canonetc
canonetc
Merry Christmas and HNY all,
I was inspired recently by a close friend to consider the environmental effects of traditional darkroom printing. So I did a little web searching and found Ryuji Suzuki's website called Silvergrain.org:
http://silvergrain.org/
It turns out he has created some very organic and non-allergenic paper/film developers (using Vitamin C and other non-toxic items), as well as a fixer (which has generally been the most dangerous chemcal in the printing process). I have ordered some dev, fix and wash from digitaltruth (where Ryjui markets the chemicals) and I should get them sometime after the new year.
Naturally, digital is a chemical free environment, and has removed the need for a darkroom for many; but since I enjoy traditional printing, I'm glad to have been led to find a more eco-friendly means of printing.
Ryuji's site is packed with technical data (sometimes overwhelming), but the idea of cleaner processing is a nice one. I think colleges could benefit from the use of non-toxics as well, and while I don't consider myself a "tree-hugger", I feel better about printing knowing that I may be doing a little bit less harm to our globally warming, species disappearing environment. So, on that cheery note, I hope others may also try these chemicals out. I hope to be able to post some results after the New Year. I look forward to an RFF eco-discussion on this matter! If anyone else has already gone the eco-way or tried it, please post your comments and results.
Cheers,
Chris
canonetc
I was inspired recently by a close friend to consider the environmental effects of traditional darkroom printing. So I did a little web searching and found Ryuji Suzuki's website called Silvergrain.org:
http://silvergrain.org/
It turns out he has created some very organic and non-allergenic paper/film developers (using Vitamin C and other non-toxic items), as well as a fixer (which has generally been the most dangerous chemcal in the printing process). I have ordered some dev, fix and wash from digitaltruth (where Ryjui markets the chemicals) and I should get them sometime after the new year.
Naturally, digital is a chemical free environment, and has removed the need for a darkroom for many; but since I enjoy traditional printing, I'm glad to have been led to find a more eco-friendly means of printing.
Ryuji's site is packed with technical data (sometimes overwhelming), but the idea of cleaner processing is a nice one. I think colleges could benefit from the use of non-toxics as well, and while I don't consider myself a "tree-hugger", I feel better about printing knowing that I may be doing a little bit less harm to our globally warming, species disappearing environment. So, on that cheery note, I hope others may also try these chemicals out. I hope to be able to post some results after the New Year. I look forward to an RFF eco-discussion on this matter! If anyone else has already gone the eco-way or tried it, please post your comments and results.
Cheers,
Chris
canonetc
Bryce
Well-known
Chris-
I have a darkroom and do my best to minimize my impact. That said, I'd be very interested to hear reviews on less destructive alternatives, particularly paper developer.
I take my spent fixer to a one hour place for recycling, and stop bath is pretty harmless stuff, but the developer is a bit tougher...
I have a darkroom and do my best to minimize my impact. That said, I'd be very interested to hear reviews on less destructive alternatives, particularly paper developer.
I take my spent fixer to a one hour place for recycling, and stop bath is pretty harmless stuff, but the developer is a bit tougher...
agi
Well-known
Thanks for this thread/discussion as I'll be processing my own film in the near future and wanted information/products that aren't as destructive to our environment. I did not know they existed but the links above is a start in the right direction. I'm also looking forward to the input from others.
canonetc
canonetc
Wobbly, you make a good point: the landfill detritus of computer-digital items. Yeah, I often wonder just how long my Canon 20D has been DESIGNED to last. What's that term...."Planned Obsolescence"...? If iPods are that way, well, perhaps the whole digital industry is that way as well. Why make a 20-year toaster when you can sell "the suckers" a 2-year toaster for the same price? It was ridiculous enough when Canon made a 10.2MP Rebel! GRRRRR!
Related to this, I suggest to as many people I can to ditch their inkjet printers and instead take CDROMs or cards to a lab for true C41 photographs; unless, of course, they can afford Epson's top of the line printer.
Reasons: 1) I still can see the image quality differences between inkjet prints and true C41 prints.
