MirkoBoeddecker
To ensure that the Eurocrats in the chemicals department in Brussels don’t end up out of work, they are constantly imposing bans on chemicals. All truly dangerous substances were banned years ago, and now the officials have to get creative to justify their hefty salaries. So they merrily and diligently carry on banning things at random until, at some point, even water and air are banned. Currently, it is boron compounds that have come under fire. Admittedly, there are generous exemptions that still permit the use of boron compounds as eye wash and as an additive in caviar (you read that right: we eat it and rinse it into our mucous membranes). It would be mischievous to even hint at the term ‘lobbying’ in this context. Unfortunately, the residue of the photographic industry no longer has such defence strategies at its disposal, and so it has come to pass that the raw material in question must now be reduced to a very small quantity in all photographic developers (with which, as is well known, one does not come into direct skin contact); otherwise, we would have to declare it a poison, which would be tantamount to a ban on resale.
Unfortunately, the boron in Atomal Part I (i.e. in the small sachet) is the very thing that presents the problem. A small percentage of the small sachet is ‘really very little’ and therefore not enough.
We’ve been experimenting back and forth for six months now (many thanks again to Klaus Wehner) and have finally found a way to keep the formula unchanged but add “unnecessary chemicals” to comply with the ridiculous volume percentage rules. Ultimately, more chemicals are now ending up in the environment, as the new substance serves purely as a percentage filler and is completely ineffective.
Further consequences include a reduction in shelf life (which in turn leads to a waste of resources and additional environmental impact from having to buy replacements for developers that have gone off) and the need to package ATOMAL in three separate parts (more packaging waste).
As for shelf life, we are countering this by purchasing a vacuum packaging machine (which then uses more electricity), but Part I is now almost on its own in the bag and can oxidise.
The old shelf lives of 5–10 years and more may no longer be achievable.
All of this costs a lot of money (especially the vacuum packing – time factor). Unfortunately, the old price can no longer be maintained, and I am not yet able to calculate a new one.
Best regards,
Mirko
MirkoBoeddecker
Right, and now the same message again, just as we learnt it in "Marketing 1-4":
?
To improve the shelf life of ATOMAL and bring its environmental performance into line with the new, stricter regulations, we will be packaging it in three separate parts from now on and have reduced the percentage of environmentally harmful substances. The quality of the packaging has been improved and, to increase shelf life, all oxidation-sensitive substances will be vacuum-sealed in future. To this end, we have made significant investments in our packaging equipment. A pack of ATOMAL for 2 x 1 litre, with which up to 20 black-and-white films can be developed, costs just XX € B)
TiMo
Hi Mirko,
As long as you explain the actual background, I can live with the marketing spiel ;)
Such mind-numbing decrees, which ultimately do far more harm than good, always make me feel like I’m in one of Terry Gilliam’s obscure films (anyone remember *Brazil*?) – or *The Fools of Schildburg*.
Hopefully the price of €19 isn’t meant seriously. If so, you might as well scrap it straight away.
…
Ganbatte (Keep your chin up) from Japan
Tim
MirkoBoeddecker
Of course, it won’t cost €19, but we first need to ‘work out the practical costs’ of how much time the vacuum sealing process takes.
I’m expecting it to be about 25% more than it is now. On the other hand, the last price increase for the ATOMAL was four years ago, and due to market consolidation, many other products have risen significantly in price during that time.
Besides, it’s actually good news that we’ve managed to solve the problem.
…
Perhaps one more sentence, in case you didn’t read to the end above: The formula remains UNCHANGED in terms of its photographic effect, even though there are now three sachets and they weigh more together than before.
You simply use less water when preparing it, but the same amount of the same active ingredients ends up in the solution.
…
Best regards,
…
Mirko
Bonderer
It’s a bit tricky to answer because I don’t use this developer, but what doesn’t get more expensive over time? Do we stop smoking because of it, or stop using our ‘golden calf’ – the car – now that petrol has become quite expensive, or do we even stop eating? Not at all. Everything carries on as usual. Managing to go four years without a price increase is quite an achievement. Others are less squeamish about it, and with FOTOIMPEX you can at least be sure that the quality won’t change. I’ve (unfortunately) had quite a different experience. And if nobody drinks the stuff, you won’t go through that many packets a month. So the best hobby in the world won’t burn a big hole in your pocket.
AchimBauer
Hi Mirko,
Unfortunately, the quote button isn’t working quite as I’d like it to – that semi-manual way: You said: ‘That’s how they merrily and diligently keep banning things into the blue until eventually even water and air are banned.’
?
Yes, why should you be better off than others?
?
A few years ago, there was another major safety inspection at my workplace, and the company doctor seriously suggested that warning labels should actually be put on the taps (tap water, as the Swabians call drinking water from the mains), because water is also a hazardous substance.
?
?
Oh, and while I’m on the subject: cadmium was banned in films and photographic paper, and then came the mandatory switch to energy-saving light bulbs.?
Let’s see how we can increase boron consumption by regulation.
?
Regards, Achim
