Tray Processing Film: Gloves or No Gloves?

[Robert Kalman]

My apologies ahead of time if this topic has already been addressed.

For those of you who tray develop your film, do you process with gloves or not?

I don't, and my loved ones keep pressuring me to start since they believe dipping my hands into the chemicals isn't good for me. (They're probably right). The data sheet for HC110 just says to be cautious when using chemicals; Ilford "recommends" gloves when handling fixer (as well as wearing eye protection and an apron).

If you do use gloves, which kind? Also, can you tell me if you've ever had a problem (like losing images) because you couldn't handle the negatives properly with the gloves on?

Many thanks.

[Drew Wiley]

Gloves. Always. Always. Always. Keeps the chem off your skin, and easy to rinse off so you don't transfer things like fixer where it doesn't belong. For film developement: textured, non-powdered thin nitrile. They're plenty cheap these days and available all kinds of place. But I prefer slightly heavier, reusable nitrile or neoprene gloves for developing prints.

[Robert Kalman]

Thanks, Drew. So when you move negatives from developer to stop bath to fixer you use the same gloves? Are you rinsing in between trays?

[tgtaylor]

Except for the occasional solitary roll of film like the 135 that I processed Sunday, I usually rotary process film. Occasionally though I'll tray process film and always use disposable food handlers gloves that cost about one cent each. Developer, stop, fix, (fix), into the wash and then discard the glove(s) and put on a new one for the next print/sheet.

Thomas

[Daniel Stone]

Thanks, Drew. So when you move negatives from developer to stop bath to fixer you use the same gloves? Are you rinsing in between trays?

I leave the film in the stop bath(which is actually just a tray of water for me) until all the film has been transferred over from the developer. I then move the entire "stack" into the fixer tray, all at once.

Same gloves stay on throughout the entire process duration, developer -> final rinse/photo-flo.

-Dan

[Drew Wiley]

Depends what I'm doing. A tiny bit of dev carryover into stop bath is expected, or a little stop into the fixer. I'm more concerned about chem like fixer getting onto
things like clothing or doorknobs from skin, where it can easily get onto fresh film somehow afterwards and ruin it. Seems like skin needs to be thoroughly washed with with soap and water to get really clean, whereas nitrile rinses easily. The other siginificant problem is that you just don't want to get sensitized to chemicals over time
and end up with dematititis. It happens. I also work with things like pyro and color chemistry, which are outright toxic.

[Peter Lewin]

Since I'm using PMK Pyro or Pyrocat HD, which are toxic, gloves always. I recently bought a new box of unpowdered nitrile gloves at the hardware store, about $13 for 100. I keep the pair on through the entire cycle, from pre-soak through fix, and discard the pair as soon as they show any discoloration (more frequent with PMK than Pyrocat). I've never had a problem handling the negatives with the gloves; any damaged negatives were due to my being careless or clumsy, rather than the gloves.

[Ben Calwell]

Wearing gloves is a good idea, but I have to confess that in more than 30 years of tray developing in HC-110, I never wore them. I should have, though. However, when I had a brief fling with pyro developers, I did wear them.

[Winger]

I use a tank, not trays, and I still wear nitrile gloves. I don't remember how much they cost, but I found them on Amazon. Wear one pair 'til I get to the wash stage and then remove them.

[Daniel Stone]

The un-powdered nitrile gloves from Costco come in a double-pack, and work really well. They even have "grippy" type fingertips, which aid in holding slippery tanks, rolls of wet film, or beakers of chemistry, even when wet. And they're relatively inexpensive as well.

[Jim Noel]

After more than 50 years of no gloves, I had to begin using them when I started teaching at the college in order to set a good example. I use disposable Nitrile on one hand, and keep the other hand dry.
A good many years ago a dermatologist who who was an amateur photographer told me the dangerous one for dermatitis was the developer. This is because of the metol which causes dermatitis in some people.His solution was to process his hands like a piece of film or paper since the nature of our chemistry is to neutralize the previous chemical.
AS for pyro being more dangerous that is true, but hudroquinone is just as bad. Pyrogallol (pyrogallic acid) is the more dangerous. Pyrocatechol (pyrocat) is less harmful than hydroquinone. It is interesting to note that Pyrogallol and coffee are extremely close cousins on the benzene ring. That is why "caffeenol" works. By the way brewed coffee which has been allowed to sit on a warmer for a few hours does a very nice job without the addition of any other chemicals.

[SergeiR]

Gloves. Totally. This also will save you from having nice fingerprints on negatives.

(i use gloves when taking film out of tubes to hang b/c of too many times leaving fingerprints on yet soft emulsion)

[Jim Jones]

I never use gloves for tray processing film or prints in common chemicals, and have a few stained prints to show for it.

[Maris Rusis]

No gloves, ever.

In absolute darkness the sensitivity of bare skin will instantly register what I'm touching; what's on my fingers, have I been splashed, do my finger tips carry contamination? Develop feels slippery, fixer is "grippy", dry fingers can touch dry film, wet fingers can touch wet film, notch codes are easy to feel, dark-slide bumps are obvious. My darkroom sink has a big fingerbowl of clean water where I rinse fingers. When they feel clean they are clean. The well laundered darkroom towel lets me dry my hands immediately.

When the safelight is on I use tongs instead of gloves. Decades ago I decided I wouldn't touch paper chemistry and determined to become as dexterous with tongs as a Chinese child is with chopsticks. Now I reckon I could do a day's worth of gelatin-silver in the darkroom while wearing a white tuxedo and not get a spot. No, not unusual intelligence, just practice.

Years ago I was a salesman for Eastman Chemicals and also the local telephone hotline guy for darkroom accidents. Two "glove" disasters come to mind. The first was a complaint of red-raw itching hands but the fault was not with darkroom chem. The unfortunate victim had latex allergy and was wearing latex gloves. The second was with nitrile gloves that had got an unnoticed splash of developer inside at the beginning of the darkroom session. Hours later the mixture of sweat and developer had chewed away at the victim's palms, ouch.

[jp]

Harbor Freight had some super good deals on nitrile gloves, including some very thin ones. Good idea for tray developing. When using the patterson tank, I get some drips (because it's British), but I rinse my hand off quickly when that happens.

[Tin Can]

I pretty much do exactly what Maris does. I always have a fresh dip tank ready and use as often as needed. Tongs are kept clipped to another dip tank.I never touch printing paper once wet. Stainless tongs with rubber tips.

A few chems I do use with one hand in nitrile. I have sink top exhaust ventilation.

I always have my big eye glasses on and was really glad I did the other day while cooking dinner!

I worked in either a chem or mechanical lab all my life. I am sensibly careful, but have seen co workers die from liver problems from solvents. They would not listen to my warnings, especially about trichloroethylene.

I keep clean cotton towels close by and have fresh paper towels stuffed in all pockets, just in case.

Mop and bucket in the darkroom.

I almost never spill anything and I know how to pour liquids. Most people don't.



No gloves, ever.

In absolute darkness the sensitivity of bare skin will instantly register what I'm touching; what's on my fingers, have I been splashed, do my finger tips carry contamination? Develop feels slippery, fixer is "grippy", dry fingers can touch dry film, wet fingers can touch wet film, notch codes are easy to feel, dark-slide bumps are obvious. My darkroom sink has a big fingerbowl of clean water where I rinse fingers. When they feel clean they are clean. The well laundered darkroom towel lets me dry my hands immediately.

When the safelight is on I use tongs instead of gloves. Decades ago I decided I wouldn't touch paper chemistry and determined to become as dexterous with tongs as a Chinese child is with chopsticks. Now I reckon I could do a day's worth of gelatin-silver in the darkroom while wearing a white tuxedo and not get a spot. No, not unusual intelligence, just practice.

Years ago I was a salesman for Eastman Chemicals and also the local telephone hotline guy for darkroom accidents. Two "glove" disasters come to mind. The first was a complaint of red-raw itching hands but the fault was not with darkroom chem. The unfortunate victim had latex allergy and was wearing latex gloves. The second was with nitrile gloves that had got an unnoticed splash of developer inside at the beginning of the darkroom session. Hours later the mixture of sweat and developer had chewed away at the victim's palms, ouch.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Unpowdered nitrile gloves for me. Better for my negs, better for my hands. My tray processing tends to be ABC pyro.

[Robert Kalman]

Many thanks for all the suggestions and advice. I ordered some nitriles today :-)

[kintatsu]

I only use HC-110, Eukobrom for paper, Tetenal Super fix, and Tetenal Stop. Because I only develop 1 sheet at a time, and rinse hands between trays, I don't use gloves. When I develop 4 sheets in a night, that amounts to about 8 seconds total time in the developer. Fixer, both traditional and rapid, is used in the medical field to treat certain conditions, so is almost harmless, although if you have a cut, you will notice it. Stop bath is just diluted acid.

The undiluted chemicals are bad for you, though. When my daughter is in the room with me, we both wear nitrile gloves and rinse in a tray of water between submersion.

[Bruce Barlow]

I didn't use gloves until I started using Pyro film developers and Amidol print developer. No black fingernails. But I really, really don't like gloves

Otherwise, no gloves for 25 years, without fingerprints or scratches, ever.

[analoguey]

Powdered Nitrile gloves - even when I am processing in a daylight tank.
(I bought a box of 500 for my developing/printing)
I change the gloves for every session, or even breaks in between the session.

And yes, even with gloves on, you can make out the slippery feel of dev, versus not-so of the fixer etc.,
If it its good enough for surgeons, its good enough for this!

For printing, I haven't used tongs - but then I havent printed larger than 5x7" either, so I am not sure what might work well there!
Even with tongs, I would first wear gloves.

You could probably keep one hand ungloved for other tasks - I tried it, but found it unnecessary and an encumbrance.

Only difficulty/issue so far was the timer usage, but with the metronome, I suppose it could get better.

After moving film/paper from dev to stop(water), I rise the gloves off under running water, and then post stop move it to fix. Again a quick wash. I havent do more than two negatives/print on timed session yet - I am finding that I can concentrate best when its 1 or 2, and I can spare the additional time to develop the rest.

[Donald Qualls]

I first got my fingers in the Dektol in 1969, and I've used gloves only for one process: B&W reversal, in which I want to avoid contact with the sulfuric acid/potassium dichromate bleach solution (the dichromate is carcinogenic, and skin damage from the acid will only make it more likely to do long term harm). I have no skin sensitivity to metol (I'd have known it decades ago) and don't use pyrogallol; there's nothing else in my chemistry in sufficient quantities to worry me. I find it telling that, unlike many other occupations, more than a century of silver gelatin darkroom photographers never had an "occupational disease" until rapid access x-ray processing brought on ailments related to emulsion hardeners (chemical relatives of formalin).

Wet plate is another matter -- ether is bad, potassium cyanide fixer is much more dangerous (especially given the developer is acidic) -- and Daguerreotype with traditional mercury-fume development -- no thanks! But since dry plate came along, the most hazardous chemical most B&W photographers have had to deal with was the concentrate for their stop bath (even if they don't start from glacial acetic acid, it's plenty strong) -- barring specific allergic sensitivities, of course.

[mike rosenlof]

I use gloves. The blue ones from Costco. Nitrile, I think.

[Tracy Storer]

Thin, good-snug fitting Nitrile gloves I buy from Best Glove. If they are thin, and fit well, you can easily peel one sheet from a stack of negatives even in slippery developer. Takes only a little getting used to. For me, they key is fit, and spending a few extra moments making sure the gloves aren't baggy at your finger tips.

[f/90]

Lab guy here again.

Usage of gloves is required for all chemistry. Apart from caffeenol, there is no developer that can be used without gloves, everyone is toxic in one way or another.

The slippery feeling of developer stems from the saponification of cell membranes and the likes, basically the developer is etching your skin away, even if it doesn't feel like it. Speaking of feeling: If your hands feel clean, they are nowhere near clean, in reality they are still badly contaminated.

Is this not taught in photo classes normally?

Cheers

f/90

[jp]

Photo class isn't for learning safety. It is some mix of teen hormones and darkness.

[Doremus Scudder]

I wear gloves when working with pyro developers. I wear them for the entire developing session, washing them on my hands between batches. I've gotten used to wearing them now, and would likely use them with other developers as well now. Unloading holders with gloves on is a bit more troublesome, but doable. Shuffling sheets in the solutions is not a problem. One does have to be more careful of contamination, since it is not as easy to feel small droplets of the chemistry on the gloves. I make sure I wash them well and dry them thoroughly between batches. Yes, one could just toss them like a doctor would between exams, but that seems so wasteful to me... One pair will work fine for several sessions.

I don't usually wear gloves when printing with "conventional" developers (MQ/PQ) but do try to minimize exposure by using tongs, etc. I can print up to 16x20 and never touch a print with my hands easily. 20x24 takes some handling from time to time, but not that much so exposure is minimal. If I'm using glycin or other exotic developing agents that are more toxic, I'll either make sure I don't get my hands wet or don gloves.

And, although we should use care when using chemicals, we shouldn't exaggerate the risks either (I've never heard of anyone dying from saponification...). Certainly gloves are the safest, but getting your fingers in the stop bath is not as dangerous as getting salad dressing on them :) Knowing what you are dealing with and treating it appropriately is key. In lieu of that, wear gloves.

Oh, and do wear gloves when cleaning the oven or the toilet! Those chemicals are really dangerous.

Best,

Doremus

[f/90]

Curious, can't seem to find any toxicity data on glycin.

The saponification bit was to explain that not everything that feels ok is ok. As the usual stop bath is either acetic acid or citric acid, of course there is no problem here. Fixer is not the problem, either. It is the developers that should never ever been allowed contact with skin. Metol is a carcinogen, hydroquinone is just plain toxic (the oxidised version, benzoquinone, is known to cause leukemia and is badly hemotoxic). Same goes for pretty much any other developer used, coffee being probably the only notable exception.

As I never attended a photography school, I assumed this was common knowledge. I surprises me it is not.

Greetings

f/90

[Drew Wiley]

I originally bought glycin from a pharmaceutical supplier, a fact which in itself informs you that it's not physiologically inert.

[Donald Qualls]

Toxicity is related to concentration. For instance, Alka-Seltzer is a solution of aspirin and various buffering agents; at the recommended dosage, it's therapeutic (for most folks; there are a few rare souls with serious allergies to aspirin). Make up a solution of Alka-Seltzer at four or five times the package directions, and you'll start to get into the hazard zone, where toxicity of the aspirin is a concern. Ten times package concentration is enough to kill some folks.

The same thing is true of developer chemicals; p-aminophenol, metol, hydroquinone, phenidone, even glycin are present in such low concentrations in most developers not to be worrisome (again, if they were a significant cancer concern, there'd have been reports of "cluster" outbreaks among photographers, and there haven't been, even among darkroom workers who might have had their hands in solutions literally all day long for decades). I'm much more concerned about my unavoidable, long term exposure to second hand tobacco residues from living with four smokers than I am about developers I'll contact for a few minutes at a time, a few times a month. Now, if I were using pyrogallol, CD-4, or a high-glycin formula on a regular basis, I might well glove up, even for tank development (I do wear gloves when processing C-41 in tanks).

[f/90]

You don't have to explain basic toxicology to me, as I said, lab guy here.

Even in low concentrations, repeated exposure to small amounts of especially carcinogens can have effects beyond what would be expected for a single dose (take metol, it is specifically advised against repeatedly exposing oneself to it, as it is linked to organ damage). Besides, something in the order of a few grams per litre is not a low concentration for a heavyweight carcinogen like quinone.

Regarding the statistics of cluster outbreaks, well, I have not seen one that stated there is no significantly higher level of cancer among darkroom workers. Might be an interesting study to do, especially as they are mostly retired at the moment.

Avoiding ANY exposure to potentially harmful reagents is a key principle of all lab work. It seems interesting to me that this has not been widely adopted.

Giving that developers are aqueous solutions, even relatively cheap gloves (think latex, or PVC) should do a good enough job at keeping the stuff off your hands. The internet is your friend, commercially speaking. Why subject yourself to the risk (even if it were small) if a few cents a session can make it magically disappear....

[Maris Rusis]

[QUOTE=f/90;1177165]You don't have to explain basic toxicology to me, as I said, lab guy here.

Lab guy here too. Well, now retired, but was a research scientist specialising in advanced toxicology, nerve poisons, teratogens, carcinogens, ionising radiation; all the nasties. Basic toxicology is not a good guide to darkroom hazards. There are often dramatic differences in toxicity according to the mode of contact. Inhalation is generally more potent than ingestion and skin contact might be essentially benign.


Even in low concentrations, repeated exposure to small amounts of especially carcinogens can have effects beyond what would be expected for a single dose (take metol, it is specifically advised against repeatedly exposing oneself to it, as it is linked to organ damage). Besides, something in the order of a few grams per litre is not a low concentration for a heavyweight carcinogen like quinone.
Dubious assertions. There is no general principle identifying acute or chronic exposures delivering alarmingly different outcomes for the same dose; depends on the substance. Quinone is not a carcinogen in a clinically characterised sense.


Regarding the statistics of cluster outbreaks, well, I have not seen one that stated there is no significantly higher level of cancer among darkroom workers. Might be an interesting study to do, especially as they are mostly retired at the moment.

The statistics of cancer clusters, in the absence of an overt carcinogen, tend to follow probability. This is interesting mathematics rather than an indication of widespread carcinogens in the environment.


Avoiding ANY exposure to potentially harmful reagents is a key principle of all lab work. It seems interesting to me that this has not been widely adopted.

I had an extended career in analytical chemistry and everybody I worked with (me too!) avoided careless contact with hazardous materials as routine laboratory practice.


Giving that developers are aqueous solutions, even relatively cheap gloves (think latex, or PVC) should do a good enough job at keeping the stuff off your hands. The internet is your friend, commercially speaking. Why subject yourself to the risk (even if it were small) if a few cents a session can make it magically disappear...
Gloves have uses but they are no guarantee of safety and they can promote overconfidence and carelessness. Don't use latex gloves if you think you may have latex allergy. The internet is not a good guide to toxicology because a lot of material originates with chemical anxiety "freaks" rather than from established science.

I may not be the most adroit searcher of clinical reports on the internet or elsewhere but I cannot find a single medically substantiated and published case of harm from darkroom chemistry, to anyone anywhere in the world in the last few years. Sure there are anecdotes, conjectures, anxieties, and alarms even on forums like this but no well defined and unambiguous cases at all. And if we are careful in our darkroom practice, and that seems generally to be the case, there won't be any future medical incidents either.

[f/90]

Lab guy here too. Well, now retired, but was a research scientist specialising in advanced toxicology, nerve poisons, teratogens, carcinogens, ionising radiation; all the nasties. Basic toxicology is not a good guide to darkroom hazards. There are often dramatic differences in toxicity according to the mode of contact. Inhalation is generally more potent than ingestion and skin contact might be essentially benign.

See what you quoted...


Dubious assertions. There is no general principle identifying acute or chronic exposures delivering alarmingly different outcomes for the same dose; depends on the substance. Quinone is not a carcinogen in a clinically characterised sense.

Can't seem to follow the first sentence, bioaccumulation is an established concept, as well as the fact that doses sufficient for chronic poisoning are usually lower than those causing acute problems. Of course it varies, depending on the half life on the particular substance and elimination mechanism, but the general idea is not really up for debate and applies to a large proportion of toxins.

Secondly, I beg to differ. Hydroquinone is oxidised in vivo to p-benzoquinone, which is a rather nasty hemotoxin and has been proven to form DNA adducts. It is considered likely to cause leukemia and has been shown to cause tumors in lab rats or similar. Might not directly translate to humans, but you get the general impression.


The statistics of cancer clusters, in the absence of an overt carcinogen, tend to follow probability. This is interesting mathematics rather than an indication of widespread carcinogens in the environment.

I was trying to express a lack of data on that topic. I cant seem to find anything relating to darkroom work and cancer, so quite possibly it has never been studied. Therefore, there is neither supportive nor contradictory evidence on any of this.


Gloves have uses but they are no guarantee of safety and they can promote overconfidence and carelessness. Don't use latex gloves if you think you may have latex allergy.
I will gloss over that second bit for obvious reasons, but I have to comment on the first one. This is the sort of patronizing nonsense they tell you in college, and it is exactly that - nosense. If you are paying at least the slightest amount of attention to what you are doing and don't act like a complete moron, there is no heightened risk to wearing gloves. There are a few pitfalls to avoid, but you have to be grossly incompetent to do harm by wearing them. The "substance in gloves all day" can be avoided fairly easily, and apart from that there is no problem to speak of.



The internet is not a good guide to toxicology because a lot of material originates with chemical anxiety "freaks" rather than from established science.

I have other sources.



I may not be the most adroit searcher of clinical reports on the internet or elsewhere but I cannot find a single medically substantiated and published case of harm from darkroom chemistry, to anyone anywhere in the world in the last few years. Sure there are anecdotes, conjectures, anxieties, and alarms even on forums like this but no well defined and unambiguous cases at all. And if we are careful in our darkroom practice, and that seems generally to be the case, there won't be any future medical incidents either.

Some people died from it, but that was mostly drinking, so not relevant. The point is not that there is damage done with a two-year warranty, the point is that there might be damage done, be it short-term or in the long run. And as I said, given that a pair of gloves is two or three cents, why expose yourself to the risk if you can take measures to avoid exposure altogether (supposing sufficient ventilation is provided)?

[djdister]

Hmm, with the assertions and counter-assertions going on here, it might be best for credentials to be established and references to be cited. And no, it is not enough to simply say "I was a lab guy." Talk is cheap, where is the academic rigor in this discussion?

[Tin Can]

As I well know, most people, especially techs, have no idea what they are doing. The chemists think they do, but often ignore common sense.

Been there done that. I am a careful tech who only got A's in HS science classes and then quit college science, as the road to perdition. I did not like who was hiring.

Then I worked in automotive laboratories for the duration. Very happy to have labs to myself on night shift, 'government work' was a top priority. lol :)

[f/90]

Alright, the academic rigor is here:

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/kodak/Kodak_D76_1464817.pdf

Safety Data Sheet of Kodak D76, it specifically states that gloves are to be worn when handling the material. If the developer was to come into contact with your hands, 15 mins of washing are due, as well as the removal of contaminated clothing.

It contains a review of the carcinogenicity of hydroquinone, which it concludes to be nonexistent based on official classifications, however those are out of date (2012).

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201481217439502.pdf

Safety Data Sheet for Multigrade. Classifies hydroquinone as a "suspected carcinogen", based on GHS (2014). Seems to be a bit more up to date, safety measures and precautions are the same, as is for Tetenal ultrafin and a bunch of others.

One could probably argue about the toxicity and mutagenicity of hydroquinone, metol and the likes for days, but that would quite possibly not yield any useful results. As this seems to be the case here, I shall retire from this thread, with the note:


Do what it says on the bloody bottle! Wear gloves!

With the kindest of regards

f/90, definitely not a lab tech, and perfectly aware of my actions ;-)

[Tin Can]

Reading is good, no argument there.

Don't be shy, you are new here.

[Donald Qualls]

Do what it says on the bloody bottle! Wear gloves!

Sometimes the bottle is excessively alarmist, likely prompted by liability concerns (and lawyers). For instance, I recall a warning on the bottle of HC-110 concentrate that contaminated clothing should be discarded. If it were hazardous enough to make that a reasonable precaution, I doubt Ansel Adams (who used it a lot, based on his writings) would have live to the age he did.

You can make your case on cumulative exposure, but I'd also suggest that at the age most of us have already reached, long term effects are of less concern than they would have been had we known in our 20s what we think we know now. Still; I'm reminded of something I heard in one of my first college chemistry lectures, back in 1978: Chemists typically die younger than the average, an effect that was then believed to be due to chronic low-level exposure to cyclic hydrocarbon solvents (benzene derivatives). I've never heard a similar claim about expected lifetime of photographers, barring a collection of symptoms in x-ray lab techs that was determined to be almost certainly due to exposure to formaldehyde based film hardeners used in the rapid access processing machines.

I'll continue to wear gloves for processes I consider hazardous, and I might experiment with them for routine tray processing of prints and negatives; I have no latex sensitivity and routinely wear nitrile gloves all day at work (I repair power tools, it's the only way to prevent blackened skin that takes weeks to clear by regular washing) -- and I can buy gloves from my workplace at a discount. Whether I can feel the film well enough to handle it in the dark is the issue; I have a deficit in fine texture sensitivity in my fingertips from years of my work (I routinely have to apply strong pressure to seat small parts), and have in the past had times when I couldn't feel the film well enough to handle it efficiently in the dark even without gloves. If the gloves cause problems, they're gone.

