Does mixing your own chemicals save money?

Hi,

I have been doing a lot of shooting and printing lately and am
bewildered at how quickly I am going through chemicals (yes I use my
fixer and stop by to exhaustion but insist on using developer on a
one-shot basis). Previous discussions on the archive have focused on
the flexibility benefits of mixing your own, but I am wondering about
cost. Does the cost of the raw materials make it more econmical?
Thanks!

--Phil

wrote:
Hi,

I have been doing a lot of shooting and printing lately and am
bewildered at how quickly I am going through chemicals (yes I use my
fixer and stop by to exhaustion but insist on using developer on a
one-shot basis). Previous discussions on the archive have focused on
the flexibility benefits of mixing your own, but I am wondering about
cost. Does the cost of the raw materials make it more econmical?
Thanks!


Depends on what you're using. But my answer is going to be no. The
cheapest method is usually to buy bigger packages/bottles of pre mixed
chemicals. The bigger sizes aimed at commerical labs are much cheaper then
the smaller sizes aimed at home users.

OTOH you can go to say:

www.jdphotochem.com

And work out the costs yourself. The cheapest way is to buy the big
packages of chemicals. Some will get used in almost every thing [sodium
sulfite] but even the stuff you only use a little of will keep quite awhile.


Nick

In article . com,
wrote:

Hi,

I have been doing a lot of shooting and printing lately and am
bewildered at how quickly I am going through chemicals (yes I use my
fixer and stop by to exhaustion but insist on using developer on a
one-shot basis). Previous discussions on the archive have focused on
the flexibility benefits of mixing your own, but I am wondering about
cost. Does the cost of the raw materials make it more econmical?
Thanks!

--Phil

Can be; depends on the chemicals. Some stuff like lye (Sodium Hydroxide),
Sodium Carbonate, Borax I can get at the grocery store.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

wrote:

Hi,

I have been doing a lot of shooting and printing lately and am
bewildered at how quickly I am going through chemicals (yes I use my
fixer and stop by to exhaustion but insist on using developer on a
one-shot basis). Previous discussions on the archive have focused on
the flexibility benefits of mixing your own, but I am wondering about
cost. Does the cost of the raw materials make it more econmical?

I don't think so. Plus I'm not sure what you mean by the
flexibility, Phil. Generally, I mix my own only when it
benifits the results I want to achieve. Example: mixing
my own print developer (which I have done) was never as
efficacious IMO than using standard packaged Dektol.

I had a professor in college who insisted Amidol was
artistically "better" (for him) than dektol. I never
found this to show in my own prints and quit mixing
it. Much cheaper to use the school lab's premixed
Dektol.

It really depends on what you want/need, and/or are
wanting to achieve. I mix my own negative developers
but only to a point. Example: if I'm developing Tech
Pan I use my own pyro-phenidone mixture because I think
I get better curves than with packaged Technidol or
TD-3. If I'm using T-max I prefer Rodinal, HC110,
or some other commercial developer.

I would say that rather than 'flexable', you rather
should be aware of just what results you expect when
you mix your own. BTW, developer should IMO always be
used one shot, but I never any chemistry (especially
fixer) to exhaustion. As soon as fixer shows any
concentration of silver compounds (fixer test) I
discard it or use it for work prints. Likewise I
never use stop to exhaustion.

I consider rapid fix, acetic acid, and hypo clear to
be relatively cheap.

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

but I never any chemistry (especially
fixer) to exhaustion. As soon as fixer shows any
concentration of silver compounds (fixer test) I
discard it or use it for work prints. Likewise I
never use stop to exhaustion.

Fixer, I use two times to print; first bath is last times
second bath, I always mix a second fresh bath and fix
three minutes before toning.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

but I never any chemistry (especially
fixer) to exhaustion. As soon as fixer shows any
concentration of silver compounds (fixer test) I
discard it or use it for work prints. Likewise I
never use stop to exhaustion.

Fixer, I use two times to print; first bath is last times
second bath, I always mix a second fresh bath and fix
three minutes before toning.

I never fix that long (B&W), but instead use a 1 bath
archival fix (rapid fix 1:3 for 1 minute.) No second
bath. When a fixer test reveals precipitate, I use it
for work prints or mix fresh 1:3 for good prints. Don't
really care about the cost, but efficaiousness and
convienence.

