 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / April 2007Just starting in the dark room
Folks, I have been taking pictures for a while and want to add a bit of creativity to the hobby and venture into the darkroom. While I can hardly wait to screw up, I have an over riding concern about the darkroom. What do you do with the chemicals after use. I doubt dosposing of the used chemicals via the sewer system is ecologically sound. I know I don't want to trash them via my septic tank either. I have a lot more reading to do but thoughts on just the above would be helpful and if you care to comment I have the following observation. I see a lot of enlargers on ebay and I am considering a Beseler 23CIIXL w/ Dichro color head. My thought is to do b&w and branch out into color. Is there a better recomendation for an enlarger? Any other advice is always welcome. Regards, JohnE In article <psqdndyE9v_QHIbbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Igottagetalife <igottagetalife_or_I_might_as_well_be_in_pictures@whocares.com> wrote: > I have a lot more reading to do but thoughts on just the above would be > helpful and if you care to comment I have the following observation. I see > a lot of enlargers on ebay and I am considering a Beseler 23CIIXL w/ Dichro > color head. My thought is to do b&w and branch out into color. Is there a > better recomendation for an enlarger? After many years of working on a lot of different enlargers, the 23cIIXL is probably my favorite. I'd recommend staying with Beseler or Omega anyway, to assure you can find parts. And between the two, I find the Beselers to be more "cast iron" and less fiddly to keep in shape. Oh, and don't overlook the 67c models. If you don't need 6x9 (and few do) they're more compact and work just as well. Thanks! > In article <psqdndyE9v_QHIbbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Igottagetalife [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Oh, and don't overlook the 67c models. If you don't need 6x9 (and few > do) they're more compact and work just as well. Igottagetalife spake thus: > I have been taking pictures for a while and want to add a bit of > creativity to the hobby and venture into the darkroom. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dosposing of the used chemicals via the sewer system is ecologically > sound. I know I don't want to trash them via my septic tank either. Regarding disposal of chemicals, assuming you're talking about conventional black & white processing, everything except spent fixer can safely go down the drain. Fixer, you're *supposed* to take to a facility that can handle it (i.e., dispose of or extract the silver from it). There being no such facility where I live, and since I had such a small amount, I ended up dumping that too without much guilt. Not sure I'd do that if I had a septic system, though ...  SignatureI hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/blog/archives/2004/06/000623.html) Unless you quit you day job (bad idea anyway!) and go into the darkroom full time your waste output will never amount to more than a gallon or two of spent chemicals a week, this is a miniscule amount. If you use the two bath method a gallon of fixer is good for 200 8x10 prints: 100 as the second fixer and another 100 as the first fixer (the older fixer is used as the first fix). That's a lot of prints. Developers and fixers are not necessarily bad either (sodium sulfite and sodium thiosulfate are used in swimming pools in huge quantities after all to remove excess chlorine), what is bad is the silver salt in the used fixer, you can do silver recovery either crudely or with some precision to remove a lot of the silver from the used fix by chemical and electrical means; not so much to recover the silver and make a buck but to remove the silver from the fixer. darkroommike > Igottagetalife spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that too without much guilt. Not sure I'd do that if I had a septic > system, though ... > Unless you quit you day job (bad idea anyway!) and go into > the darkroom full time your waste output will never amount [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > darkroommike Chlorine and thiosulfate are mutually destructive. The silver in a small amount of exhaused fixer will usually plate itself out on the drain pipes. The main concern is pouring waste chemicals into a septic tank. I believe Kodak has a publication about this. For the most part the chemicals used in B&W or even in color work are pretty dilute and are in quite small quantity. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com >> Unless you quit you day job (bad idea anyway!) and go into the darkroom >> full time your waste output will never amount to more than a gallon or [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > For the most part the chemicals used in B&W or even in color work are > pretty dilute and are in quite small quantity. My chems go into the city sewer. The color print processor (RA-4) uses 20mL each of developer and bleach-fix for every two 8x10's (160 square inches). For those same prints, it runs a _minimum_ of 2 gallons of water down the same drain. For c-41, I dump up to 26 ounces each of developer, fixer, and stabilizer with _at_least_ 14 gallons of water. (I have a flow meter on my water supply to make sure that the washes are sufficient) A couple years ago I had reason to replace the drain for the RA-4 processor after about five years of use. The PVC pipes were plated with a dark, shiny material, which I assume was silver. I'm guessing that over time the pipes from my studio to the sewer treatment plant will eventually be silver lined. I wonder if I can make a deal with the sewer and water authority?! Thanks folks appreciate the information. Regards, JohnE >>> Unless you quit you day job (bad idea anyway!) and go into the darkroom >>> full time your waste output will never amount to more than a gallon or [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > be silver lined. I wonder if I can make a deal with the sewer and water > authority?! > Igottagetalife spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that too without much guilt. Not sure I'd do that if I had a septic > system, though ... I wonder about all this home darkroom chemical disposal. When you think about the bleach, laundry detergent, drain cleaner, etc., that we presumably can dump down the drains, why a little oxidized developer, stop bath (weaker than vinegar), and fixer would be a significant problem escapes me. If I were running a sewage treatment plant, I think I would be more worried about all the sulphite dumped down the drains from the developer, fixer, and hypo-clear because it increases the oxygen demand of the effluent. But compared with a couple of toilet flushes, diswasher or washing machine operations, the dilution of the photochemicals should be essentially undetectable. I assume you are not dumping cyanide fixers or bleaches. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 08:40:01 up 56 days, 20:07, 3 users, load average: 4.20, 4.23, 4.19 Jean-David, I'll assume you are writing in generalities and my questions were asked knowing the general answeers would indicate where I need to do further research. I want to get into developing and the biggest stop point was the chemical mess. I am not about to simply dump it all down into my septic field and it appears for the heavy metal (silver in this case) that is a piece of cake to filter out. I am not about to use cyanide or bleach and then dump it in my field.... I also am using well water for drinking. I am simply fact finding and the internet and the response here have been very helpful to me (someone who has had a desire to develop after years of taking pictures). I also use "green" detergents... not bleaches and am very careful about what I put back into the land and hence the questions. I haven't bought a lick of darkroom equipment and while I have answers for most of the developing questions, I am still researching. Talk to me in a few years and I may have a few peices of silver for you..... then again if I can't be 100% sure that I have the dangers covered then I may not. Thanks for raising the concerns but it doesn't assist much in fact finding, what are you doing with your chemicals and do you have a process that works for you share it...... Again I will update this thread with my solution once I have it but for the silver it is an easy solution to precipitated it out read previous responses for clues. Regards, JohnE >> Igottagetalife spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > I assume you are not dumping cyanide fixers or bleaches. "Igottagetalife" > I want to get into developing and the biggest stop point was the chemical > mess. The point is, there isn't any chemical mess. Well, less chemical mess than even the _greenest_ of households produce. Developing agents are 'anti-oxidants' - see, good stuff: mop up radicals better than the Feds. Developers are often derived from tree bark. Tree bark, it should be noted, is often quite poisonous. Most developing agents aren't, except for the ones most closely related to tree bark. Acetic acid is a byproduct of metabolism: there are critters that produce it and critters that eat it. Put a spoonful of dirt into a bottle of vinegar and you should soon have lots of happy worms swimming in the vinegar, consuming it, and converting it into worm piss. As for sulfur compounds they are everywhere, may as well avoid aluminum and iron. Like salt, return them to the sea. Pouring fixer on the onion patch will give you extra-tasty onions. All that's left is silver. As people aren't happy unless they have something to 'be concerned about', silver is treated very gravely. But with a bit of steel wool it's all gone and virtue is restored. All the silver came from the Earth, will return to the Earth, has been present since the creation of the Earth and will be present until the end of the Earth. It's not your silver, let it go free. > I am not about to simply dump it all down into my septic field That is the most ecologically sound thing you can do with it. And socially responsible: not spreading one's waste around and paying someone else to cart it out of sight and mind. Nobody else wants your effluent. Well, there are a bazzilion little microbes in the septic field that want it, but that's pretty much it. > then again if I can't be 100% sure that I have the dangers covered then I > may not. There are two driving forces in life: sex and death. Get a bit more of the former and worry a bit less about the latter. To not act until one is 100% sure is to not act. Ask Hamlet. Leads to a bad end. Life is taking a leap into the unknown, trusting in faith and risking it all. And being smart enough not to do it in Vegas. Environmental advice: 1) Everybody sh.ts, don't get retentive about it. 2) The solution to pollution is dilution. 3) Recycle your garbage in your own back yard, not someone else's -- it leads to a dramatic reduction in garbage production. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus (regarding silver in discarded fixer): > All the silver came from the Earth, will return to the Earth, > has been present since the creation of the Earth and will be > present until the end of the Earth. It's not your silver, let > it go free. Just with respect to this point, how much of a problem *is* silver in bodies of water, anyhow? It's true what you said about this element, that it's always been there and always will be there. But the same can also be said about selenium, for example, and selenium is definitely a big problem when it concentrates in water (read about the dire situation with toxic selenium at the Kesterson Reservoir in California's San Joaquin Valley). SignatureI hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/blog/archives/2004/06/000623.html) > What do you do with the chemicals after use. In the "Black and White Photography I" (35mm) course that I'm now in, we were taught to pour everything except fixer down the drain (that's film & print developer, stop bath, fixer remover, Photo-Flo, water used for washing film and prints). Fixer that's been used on film gets reused on prints. When the print fixer is exhausted, they take it somewhere and do something with it, I know not what. The B/W print room has Beseler 23C III enlargers. I have nothing to compare them to, but they are still working after quite a few years and several hundred students. That certainly says something about their durability. Adam >> What do you do with the chemicals after use. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Adam Whoa! The capacity of fixer for paper is a lot less than for film. In addition film usually has quite a lot of Silver Iodide in it and the Iodide ions cause the fixer to work more slowly. Fixer that has been used on prints may still work on film but not the other way. Ideally, separate fixer should be used for prints and film but in any case fixer used on paper must be quite fresh or the results will be short lived. Ilford gives the capacity of a fixing bath (rapid fixer) for archival fixing of paper as 10 8x10 sheets per _gallon_. By using a two bath system the capacity is extended at least 10 times. Most of the silver in exhaused fixer can be removed by storing it with some steel wool. The silver will plate out on the wool. The wool must not be oiled (some is) and not Brillo or other stuff with soap in it. The silver can be recovered from the steel wool but salvage is probably not economical for the amounts used in a low volume amateur darkroom. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com >> In the "Black and White Photography I" (35mm) course that >> I'm now in, we were taught to pour everything except fixer [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > per _gallon_. By using a two bath system the capacity is > extended at least 10 times. You definitely know a lot more than I do, but while I'm in this course I'm going to do things the way our instructor told us. I don't mean to imply that the way our instructor teaches us is the only way, or even the best way. However, he's the one grading our work, so... The fixer is Sprint Speed Fixer, diluted 2:8 for film and 1:9 for paper. We were taught to mix up a fresh batch each time we develop film, and to pour it out of the developing tank into containers labeled "Barely used fixer, dilute 1:1 for prints." OTOH every time that I've been there when the print room needs fresh fixer, somebody's mixed up a new batch. Of course, everything at the college photo lab gets more usage than a typical home darkroom. Tonight I was the only one there, and did about 16 8x10 sheets, and the fixer (less than a gallon, I'd say) still tested OK. Thanks for all your useful information! Adam P.S. Out of curiosity, tonight I took one badly overexposed contact sheet (i.e. garbage) and didn't fix it at all, just to watch the image disappear, or whatever it will do. Adam spake thus: > P.S. Out of curiosity, tonight I took one badly overexposed contact > sheet (i.e. garbage) and didn't fix it at all, just to watch the image > disappear, or whatever it will do. That's cool; you should experiment like that to see what happens. Not to spoil your fun, but the image won't "disappear" from an unfixed print. Since your instructor evidently hasn't told you what fixer actually does, its only real function is to remove undeveloped silver from the print (or film). So an unfixed print will be fine for a while, but will eventually turn colors as the silver salts "tarnish" (for lack of a better term). Others can explain the process more precisely, but that's basically what happens. SignatureI hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/blog/archives/2004/06/000623.html) > Adam spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > term). Others can explain the process more precisely, but that's basically > what happens. Mr David Nebenzahl is right, of course-- possibly right nearly as many times as Richard K.(!)....if the print contains no residual developer. If the print has been in good stop bath for sufficient time, the developer will be nuetralised, and the print will act as he states. If there is any active developer remaining in/on the print, the print will darken when the previously unexposed silver becomes exposed to light. Adam's experiment came close to the "Sabbatier Effect" (sp?). When the print has been in the developer for a bit longer than it takes for the midtone areas to start to come up, turn on the lights for a couple seconds. Be ready to quickly put the print in the stop bath. The resulting print may have almost a negative look. (For first efforts with this technique, negatives with a high contrast subject may work best.) Experimenting is good, but I had a very good high school photography teacher whose favortie saying was "You have to learn to walk before you can run", in other words, learn the basics first before you start getting too far out in experiment land! (His other favorite expression I remember every time I put a neg in the enlarger: "Emulsion faces emulsion"-- the emulsion side of the neg faces the emulsion side of the paper.) SignatureKen Hart kwhart@fullnet.com Ken Hart spake thus: >>Adam spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Mr David Nebenzahl is right, of course-- possibly right nearly as many times > as Richard K.