty
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2011   #99
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
I am into my first serious xtol 5-litre pack. I find that the image is a little too contrasty at 1+1 dilution.
Time/temp are at least as important as dilution. Back off on the time.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2011   #100
Requin
Registered User
 
Requin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 78
I use D76 because I'm not a developer tester. Too many possibilities. That's it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-12-2011   #101
al1966
Feed Your Head
 
al1966's Avatar
 
al1966 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 604
I used D76 or its cousin Ilfords ID11 for a long time I tried others but I just keep coming back. I am considering a different developer for the fp4 I have just bought and will be open to suggestions.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2011   #102
Klyment
Registered User
 
Klyment's Avatar
 
Klyment is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Age: 33
Posts: 10
I use XTOL at stock concentration when pushing Ilford Delta 400 to 1600. It's currently my favourite high speed combination due to it's higher but very manageable contrast, pronounced and characteristic but non-detail-inhibiting grain structure, and much wider exposure latitude than D-76 and slightly wider latitude than HC-110. My previous favourite was HP5+ in Ilfosol S which has sadly been discontinued and was replaced with, in my opinion, an superior product for rated speed development but a highly-inferior product for push processing. I still have HC-110 around but since only 50L packs of XTOL were available locally I've been using XTOL most actively of my developers.

And I still use HC-110 in as high a dilution as I can and push HP5+ as fast as I can when shooting 4x5 in hopes of getting as much grain to be visible as possible.
__________________
Website :: Blog

Leica M7 (chrome), Leica M6 TTL (black chrome) 90 Pre-ASPH 'Cron (chrome), 50mm F/1.1 Nokton, 35mm F/1.4 Nokton SC , 35/2 Biogon (silver), Coolscan 5000, Howtek Scanmaster 4500 w/ DPL Pro
// Nikon D800, D2X, 135/2 DC-Nikkor, 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor AF-D, 24-70/2.8 AF-S, 35/1.4 AF-S, 50/1.8 AF-D // Panasonic GH3, 25/1.4, 14-140, Sigma 18-35/1.8, Metabones Speedbooster, BMPCC, BMCC // Toyo VX125 (Jade green), 72/5.6 XL, 110/5.6 XL, 210/5.6 Symmar-S, Sony NEX-6. Sony A7, Sony RX1r
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2011   #103
Mablo
Registered User
 
Mablo is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,942
I've been using D-76 for several years as my 2nd developer (1st is Rodinal of course). However, recently I got excited of the idea to use Xtol replenished. Xtol is much easier to replenish than D-76. The few rolls I've developed so far have been good.
__________________
Mablo
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2011   #104
dfoo
Registered User
 
dfoo is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 1,921
I used XTOL replenished for about a year and dropped it eventually when my negs got extremely thin. I recommend you read a very long post on APUG about using XTOL replenished. Personally I wouldn't do it again... there is no cost savings vs XTOL 1+2 one-shot, and I made some excellent images very hard to print... YMMV.
__________________
M8, M3, ZM Ikon + too many lenses to list.

Some of my work - http://silverprint.posterous.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-07-2011   #105
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixbones View Post
XTOL is supposed to be the new age D76.
How is that so?
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).



My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-07-2011   #106
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 41
Posts: 7,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A. View Post
How is that so?
It was designed to give similar tonality to D-76 with slightly finer grain, less toxicity, and slightly higher (1/3 stop was claimed if I remember right) effective film speed. Like D-76 it can be used straight or diluted 1+1. Early instructions from Kodak included instructions for dilutions of 1+2 and 1+3 but those were dropped because those dilutions often failed due to the user using too small a tank with them (there wasn't enough of the stock solution in the diluted working solution to fully develop film unless a larger tank with fewer films was used).
__________________
Christopher Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Back home again in Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

My Technical Info pages: Film Developing times, scanning, printing, editing.

Buy My Prints in RFF Classifieds

Support My Work on Patreon
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-10-2011   #107
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
It was designed to give similar tonality to D-76 with slightly finer grain, less toxicity, and slightly higher (1/3 stop was claimed if I remember right) effective film speed. Like D-76 it can be used straight or diluted 1+1. Early instructions from Kodak included instructions for dilutions of 1+2 and 1+3 but those were dropped because those dilutions often failed due to the user using too small a tank with them (there wasn't enough of the stock solution in the diluted working solution to fully develop film unless a larger tank with fewer films was used).
Well, yes, I am aware of that. What I don't understand is how XTOL is "New Age".