Tests indicate 1:3 rapid fix fixes Seagull (my standard
paper) in 25 seconds _even_ when a light precipitate
forms.

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Nick Zentena wrote:

wrote:


Hi,

I have been doing a lot of shooting and printing lately and am
bewildered at how quickly I am going through chemicals (yes I use my
fixer and stop by to exhaustion but insist on using developer on a
one-shot basis). Previous discussions on the archive have focused on
the flexibility benefits of mixing your own, but I am wondering about
cost. Does the cost of the raw materials make it more econmical?
Thanks!




Depends on what you're using. But my answer is going to be no. The
cheapest method is usually to buy bigger packages/bottles of pre mixed
chemicals. The bigger sizes aimed at commerical labs are much cheaper then
the smaller sizes aimed at home users.

OTOH you can go to say:

www.jdphotochem.com

And work out the costs yourself. The cheapest way is to buy the big
packages of chemicals. Some will get used in almost every thing [sodium
sulfite] but even the stuff you only use a little of will keep quite awhile.


Nick


It depends a lot on what you are mixing. Anything with lots of sulfite
in it is going to cost about $4 a quart. I can make film developer that
is better than most for about $0.25 a gallon. I can make a stock
solution for about $20 a liter that is diluted 1+50 for film.

The cheapest reliable film developer that I know of is HC-110 mixed from the
syrupy concentrate. If you take only the amount of concentrate you need for
one-shot use, the rest of it will keep for years. See:

www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110

As for mixing your own, D-23 has been recommended as especially simple. I
don't know how economical it is. Try to get a formula measured in spoonfuls
rather than grams (there are people who have worked it out that way).


--
Clear skies,

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html

wrote:
Hi,

I have been doing a lot of shooting and printing lately and am
bewildered at how quickly I am going through chemicals (yes I use my
fixer and stop by to exhaustion but insist on using developer on a
one-shot basis). Previous discussions on the archive have focused on
the flexibility benefits of mixing your own, but I am wondering about
cost. Does the cost of the raw materials make it more econmical?
Thanks!

I use self-mixed film developers exclusively. While I do this for
flexibility (I can tweak my developers as long as I like it), this is
cheaper than buying premixed developers. One example: 1 liter D76H
(for all practical purposes identical to D76) costs about 35 Euro-Cent.
One liter Perceptol-lookalike (5g Metol, 100g Sodiumsulfite, 33g NaCl,
1g boric acid, 1l water) costs about 40 Euro-Cent. Weighting takes about
5min for one batch.

My results with these homemade developers are excellent, I don't care
how long they will keep... at this prices, the remains get thrown away
after one developing session, and of course I use them one-shot.

Martin

wrote:
Hi,

I have been doing a lot of shooting and printing lately and am
bewildered at how quickly I am going through chemicals (yes I use my
fixer and stop by to exhaustion but insist on using developer on a
one-shot basis). Previous discussions on the archive have focused on
the flexibility benefits of mixing your own, but I am wondering about
cost. Does the cost of the raw materials make it more econmical?
Thanks!

--Phil


There isn't a simple answer. It depends on how much you use. For
large volumes it may be cheaper. If you search Google for "photographic
chemicals" you will find a number of sources. Check the prices. Then
calculate what it costs to mix some common processing solutions which
have published formulas. Sometimes you will wind up paying hazardous
materials shipping charges, these make otherwise cheap chemicals
expensive and must be taken into account.
Pushing stop bath and fixer to the limit is not good practice.
Stop bath will become neutralized by the developer fairly rapidly
especially when printing. This is one solution that I can say flatly is
cheaper to mix yourself. A liter of glacial acetic acid will make about
65 liters of stop bath, so is much cheaper than buying 28% or even
Kodak Indicator Stop Bath, which is about double this concentration.
Fixing baths should not be overused because the resulting images
will not be permanent. The most economical way to do fixing is to use
two successive baths. The capacity is four to ten times that of a
single bath.
For large enough volumes of film a replenished system is very
economical and will produce very consistent results if managed right.
Some developers are their own replenishers, for instance Kodak T-Max
RS.
Again, it depends on how much work you do.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA