Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,664   Posts: 1,481,682   Online: 750
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by miha View Post
    Mike, it's all on Ilfordphoto.com under Health & Safety.
    Yes if you dig
    For the more challenged I quote

    "The exception is XP2 Super film, which contains some dibutyl phthalate. This is now designated a Substance of Very High Concern in the EU, it is classified as Toxic for Reproduction, and its use is being phased out across the EU. XP2 Super film (processed or unprocessed) should be kept out of the reach of children. It should not be placed in the mouth, and if handled for extended periods of time, gloves should be worn. In this one case, processing laboratories should treat scrap film as hazardous waste.
    (To put this into context, dibutyl phthalate was used very extensively in the past as a plasticiser in flexible plastics such as PVC, and in inks and sealants. It is present in many everyday items, including (eg) vinyl flooring, injection-moulded shoe soles, shower curtains, and electrical cables.)"
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/

    Photographer not a job description - a diagnosis.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    806
    well dug!

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    well dug!
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/

    Photographer not a job description - a diagnosis.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Essex, England.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    45
    And just to put the 'EU' regulations in the real world the amount of 'hazardous' material in a roll is so small as to be almost unmeasurable. So they said... I think.

  5. #15
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,791
    Images
    46
    Interesting speculation in the original link regarding possible worst-case scenarios for color film, a topic touched upon in a few earlier APUG threads...



    Ken
    "Hate is an adolescent term used to stop discussion with people you disagree with. You can do better than that."
    —'blanksy', December 13, 2013

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,627
    Thanks for the Harman quote. It still leaves the 2 questions that I asked:

    1. How optimistic is Harman about overcoming the EU problem?

    2. Does the quoted chemical affect the future of all colour film?

    Thanks

    pentaxuser

  7. #17
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,431
    This is a problem all photochemical industry has to face.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    806
    Quote Originally Posted by Xpres View Post
    And just to put the 'EU' regulations in the real world the amount of 'hazardous' material in a roll is so small as to be almost unmeasurable. So they said... I think.
    Perhaps the issue that the regulations wish to address is from the perspective of the manufacturing process as a whole, rather than the individual roll

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,627
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    This is a problem all photochemical industry has to face.
    I'll take the above reply as a Yes to my second question. So worst case scenario: Harman and the other colour film makers have a limited, if unspecified time, to find a substitute for this toxic chemical and if unsuccessful it spells the end of chromogenic and colour film

    Best case scenario: A substitute is found or Harman and the other film makers persuade the EU that the quantities involved are so low as not to constitute a real health hazard

    Is that an accurate conclusion?

    A Simon Galley response would be very helpful here I think

    pentaxuser

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    91
    The dibutyl phthalate is widely cited in patent applications for colour/dye type emulsions. The high boiling solvents of phthalic ester compounds, e.g. dibutyl phthalate, and phosphoric ester compounds, e.g., tricresyl phosphate, have often been used as coupler solvents because of their coupler-dispersing ability, inexpensiveness and availability.

    My reading would indicate it is used to dissolve a dye coupler, not present or necessary in conventional black and white negative film but intrinsic in the C-41 dye process hence the limited effect at Ilford to this film.
    It is permanently retained in the emulsion as dispersed droplets within the coating. This would equate to the Ilford H&S warnings although we are talking literally microscopic amounts.

    Obviously the exact formulae and uses are "trade secrets" but I would suggest from the literature that this is not the only such suitable solvent available. It may be the best choice for the particular coupler used in this case so the issue may not be replacing the implicated solvent but also replacing the coupler with which it is used which is going to affect the emulsion performance far more. Again there is a wide choice of couplers but all these variables will need testing.

    I would further speculate that not all colour negative formulations will be affected as there are a wide range of couplers and again speculate that the particular black and white end point in this film, which requires a sensitisation to mimic conventional black and white film spectral sensitivity perhaps, requires different couplers than colour negative film.

    This may all be wide of the mark and no doubt Photo Engineer could add comment as many of the patents were filed by Kodak.

    I think the specific issue is with the market share of one film type the R&D required is out of proportion to the end result. Certainly investigation into new emulsions and crystal growth is a luxury the few left standing cannot afford and re-formulation alone is a major undertaking. I suspect most of the colour C-41 emulsions are safe and if not can be re-formulated the specific black and white C-41 may be at risk long term, short term there are master rolls representing years of supply.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/

    Photographer not a job description - a diagnosis.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin