Just treat glass as a camera, lens, or negative, and you won't drop it. One should deal with getting the undused space filled with something besides air. Marbles, or inert gas solves that problem. However, nothing wrong with using the right plastic. Just be careful when reusing water, pop, or other repurposed bottles for the new use.
There's no substitute for glass, though polymethylpentene might be quite good. Just depends how
sensitive something is to oxidation. Don't mistake this for what the bottle is itself doing or not. Even
glass is not impervious, though it might take ten thousand years for oxygen to get thru. Generally
I use up the developer before then! A lab supply catalog will show the different options. But glass
is generally way cheaper once you get past the basic polyethylene choices.
That is a really bad choice for developers, 10x the O2 permeability of PE, according to the maker, http://www.mitsuichemicals.com/tpx_cha.htm
And about 600 times more O2 permeable than PET.
Last edited by Bob-D659; 02-23-2012 at 02:01 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Um, really? Maybe for some folks. I have dropped cameras and lenses, not often but I have. Years ago I destroyed one of the generic 135mm telephotos by dropping it and have the diaphragm blades basically explode. I was able to disassemble it and get them out, then use it as a wide open portrait lens. I've dropped negatives more times than I could possibly count, especially when handling them while printing. I've even dropped wet ones, with the associated horrified reaction. I find negatives very easy to drop because I'm handling a flimsy object by the edges only as delicately as possible. It certainly happens. Plus, I don't normally handle cameras in total darkness or under safelight with wet hands in fairly cramped spaces, nor dig them out from behind others on a shelf.
Originally Posted by fotch
I'm overstating it a bit, but only a bit. I'd use glass for one or two things that are especially critical, or for bulk ingredients to be mixed at leisure and not right before use, but I'm still leery of them for massive use. I have a lot of plastic bottles of stuff in the darkroom. Replacing them all with glass would look like a disaster waiting to happen.
Bob - thanks for the link. Yes, you're right about the oxygen permeability
of polymethylpentene. But I was referring to the oxidation resistance of
specific developers. Polymethylpentene has other virtues, like the fact that
chemical residues are less likely to cling to it and it stays clean easier. Wonderful for measuring graduates for example, esp sticky syrup like HC110 concentrate. It's also has superior chemical resistance. But for
oxidation, absolutely nothing beats traditional glass with teflon lined caps.
Fussy developers shouldn't be kept in anything else.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I don't know which fussy developers you are thinking about:
RA4 developer is a bit fussy according to Kodak, but a print from the Feb 2011 test bottle looks exactly the same as one from a fresh mix from today. The tint of the developer is close to being the same as well.
The Aug 2010 test bottle of D76 is still water white clear. Tho I haven't tried a film in it for several months. The July 2011 bottle of Xtol is also water white and works perfectly as well.
Seeing as none of the three is supposed to be kept for anywhere near as long as these test bottles have, I'd say the generic 2 liter soda bottles are pretty damn good at preventing oxidation.