And that is true, I stopped using XTOL after a few tries just because of that: I preferred using D-76 or Rodinal when not using Diafine (which is a completely different world)
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).



My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-10-2011   #108
DNG
Film Friendly
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Camby, Indiana. USA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks View Post
XTOL
Because, because, because, because, because;
Because of the wonderful things it does.
What He Said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
__________________
Feedback Link
Flickr: My Street
Other Gallories
Nikon: F2, FM2n, EM, Konica FS-1, Fuji X100T
Nikkor: 24mm f/2.8 Ais, 28mm f/3.5 Ai, 50mm f/1.4 N/Ai
Hexanon: 40mm f/1.8 AR, 57mm f/1.2 AR
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-10-2011   #109
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 73
Posts: 6,094
I like D76 1:1 as I know what I get from it! Five decades of doing TriX in it gives me no surprises (dont want that when developing). I use other developers too, but my two "regulars" are Rodinal and D78.
Interesting that these two are also some of the oldest 'concoctions" in photography. Rodinal celebrated it's 120's birtday in January this year and D76 was formulated by Capstaff at Kodak in 1926 - 85 years old and still going strong. Initially it was made for movie stock - but when TriX showed up in 1954 as a 35mm film - it was a marriage made in heaven.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-11-2011   #110
Chris101
Lazy Lytro Shooter
 
Chris101's Avatar
 
Chris101 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A. View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
It was designed to give similar tonality to D-76 with slightly finer grain, less toxicity, and slightly higher (1/3 stop was claimed if I remember right) effective film speed.

...
Well, yes, I am aware of that. What I don't understand is how XTOL is "New Age".

...
From the Wikipedia article you referenced: "New Agers advocate living in a simple and sustainable manner to reduce humanity's impact on the natural resources of Earth;"

I believe that calling a chemical 'less toxic' indicates that using it will reduce its impact on the environment.

Finer grain and higher speeds seem to appeal to desires. Not very New Agey.
__________________
101-365
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-11-2011   #111
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 41
Posts: 7,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris101 View Post
I believe that calling a chemical 'less toxic' indicates that using it will reduce its impact on the environment.
That and reduce the health effects on users. We're exposed to this stuff every time we develop film, so the Xtol formula, based on Vitamin C and Dimezone (4-hydroxymethyl, 4-methyl, 1-phenyl, 3-pyrozolidone) is better in that effect. Dimezone and its relative, Phenidone (1-phenyl, 3-pyrozolidone) were once beleived to be completely nontoxic, which is no longer thought true but they're still less toxic than Metol or Hydroquinone
__________________
Christopher Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Back home again in Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

My Technical Info pages: Film Developing times, scanning, printing, editing.

Buy My Prints in RFF Classifieds

Support My Work on Patreon
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-11-2011   #112
Chris101
Lazy Lytro Shooter
 
Chris101's Avatar
 
Chris101 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,123
I agree Chris. For the one doing the developing, personal protective equipment is a must, as their exposure is thousands of times greater than is environmental exposure. A dust mask and nitrile gloves are essential. Chemical splash goggles (ANSI Z-81 compliant) should be used with highly alkaline solutions such as Rodinal. I always tell my (chemistry) students the first time they use it, "If you get sodium hydroxide in your eyes, take a quick look around, because that will be the last thing you see."

Speaking of Rodinal, I cringe at it's popularity. The main ingredients are sodium hydroxide and hydroxyaniline. The former, sodium hydroxide is a contact hazard - it'll cause your skin to crack and bleed, especially with multiple exposure. It feels like soap on your skin, because it is dissolving the fatty acids out of your cells, and making soap out of you.

Hydroxyaniline (aka para-amino phenol) is toxic in very small doses, and can be absorbed through the skin. The symptoms of a small dose are nausea, and loss of fluids. A large dose is usually fatal. It biodegrades very slowly, and is toxic to aquatic animals as well as the microorganisms that are used to break down sewage in waste treatment plants. Nasty, nasty stuff.
__________________
101-365

Last edited by Chris101 : 03-11-2011 at 23:32.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2011   #113
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris101 View Post
From the Wikipedia article you referenced: "New Agers advocate living in a simple and sustainable manner to reduce humanity's impact on the natural resources of Earth;"

I believe that calling a chemical 'less toxic' indicates that using it will reduce its impact on the environment.

Finer grain and higher speeds seem to appeal to desires. Not very New Agey.

Ahhhhhh. Well, that certainly had flown over my head. Duh. Got it. Mah bad.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).



My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2011   #114
Chris101
Lazy Lytro Shooter
 
Chris101's Avatar
 
Chris101 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A. View Post
Ahhhhhh. Well, that certainly had flown over my head. Duh. Got it. Mah bad.
Oooommmmmmmmmm.
__________________
101-365
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2011   #115
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 41
Posts: 7,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris101 View Post
I agree Chris. For the one doing the developing, personal protective equipment is a must, as their exposure is thousands of times greater than is environmental exposure. A dust mask and nitrile gloves are essential. Chemical splash goggles (ANSI Z-81 compliant) should be used with highly alkaline solutions such as Rodinal. I always tell my (chemistry) students the first time they use it, "If you get sodium hydroxide in your eyes, take a quick look around, because that will be the last thing you see."

Speaking of Rodinal, I cringe at it's popularity. The main ingredients are sodium hydroxide and hydroxyaniline. The former, sodium hydroxide is a contact hazard - it'll cause your skin to crack and bleed, especially with multiple exposure. It feels like soap on your skin, because it is dissolving the fatty acids out of your cells, and making soap out of you.

Hydroxyaniline (aka para-amino phenol) is toxic in very small doses, and can be absorbed through the skin. The symptoms of a small dose are nausea, and loss of fluids. A large dose is usually fatal. It biodegrades very slowly, and is toxic to aquatic animals as well as the microorganisms that are used to break down sewage in waste treatment plants. Nasty, nasty stuff.
Rodinal's concentrate is quite toxic, but diluted 1+50 or more, the Potassium Hydroxide (the packaged version switched to Potassium Hydroxide a very long time ago) is no longer that dangerous. Like acids, strong alkalines weaken with dilution. I did not know that the developing agent was that toxic in small doses! I've never heard it called Hydroxyaniline. Isn't the actual chemical name 1,4-diaminobenzene hydrochloride ? Almost all developers are benzene based. Metol, Hydroquinone, Phenidone, and Pyrogallol all are!
__________________
Christopher Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Back home again in Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

My Technical Info pages: Film Developing times, scanning, printing, editing.

Buy My Prints in RFF Classifieds

Support My Work on Patreon
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2011   #116
dfoo
Registered User
 
dfoo is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 1,921
Here is the MSDS for Rodinal. Read it. http://www.madsens.com.au/new/darkro...oncentrate.pdf
__________________
M8, M3, ZM Ikon + too many lenses to list.

Some of my work - http://silverprint.posterous.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2011   #117
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,674
D76 - because it tastes great (tough XTOL is less filling...)
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2011   #118
wlewisiii
StayAtHome Dad & Photog
 
wlewisiii's Avatar
 
wlewisiii is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Madison, WI
Age: 53
Posts: 5,263
I have only used D76 of these two in the past. I will always keep as least some around as it's a near perfect least common denominator.

That said, I hope to send in an order to Photographer's Formulary very soon for the ingredients for Mytol (homebrew Xtol http://www.jackspcs.com/mytol.htm ) and give it a try that way.
__________________
My Gallery
My Best Pictures

Playing and learning daily with: 4x5 Crown Graphic, Leica IIIf w/ 50/2 Summitar, Nikon F2 Photomic w/ 50/1.4 & Olympus E-PL1.

"Some people are 'the glass is half full' types. Some people are 'the glass is half empty' types. I'm a 'the glass is full of radioactive waste and I just drank half of it' type. And I'm still thirsty." -- Bill Mattocks
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2011   #119
Chris101
Lazy Lytro Shooter
 
Chris101's Avatar
 
Chris101 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
Rodinal's concentrate is quite toxic, but diluted 1+50 or more, the Potassium Hydroxide (the packaged version switched to Potassium Hydroxide a very long time ago) is no longer that dangerous. Like acids, strong alkalines weaken with dilution. ...
Thanks Chris. you are right. Rodinal IS made with potassium hydroxide (KOH) commercially, but I've made this developer with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) in the past, and it works the same. The two chemicals have very similar properties, with KOH being a bit cheaper, and a slightly greater contact hazard. Even at a fifty-fold dilution, one still needs to exercise caution with KOH (and NaOH.) Rodinal concentrate contains 9 molar KOH,. When diluted 1:50 this becomes 0.2 molar KOH. This is strong enough to severely damage eye tissue, and it's effect on skin will vary from individual to individual. With less than 15 minutes of flushing, KOH will remain in pores and cracks of the skin, where the water will be absorbed and evaporate. The KOH however will become more concentrated, eventually resulting in a chemical burn. Here is a picture of my right thumb's cuticle after exposure to 0.1 molar NaOH last Monday:



Had I been wearing gloves, this (albeit minor) injury would have been prevented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
... I did not know that the developing agent was that toxic in small doses! I've never heard it called Hydroxyaniline. Isn't the actual chemical name 1,4-diaminobenzene hydrochloride ? Almost all developers are benzene based. Metol, Hydroquinone, Phenidone, and Pyrogallol all are!
No, 1,4-diaminobenzene (aka p-aminoaniline) is a diffrent molecule. Rodinal is p-hydroxyaniline (which is also called 4-aminophenol) dissolved in concentrated potassium hydroxide. (There are also some sulfite family ions in the solution to keep the developing agent from oxidizing in the bottle.)

Warning: optional science lesson:

Organic compounds with a benzene ring structure in them are called aromatic compounds. Not all of them smell, but the name began before organic chemists knew that much, and it remains in common use today. A benzene ring is six carbon atoms bonded together into a six membered ring. There is a hydrogen attached to each carbon. Think of a hexagonal shaped ferris wheel.

(I would bet that more that most organic compounds that are of commercial interest today are aromatic compounds.)

If a single hydrogen on a benzene ring is replaced by a nitrogen with two attached hydrogens (an 'amine' group), it is called aminobenzene, or by its common name, aniline. A benzene ring with a hydrogen replaced by an oxygen and a single hydrogen (a 'hydroxy' group) attached is called phenol. A benzene ring with two things attached opposite each other is referred to as being 'para' substituted. So a benzene ring with a hydroxy group attached opposite of an amine group can be called either para-aminophenol, or para-hydroxyaniline. In practice, one can drop positional prefixes, such as para, so long as all the compounds under discussion are para substituted. So calling the compound either aminophenol, or hydroxyaniline are both correct.

The hydrochloride part of the name, means that it crystallized from a hydrochloric acid solution, and that a single molecule of hydrochloric acid remains attached to the hydroxyaniline molecule in the solid, crystalline form. In Rodinal solution however, the hydrochloric acid is removed and neutralized by the KOH. In practice, the HCl is inconsequential, and only affects the weight of the hydroxyaniline used in formulation.

Hydroxyaniline works as a developer by losing two hydrogens to the hydroxide solvent. This neutralization reduces silver ions to silver metal. The compound mentioned by Chris Crawford, 1,4-diaminobenzene (also known as para-diaminobenzene, para-aminoaniline, or commonly as phenylenediamine), is actually C-41 developer, a more active developer than is hydroxyaniline.

Rodinal will reduce the silver (that is, develop the film) more slowly, and in a more controlled manner than will C-41 developer. C-41 will quickly reach completion, while Rodinal development can be halted (by neutralization with stop bath, or dilution with a couple water rinses) before all the available silver ions are reduced. The quicker crystallization of silver in the C-41 reaction means that the grains (silver crystals) from phenylenediamine reduction will be smaller than those formed by the action of hydroxyaniline.


Please note that my reference for the reactions of the two developers is the book, Fundamentals of Photographic Theory by T. H. James Ph.D. and George C. Higgins Ph. D. of the Research Laboratories of Eastman Kodak Co., copyright by the authors, 1968. My reference for the formulation of Rodinal is Jack's Photographic and Chemistry Site.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg cuticledamage.jpg (145.3 KB, 337 views)
__________________
101-365

Last edited by Chris101 : 03-13-2011 at 00:41.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2011   #120
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 41
Posts: 7,630
Chris,

Thanks for the clarification. I did confuse the names of Phenylenediamine and Aminophenol...what I get for trying to recall complex chemical names in the middle of the night, lol.

I knew what Benzene is, its a remarkable chemical that is the basis of so much in the modern world. Photo developers are almost all benzene based, as are a lot of dyes, medicines, and a lot of other modern chemicals too. I am glad you explained what phenols and anilines are. I never knew why those names were used for some benzene based molecules!
__________________
Christopher Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Back home again in Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

My Technical Info pages: Film Developing times, scanning, printing, editing.

Buy My Prints in RFF Classifieds

Support My Work on Patreon
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 21:41.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.