Bonderer
Manufacturers of photochemical products have always tried to shirk responsibility, essentially adopting the attitude that development is at your own risk.
I develop black-and-white films for someone who insists on using Rodinal. Or rather, Adonal these days.
As I’ve now read in various places that Rodinal, Adonal and the like may not actually have an indefinite shelf life, I rang them up, gave them the batch production number and asked about the production date. And what can I say – they don’t know.
‘It has an indefinite shelf life, and if not, just do a test roll to see if the developer still does what it’s supposed to.’ That was the answer.
Come on, I want to develop films in it, not use films to test whether the developer still works, and I need to be able to rely on the developer actually performing the development.
I could end up with a dead stock item, and then at least two films would be ruined. The manufacturer is off the hook because there’s no way to trace how old the stuff is. Or does the system just say, ‘Never mind how old it is, the main thing is it’s sold and the warehouse is empty’?
I had that experience once with Tetenal; they sold developer through my dealer where the packaging had been different for over two years. The whole finger-pointing game, everyone blaming each other, is a familiar story, though I trusted my dealer more than Tetenal in that case.
With my own films, it wouldn’t be quite so tragic, but I don’t want to mess up or even destroy films entrusted to me in this way.
Why isn’t there a production date or ‘use by’ date on the bottles?
Then everyone would know where they stand, and if they use the stuff when it’s older – that’s at their own risk.
I’ve now sacrificed one of my own films to test it; I had no other choice. The place where I usually buy this stuff is on holiday at the moment – that happens sometimes.
Mistakes make you wiser; I’ve started throwing things away too if they seem too old or have been open for too long.
Important negatives can’t be replaced; they’re irretrievably lost.
Photochemical products, whatever they are, you can simply buy more of, but it should say on them when they were manufactured.
And the supposedly extremely long shelf life of Rodinal – that might be true for glass bottles, but I can’t believe it for plastic ones.
It’s not without reason that solutions for analytical chemistry are almost exclusively sold in amber glass bottles, and anything that comes in plastic bottles has a big, bold ‘Use by…’ printed on it.
TiMo
Hi Analoger,
If there’s a best-before date on it, that doesn’t change a thing. Then all the idiots turn up who’ve left their bottle to go off on the windowsill in the sun, or whose bottle’s contents have been contaminated by a contaminant, and complain that the stuff doesn’t last as long as it says on the label. Some people always find something to complain about; or they’re actively looking for it.
If the negatives are that important and I’m not sure whether the developer is still any good, I just do a quick test development with 5cm of film. Takes 10 minutes.
For my part, I’ve never had any problems with the chemicals (ADOX, Moersch, Ilford), even though I’ve used them for much longer than the manufacturer recommends and only stored them in plastic bottles.
Cheers, Tim
Wolf_XL
...well, that's life – no one can offer you a 100% worry-free package, or it would simply be unaffordable...
Bonderer
The production date would be enough for me. That way I know how old the product is – six months or three years, that’s the question.
Ever since I had several rolls of film where the developer simply stopped working altogether, and was told in response that I should have known that this developer tends to go off – it’s since been taken off the market – it wasn’t even stored on the windowsill and was practically fresh from the warehouse, so the bottles were still unopened when used, and yet nothing happened. Helloooo, what on earth is that about? I don’t buy a rotten schnitzel, at least you can see and smell that, but with developers you just can’t. Only after use.
They’re helping themselves to my bank account; delivery is almost exclusively against prepayment or direct debit, and I have to take what I get without knowing how old it is, and if I get something bad, a thousand excuses as to why it was my fault.
Surely it can’t be that hard to print the date of manufacture, or is it just not wanted? A few boxes turned up during stock-taking; they’ve got to be turned into cash. No one will notice.
Other manufacturers print the date on; it doesn’t seem difficult.
I don’t even want to ask if they do that with the samples I’ve sent back.
Sorry if this sounds a bit confrontational, but after they simply lost my samples following a complaint, I don’t really trust them anymore. It’s just business.
Bonderer
Just to be clear, when I buy something new, I expect it to work and to be usable for a certain period of time; surely I can expect that from a retailer, and that would then be an all-round worry-free package. That includes a production date.
Nobody would buy food that’s clearly past its sell-by date, but in the world of photographic chemicals, this seems to be the norm.
It seems as though most manufacturers don’t have much confidence in their own products; otherwise, they would do it.
Instead, there are obscure codes that one cannot or does not wish to trace back to a specific date.
Wolf_XL
...you’re comparing apples and oranges – food and photographic chemicals are simply two different things. In most cases, a food producer has control over what happens to their goods until they reach the consumer – and there are also plenty of relevant regulations in place so that, if the worst comes to the worst, it can be traced exactly why the banana no longer meets the quality standards it should.... The manufacturer of photochemical products, on the other hand, generally doesn’t have its own transport system, so even the journey to the wholesaler is beyond its control. It won’t know how the goods are handled there, nor what happens on the way from the wholesaler to the end consumer. As a manufacturer, I would therefore avoid anything that someone could use against me...
Wolfgg
Hello Analogue,
With Rodinal, it’s not the date of manufacture that matters, but when the bottle was first opened. And no manufacturer is going to bother writing that on the label for you :). Incidentally, we know that original Rodinal in glass bottles still develops perfectly well even when opened for the first time after 50 years.
Regards, Wolfgang
ThomasPauly
I noticed that FOMA-Pulverchemie had printed a best-before date on their products. When I asked about this at their Photokina stand, I was told that this was in accordance with a legal requirement in the Czech Republic. So, anyone wishing to avoid buying an out-of-date product is well served by the FOMA range from a reputable supplier who ensures proper storage conditions. There are also ‘generic’ products available there, which correspond to popular developers such as D76/ID-11 or X-Tol, as well as a positive warm-tone developer in a practical small-format pack for a 1-litre batch.
If the date were linked to specific storage guidelines – as is the case with foodstuffs (e.g. “unopened, protected from light and stored at temperatures not exceeding such-and-such degrees”) – such a declaration would certainly be desirable in principle for all manufacturers.
sputnik
Well, congratulations. A best-before date on powdered developer, which lasts FOREVER anyway.
Quite unlike photographic paper, by the way.
I only ever use FOMA’s.
I’ve looked for a best-before date so far, but to no avail.
It seems that the much-vaunted legal regulation doesn’t apply, of all places, precisely where it would make sense.
But even IF there were a best-before date, THAT would in turn require specific storage conditions.
You could pop into the shop on Alte Schönhauser in the summer. Within five minutes at the latest, you’ll get such hot flushes you’ll think you’re going through the menopause.
Yet every child knows that photo paper should be stored as cool as possible.
Things weren’t any better at Monochrom, although THEY at least kept the films in a fridge. However, their Berlin shop closed down last year.
I don’t know what the situation is elsewhere, of course, but I suspect it’s not good.
ThomasPauly
I, too, had always believed that powdered chemicals had an almost indefinite shelf life. However, a Negafin solution I prepared about five years after purchase did show noticeable signs of deterioration.
The packaging is likely to play a role in shelf life. Foma uses simple paper bags with an outer wrapper of PE bags, which are certainly anything but non-diffusing and cannot compete with the aluminium-plastic composite foil bags from Ilford or Kodak. On the other hand, Foma is also cheaper. In that respect, the best-before date is entirely appropriate here.
Conclusion: It’s best to avoid overstocking; in the age of online shopping, you can always get everything at short notice. Even if, in individual cases, small quantities incur delivery charges, I hardly pay any more for them today than I used to have to fork out for the city-centre car park next to my
photography shop.
sputnik
Even if, in the odd case, I do have to pay delivery charges for small orders, I hardly pay any more for them these days than I used to have to fork out for the multi-storey car park next to my
photo shop.
I’m just saying: BIKE. :)
ThomasPauly
In principle, it’s a good idea, but where I live (from a German perspective, abroad), it’s prohibited on the motorway.
tepe
adophil
You could pop into the shop on Alte Schönhauser Straße this summer. You’ll get hot flushes within five minutes at the latest – you’ll feel like you’re going through the menopause.
That’s true, but I don’t think it ‘sits’ there for too long. I’m usually lucky enough to have to queue, which can be seen as a sign of a fast turnover.
Things weren’t any better at Monochrom, although at least THEY had the films in a fridge.
That’s true too. Thanks for the heads-up about the closure; I hadn’t realised. Going there next week would have been a waste of time...
TR
In that case, I’ll just do a quick test development with 5 cm of film. It takes 10 minutes.
If the developer is working properly (at least with D-76 and A-49 in the stock solution), the film snippet starts to darken after just two to three minutes. That’s enough for me, and I assume the developer is still working. This test is quick and costs nothing. I do it with developer that’s been sitting around for a while.
The fixer can be checked just as easily. With 35mm film, you’ve got a bit of film left over anyway. With roll film, the narrow end where the tape is stuck on is enough for both tests.
Bonderer
So I’m going to buy some developer soon, and then I’ll have to test it first to see if it’s still any good? That can’t be right.
There must be some way to date a developer; Rodinal in glass bottles, different times and different products, is history. I live in the here and now. From now on, I’ll only order Adonal when my mate announces he’s sending films, use as much as he needs, and then bin the rest. But even so, before I start processing his films, I’ll test the new batch just to be on the safe side. Sounds exactly what it is: RIDICULOUS
First and foremost, I have a duty to the photographer who entrusts me with his films and expects an excellent result.
But I can only do that if I get flawless materials that offer high process consistency, and that includes being able to verify how old the stuff is. That’s standard practice with chemical products. If it gets too old for me, it goes, or I use it at my own risk. It’s different if I buy something new and receive old stock; that would go straight back. If the bottle then costs €2–3 or €5 more because less is being produced, or because some is being disposed of as too old, I wouldn’t mind.
But if a company has a quality assurance system where you can’t even tell from the label when it was manufactured,
how seriously do they take quality? It smacks of a back-street operation.
Unfortunately, however, the forum host is keeping a low profile on this matter and is conspicuous by his silence.
What are we to make of that?
Wolf_XL
...the only thing that’s ridiculous is the fuss you’re making now... Just go and buy the raw chemicals and make your own developer – you can find the D-76 formula online and it’s not all that difficult... You won’t get a best-before or production date on the raw chemicals either...
But if it puts your mind at rest – in my now more than forty years of lab experience, I can count on one hand the films I’ve had to throw away because of gone-off developer. Mind you, none of those were films I’d dipped in freshly mixed developer; they were all stock solutions that I’d probably kept for too long...
TiMo
If it’s that important to you, you’ll have no choice but to do a test print before every development run anyway. Who’s to say the date is correct, or that a chemical in the developer solution hadn’t gone off?!
So if you want to get the best results for your customers, you have to test the developer for its effectiveness first anyway; regardless of whether there’s a date on it or not.
I do wonder, though, how generations of photographers before us managed to cope with these untenable conditions.
Cheers, Tim
Gucker
So far, I’ve come across two developers that had a use-by date printed on them: Kodak T-Max and the Foma reversal kit; Fomadon R09, on the other hand, didn’t specify one.
The question isn’t when the developer is no longer usable, but rather over what period of time you can obtain results that meet a standard we are not familiar with. It’s not as though the developer suddenly goes off, but rather it’s a gradual process; you will certainly get a different result with a fresh developer compared to the same one that has been sitting in its original packaging for six months. Where is the line between a change that is still acceptable and one that is not?
Making your own solutions with chemicals sounds good, but it leads to the same issue: even if the chemicals themselves do not undergo chemical changes, they absorb moisture from the air, for example, and then the weight measurement is no longer accurate...
Nevertheless, it would be fair to at least have a printed production date on developers.
sputnik
But I also wonder how generations of photographers before us managed to cope with these untenable conditions.
+1
Wolf_XL
...I hope you’ll have the camera and, if necessary, the light meter checked before the shoot – they can start playing up without you even noticing. And I really do hope that only films that have been stored properly and have a complete history are used... A check video during the development process wouldn’t be a bad idea either – that way you can prove that you’ve done everything right yourself... :P :o :P
But you really can take things too far...