(!).... Thanks, but I can't even hold a candle to the inestimable Mr. Knoppow. SignatureI hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/blog/archives/2004/06/000623.html) >>> P.S. Out of curiosity, tonight I took one badly overexposed contact >>> sheet (i.e. garbage) and didn't fix it at all, just to watch the image [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If there is any active developer remaining in/on the print, the print will > darken when the previously unexposed silver becomes exposed to light. Nope, this one went through the stop bath. I was really concerned that any remaining developer might affect other prints in the same wash. This contact sheet was so overexposed that most of it was dark grey or black while it was still in the developer. Normally I would have moved it straight from the developer to the trash can. > Adam's experiment came close to the "Sabbatier Effect" (sp?). When the print > has been in the developer for a bit longer than it takes for the midtone [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > other words, learn the basics first before you start getting too far out in > experiment land! Yes, I went though this in this newsgroup's "1940s look" thread. I'm still learning how to get good enlargements using conventional techniques (contrast filters, burning and dodging). Our syllabus said we would need one 100-sheet box of paper, but soon I'll be ordering my third box of 100. > (His other favorite expression I remember every time I put > a neg in the enlarger: "Emulsion faces emulsion"-- the emulsion side of the > neg faces the emulsion side of the paper.) Our instructor always follows this by saying "You may have an emulsional experience." It was funny the first few times. Anyway, thanks for all your advice! Adam >> P.S. Out of curiosity, tonight I took one badly overexposed contact >> sheet (i.e. garbage) and didn't fix it at all, just to watch the image [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of a better term). Others can explain the process more precisely, but > that's basically what happens. Thanks for your explanation! I thought that fixer also somehow made the film/print no longer sensitive to light. Gotta read that textbook again! (Our instructor is like that: he clearly knows the material and has a lot of experience, but he forgets that ours is a class of beginners and we don't know what may be obvious to him.) Anyway it's been two days and no visible change yet, but then this sheet is mostly dark grey to black already. Adam Adam spake thus: >>> P.S. Out of curiosity, tonight I took one badly overexposed contact >>> sheet (i.e. garbage) and didn't fix it at all, just to watch the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > has a lot of experience, but he forgets that ours is a class of > beginners and we don't know what may be obvious to him.) If you're interested in the whole photochemical process (which is pretty fascinating, I think), this page has a technical explanation that's fairly easy to follow: http://www.cheresources.com/photochem.shtml. SignatureI hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source. Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all. - Horst Prillinger (see http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/blog/archives/2004/06/000623.html) Adam a écrit : ><snip> > You definitely know a lot more than I do, but while I'm in this course > I'm going to do things the way our instructor told us. I don't mean to > imply that the way our instructor teaches us is the only way, or even > the best way. However, he's the one grading our work, so... Well, once you're graded, follow Richard's advice, a much better procedure ... > The fixer is Sprint Speed Fixer, diluted 2:8 for film and 1:9 for paper. > We were taught to mix up a fresh batch each time we develop film, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > about 16 8x10 sheets, and the fixer (less than a gallon, I'd say) still > tested OK. Thanks for all your useful information! Again, use separate fixers for films and papers ... > Adam > > P.S. Out of curiosity, tonight I took one badly overexposed contact > sheet (i.e. garbage) and didn't fix it at all, just to watch the image > disappear, or whatever it will do. Well, if it was developed, the dark areas won't disappear but the lighter ones will progressively darken under the light due to physical development. So after a sufficient time, it will just turn out pretty dark ... Claudio Bonavolta http://www.bonavolta.ch >> I don't mean >> to imply that the way our instructor teaches us is the only way, or >> even the best way. However, he's the one grading our work, so... > > Well, once you're graded, follow Richard's advice, a much better > procedure ... As long as I'm using the college's photo lab, I pretty much have to follow their standard procedure, so I won't confuse the other students. And some of them get confused awfully easily -- we're at about week 11 of a 15-week course, and some of them still aren't sure how to develop a roll of film! > Again, use separate fixers for films and papers ... We use a fresh batch for each tank of film, and a fresh batch whenever necessary in the printing room. One advantage of the college lab is that we're not paying for chemicals (not directly, anyway) so we're not concerned about the cost of mixing up a fresh solution of anything. >> P.S. Out of curiosity, tonight I took one badly overexposed contact >> sheet (i.e. garbage) and didn't fix it at all, just to watch the image [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > development. > So after a sufficient time, it will just turn out pretty dark ... It was already way too dark while it was still in the developer, or else I wouldn't have "experimented" with it. Maybe I should try again when I have a hopelessly UNDERexposed print. Thanks for all your advice! Adam |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.