I cannot see good reasons to make the printer companies richer for the rest of my digital lifetime via the retail costs of ink and paper, not to mention my personal time used up in monitor-to-printer calibration. THis is probably another thread discussion item, but thought I'd toss that in as well.
Related to this, I suggest to as many people I can to ditch their inkjet printers and instead take CDROMs or cards to a lab for true C41 photographs; unless, of course, they can afford Epson's top of the line printer.
Reasons: 1) I still can see the image quality differences between inkjet prints and true C41 prints.
I cannot see good reasons to make the printer companies richer for the rest of my digital lifetime via the retail costs of ink and paper, not to mention my personal time used up in monitor-to-printer calibration. THis is probably another thread discussion item, but thought I'd toss that in as well.
davidbivins
Established
I've seen those chemicals too, and I'm anxious to read of your results. I've spent a lot of time arriving at my combination but I'm concerned, as you are.
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
In the whole scheme of things in the world and in our personal life, this is close to the last thing we should worry about.
I perhaps have about 200 rolls per year, half of them are slides, which I have to send out to develop anyway. Other half B&W, which I developed by myself, and then scan them. Once a while I got few I really like to blow them up, I will just find a rental darkroom. I fail to see how these places can provide you anything that will cost more.
Anyway, my point is that if there are enough demands that will create a movement, companies will respond to these demands. Otherwise it will be just marketing to sell some specialty products. I have tried different brands of chemicals, in the end, I stick to Ilford and Kodak because it is readily available. If I have my own printer someday, I can toy few alternatives.
I perhaps have about 200 rolls per year, half of them are slides, which I have to send out to develop anyway. Other half B&W, which I developed by myself, and then scan them. Once a while I got few I really like to blow them up, I will just find a rental darkroom. I fail to see how these places can provide you anything that will cost more.
Anyway, my point is that if there are enough demands that will create a movement, companies will respond to these demands. Otherwise it will be just marketing to sell some specialty products. I have tried different brands of chemicals, in the end, I stick to Ilford and Kodak because it is readily available. If I have my own printer someday, I can toy few alternatives.
Niko
Established
I couldn´t find information about how one should deal with used Eco-friendly -chemicals. I suppose you still can´t pour them in a sewer? Even if i couldn´t do that, i´m interested, and will propably give these chemicals a try.
Niko
Niko
traveller
Learning how to print
Niko said:
Eco-friendly developer is no problem (I talk about BW). In fact standard developer is no problem too because of the low concentration but I feel better using eco-friendly ones. Concentrating the developer to separate the chemicals from from the water has more environmental impact because of the needed energy. I dilute it and flush it down the sink.
Stopping bath, it's just citric acid or vinegar.
Fixer is a problem because of the silver. Here I use steel wool (the real one) to get the fixer free from silver. After some weeks filter the fixer, dilute the liquid part and flush it. Bring the steel wool and the sediment to the landfill or wherever you can bring your toxic waste. Just goggle after fixer and steel wool, you will find a lot of information.
The other possibility is bringing the fixer to a 1 hour lab and ask if they take it.
Hope this helps
canonetc
canonetc
Eco Friendly Darkroom Printing
Eco Friendly Darkroom Printing
Yeah, Mervyn, I have to say that if I had known about, or been informed of the existence of eco-friendly chemicals, I would have gone after them a long time ago. Not just for the environment but for my health. And none of my pro-camera store guys mentioned it (for obvious reasons), and our friendly manufacturers did not get on the band-wagon because it was cheaper for them to keep making Xtol, D76, etc, instead of investing in research for other alternatives. Why fix what works for profit? The Silvergrain guy comments on this on his website. Your comment on a movement is interesting: we here at RFF still want to use film, yet are the manufacturers listening to US? Heck no; they're cutting film production like crazy. Are we a movement? Well, I hope so, and I do hope they'll listen to our desires.
That said, whenever the day comes when we cannot so easily get regular chemicals, perhaps we can get what we need via more natural methods. Sounds similar as to one reason why we like rangefinders: a camera that works without batteries.
Cheers,
C.
Eco Friendly Darkroom Printing
mervynyan said:
Yeah, Mervyn, I have to say that if I had known about, or been informed of the existence of eco-friendly chemicals, I would have gone after them a long time ago. Not just for the environment but for my health. And none of my pro-camera store guys mentioned it (for obvious reasons), and our friendly manufacturers did not get on the band-wagon because it was cheaper for them to keep making Xtol, D76, etc, instead of investing in research for other alternatives. Why fix what works for profit? The Silvergrain guy comments on this on his website. Your comment on a movement is interesting: we here at RFF still want to use film, yet are the manufacturers listening to US? Heck no; they're cutting film production like crazy. Are we a movement? Well, I hope so, and I do hope they'll listen to our desires.
That said, whenever the day comes when we cannot so easily get regular chemicals, perhaps we can get what we need via more natural methods. Sounds similar as to one reason why we like rangefinders: a camera that works without batteries.
Cheers,
C.
reub2000
Established
What about all of the water needed to wash a print? If I was concerned about the environment then I'd be using a digital camera for all of my pictures.
Phoenix Phil
Established
I have been thinking about my environmental footprint for quite awhile too. Through various sources, I have done the following:
1. Low film water wash technique. I think it was Ilford that initially recommended filling the developing tank with fresh water and inverting it 5 times, dump, fill, invert 10 times, dump, fill, and do the same until you get to 25 inversions (if I remember correctly). I didn't trust that this could do the trick but I was willing to try. So I used a cycle of 5, 5, 10, 10, 15, 15, 20, 20, 25, 25, 30 and 30. I have been doing this for the past few years and see no ill effects from this technique, and I use less than to 2 gallons to wash my film, which is a big improvement over a continuous water wash (and builds my wrist muscles to boot). I guess I could back off and trust the Ilford recommendation.
2. Water Bucket Print Wash. I found some other internet source(s) that cited using a standing water wash for prints. So I created dividers that fit into a standard 5 gallon bucket to try this technique. First, I put my prints in a holding water tray after neutralizing them. Then I put all of them into the 5 gallon wash bucket for at least 30 minutes. Using Hypo Chek, I have found no residual fixer and see no signs of yellowing on my prints.
3. I thought about using a Vitamin C developer too; but I was concerned about two things: the longetivity of the developer and that it was not still completely devoid of all bad chemicals. Since I don't develop often enough, a short lived developer (which I think is a characteristic of Vit C developers) would probably cause me to waste and pollute more. So I attacked the issue differently. If I used a lot less chemical and if the concentrate would last long, I figured that I could do my part to reduce my chemical pollution. So I went with using a very dilute concentration of Rodinal (1:50). I rationalized that I would be pouring very little chemical into the drain and that I would get the added benefit of a compensating effect. I did this even with Ilford HP5+ which isn't recommended. I believe that HC-110 can also be used in dilute form too. And since I am now using very little developer, I put marbles into the Rodinal concentrate to force the air out of the container. Rodinal will last a long time and this will make it last longer (I think mine is over a year old right now). I haven't tried 1:75 dilution but I read where others have done that.
Another solution that I am exploring is to find even a more longer lasting developer for both film and paper. I found some references in my old Camera & Darkroom magazines and have even bought the chemicals to mix my own now. Alas, I haven't implemented that solution yet.
Phil
1. Low film water wash technique. I think it was Ilford that initially recommended filling the developing tank with fresh water and inverting it 5 times, dump, fill, invert 10 times, dump, fill, and do the same until you get to 25 inversions (if I remember correctly). I didn't trust that this could do the trick but I was willing to try. So I used a cycle of 5, 5, 10, 10, 15, 15, 20, 20, 25, 25, 30 and 30. I have been doing this for the past few years and see no ill effects from this technique, and I use less than to 2 gallons to wash my film, which is a big improvement over a continuous water wash (and builds my wrist muscles to boot). I guess I could back off and trust the Ilford recommendation.
2. Water Bucket Print Wash. I found some other internet source(s) that cited using a standing water wash for prints. So I created dividers that fit into a standard 5 gallon bucket to try this technique. First, I put my prints in a holding water tray after neutralizing them. Then I put all of them into the 5 gallon wash bucket for at least 30 minutes. Using Hypo Chek, I have found no residual fixer and see no signs of yellowing on my prints.
3. I thought about using a Vitamin C developer too; but I was concerned about two things: the longetivity of the developer and that it was not still completely devoid of all bad chemicals. Since I don't develop often enough, a short lived developer (which I think is a characteristic of Vit C developers) would probably cause me to waste and pollute more. So I attacked the issue differently. If I used a lot less chemical and if the concentrate would last long, I figured that I could do my part to reduce my chemical pollution. So I went with using a very dilute concentration of Rodinal (1:50). I rationalized that I would be pouring very little chemical into the drain and that I would get the added benefit of a compensating effect. I did this even with Ilford HP5+ which isn't recommended. I believe that HC-110 can also be used in dilute form too. And since I am now using very little developer, I put marbles into the Rodinal concentrate to force the air out of the container. Rodinal will last a long time and this will make it last longer (I think mine is over a year old right now). I haven't tried 1:75 dilution but I read where others have done that.
Another solution that I am exploring is to find even a more longer lasting developer for both film and paper. I found some references in my old Camera & Darkroom magazines and have even bought the chemicals to mix my own now. Alas, I haven't implemented that solution yet.
Phil
dll927
Well-known
It would be interesting to know how much those "Ryjui" chemicals COST. Somehow these "environmentally friendly" solutions to things always have a way of costing many times what the "normal" stuff costs. Examples: "Organic" foods, "solar" water heaters (even after all these years), and quite a few others. Somehow one really has to believe in what they're doing to stand the pinch on the wallet.
This is not to say I think they are wrong, but I have yet to meet anyone who claimed to be AGAINST the environment. I sometimes wonder if the costs involved aren't just a greedy bunch wih politically correct solutions. And I notice that lately there seem to be some second thoughts about "hybrid" cars. The costs are going to have to come WAY down before they will really be a viable choice to most people.
This is not to say I think they are wrong, but I have yet to meet anyone who claimed to be AGAINST the environment. I sometimes wonder if the costs involved aren't just a greedy bunch wih politically correct solutions. And I notice that lately there seem to be some second thoughts about "hybrid" cars. The costs are going to have to come WAY down before they will really be a viable choice to most people.
Last edited:
MartinP
Veteran
About the Ilford film wash method - they actually recommend the following, quoted from their product info.
"... After fixing, fill the spiral tank with water at the
same temperature, +/– 5ºC (9ºF), as the
processing solutions and invert it five times. Drain
the water away and refill. Invert the tank ten times.
Once more drain the water away and refill.
Finally, invert the tank twenty times and drain the
water away..."
That is with a non-hardening fixer, so I suppose the same should apply for other manufacturers unless you are specifically needing to use a hardener. I have used that method for 23 years (so far as I remember) without a problem (famous last words). Their quick wash time for the prints seems to depend on a short-but-effective fixer period, so I probably always use too much water on that. Oh well . . .
"... After fixing, fill the spiral tank with water at the
same temperature, +/– 5ºC (9ºF), as the
processing solutions and invert it five times. Drain
the water away and refill. Invert the tank ten times.
Once more drain the water away and refill.
Finally, invert the tank twenty times and drain the
water away..."
That is with a non-hardening fixer, so I suppose the same should apply for other manufacturers unless you are specifically needing to use a hardener. I have used that method for 23 years (so far as I remember) without a problem (famous last words). Their quick wash time for the prints seems to depend on a short-but-effective fixer period, so I probably always use too much water on that. Oh well . . .
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
The point about water use should not be understated. Reducing the amount of water used is the best way to reduce one's environmental footprint.
I use Heico Perma-wash for films and papers, to help reduce washing times. I re-use it until it turns purple, meaning it's exhausted. Then I do the steel-wool-metal reabsorb thing, as I do with spent fix and toners, and dump it with my other waste water, diluting it as much as possible. I can recommend the silver recovery bucket systems, too- these work pretty well, but it can be tough to find disposal unless you have a good regular toxic waste disposal system set up in your community.
Another interesting recycling point to consider is the waste water you get from de-humidifiers and air conditioning systems. This is effectively distilled water, adn can be used to mix your chemicals. I've been doing this for years will no ill effects thus far (as someone else put it earlier- famous last words...).
I use Heico Perma-wash for films and papers, to help reduce washing times. I re-use it until it turns purple, meaning it's exhausted. Then I do the steel-wool-metal reabsorb thing, as I do with spent fix and toners, and dump it with my other waste water, diluting it as much as possible. I can recommend the silver recovery bucket systems, too- these work pretty well, but it can be tough to find disposal unless you have a good regular toxic waste disposal system set up in your community.
Another interesting recycling point to consider is the waste water you get from de-humidifiers and air conditioning systems. This is effectively distilled water, adn can be used to mix your chemicals. I've been doing this for years will no ill effects thus far (as someone else put it earlier- famous last words...).
canonetc
canonetc
dll927 said:
Hi Dll:
TSD01032 Silvergrain Tektol Standard - 32 oz $12.99
CFA01032 Silvergrain Clearfix Alkaline Fixer - 32 oz $10.59
CW01032 Silvergrain Clearwash Washing Aid - 32 oz $13.99
canonetc
canonetc
dll927 said:
Hi Dll:
TSD01032 Silvergrain Tektol Standard - 32 oz $12.99
CFA01032 Silvergrain Clearfix Alkaline Fixer - 32 oz $10.59
CW01032 Silvergrain Clearwash Washing Aid - 32 oz $13.99
Above is what I paid for them, minus shipping of $9.00. Have you seen "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Good film, it tells why we have "hybrids" and not electrics (which, it turns out, there were MORE of on the road at the time of Ford's Mass production Model-T revolution. Any wonder where they all went and why....?).
Also, I received the chems yesterday, and will print soon and post results. Cheers,
Chris
canonetc
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
I've always been told that HC110 was a fairly friendly developer from a toxicity/eco impact standpoint. But I'll be curious to see your reviews - and curious to take a look at alternatives (especially for fixer).
I wouldn't assume that digital is entirely friendly tho. Mercury is still used in many components. Inkjet solvents and hardware waste - especially on the manufacturing end is tremendous.
I wouldn't assume that digital is entirely friendly tho. Mercury is still used in many components. Inkjet solvents and hardware waste - especially on the manufacturing end is tremendous.
canonetc
canonetc
Eco Friendly Darkroom Printing
Eco Friendly Darkroom Printing
HI All,
Okay, here's the first results, hopefully attached to this reply.
First image printed on Ilford RC muticontrast Matte using Printol 12 developer, stop bath and regular NuFix. Second image printed on same paper, using the "eco-friendly" Silvergrain Tektol Standard, (regular) Nacco Stop Bath, and
"eco-friendly" Silvergrain ClearFix.
I scanned the prints, but did not perform any digital alterations to tonality or anything.
To me, both images look the same.
The Silvergrain developer is yellow in color, and there were no discerable odors from it or the ClearFix. The image appeared within ten seconds.
I can say I'm pretty happy so far. The next test will be to see if any stains show up on the print. The instructions on the fix only require immersion for one minute.
So, here's hoping!
Cheers,
Chris
canonetc
Eco Friendly Darkroom Printing
HI All,
Okay, here's the first results, hopefully attached to this reply.
First image printed on Ilford RC muticontrast Matte using Printol 12 developer, stop bath and regular NuFix. Second image printed on same paper, using the "eco-friendly" Silvergrain Tektol Standard, (regular) Nacco Stop Bath, and
"eco-friendly" Silvergrain ClearFix.
I scanned the prints, but did not perform any digital alterations to tonality or anything.
To me, both images look the same.
The Silvergrain developer is yellow in color, and there were no discerable odors from it or the ClearFix. The image appeared within ten seconds.
I can say I'm pretty happy so far. The next test will be to see if any stains show up on the print. The instructions on the fix only require immersion for one minute.
So, here's hoping!
Cheers,
Chris
canonetc