[Maris Rusis]

Donald, your post makes good sense. And it is prudent to be cautious. And gloves mostly work and sometimes fail. And you are right; most product safety data sheets start off as chemistry but are ultimately published by accountants and lawyers averting expensive lawsuits.

I was deeply shocked by the death of Professor Karen Wetterhahn in 1997 from dimethyl mercury poisoning. She only had a small drop on her latex gloves but enough diffused through in minutes to consign her to certain death. When I think of the stuff I handled during my laboratory work my blood runs cold. Photo-chemistry is nothing like that and safety lies in being alert and informed rather than relying on fear and panic.

[Darin Boville]

Since you asked about gloves I just wanted to emphasize the importance of ventilation. :)

--Darin

[Doremus Scudder]

It is important to accurately rank the risks we face from chemistry, photo- or otherwise. Simply stating that anything could be dangerous so we should take maximum precautions for everything, while certainly safe, is ignoring the differences a bit too much IMO. Some things are simply more dangerous than others (e.g., pyro developers and maybe selenium toners). Others have shown themselves to be low- or no-risk. We need to make the proper distinctions.

Many, many darkroom workers have worked with their bare hands in both film and print developing chemistry for years with no real provable ill effects for the vast majority (contact dermatitis from Metol aside); no "cancer-clusters" and only suspicions that Amidol may have contributed to Weston's Parkinson's disease are among the lack of evidence surrounding the topic. And, if I remember correctly, Ansel Adams arranged to have his body medically examined to determine if there were any damage from constant exposure to photo chemicals. I believe the results were negative. Plus, I am fairly sure that hydroquinone is or was used rather extensively as a component of skin-lightening creams. This puts MQ developers into a pretty low-risk category in my book, or until I hear some concrete evidence to the contrary.

Certainly, we can and should be careful and avoid exposure to chemicals even if there is a suspicion that they may be dangerous. That said, I worry little about getting MQ print developer on my hands when I want to warm a particular area of a print to speed developing a bit. Since I use tongs and avoid exposure the rest of the time, I asses the risk, if any, as miniscule.

I do wear gloves with pyro developers, etc. and avoid getting any other (less toxic) chemicals on my hands if it is not necessary (more out of contamination than health concerns however). And, I recommend that people wear gloves or use tongs and avoid unnecessary exposure to darkroom chemicals.

That said, I think there is a much greater risk to people's health from the number of commonly used pesticides and herbicides, paints, drain cleaners, bleaches, etc. that are found in most households. Many of these are much more dangerous than the most toxic developer. For some reason, people seem to think that they are safe enough for the general public and the environment with proper handling. (I'll dip my hands in developer from time to time, but there's no Round-Up or Malathion in my garage.)

Personally, I worry much more about exposure to industrial waste, pesticides/herbicides in the environment, e-coli contamination of my food, etc. than I do about getting Dektol on my hands from time to time.

Best,

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

In this University town we have a saying: "There are three kinds of people who never live past 52: Industrial Painters, Cropdusters, and Research Chemists". That's because they all tend to get just too comfortable being around certain things, and therefore eventually get careless. I do have a neighbor who was an industrial pipeline painter and in now in his mid-80's, but that's because the year he was fifty he ended up in the hospital for two full years and could never work again. Just yesterdaya few of us were reminiscing about so-and-so, this and that chemist who had a plant down the street, but now is either utterly bonkers or spastic, and
who once bragged about how safe the ingredients in his products were. Learn the hard way if you must. You can only roll the dice so many times. And with respect to darkroom chemistry, some of it is known for causing sensitization rather than poisoning. But it's just a matter of time until even somebody running big inkjet printers daily in an unventilated room ends up with glycol sensitization. Glycol is being progressively banned from industrial colorants. But it's hard enough to keep those machines unclogged using only true water-based pigments. I should know. I spent thirty grand one one of those machines (not my own money, thank goodness!), and it still takes thousands of dollars of years to maintain the damn device. The tiny nozzles of inkjet machines would be hopeless without glycol to keep the inks moist. But like I said, somebody one of these days will just break out in hives, or rash, or suddenly develop horrible lung irritation just from being exposed day after day to small amounts of it. Gloves are so damn cheap and ubiquitous nowadays that I can't imagine why anyone would detour them, and good ventilation
is just common sense.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Gloves. Always.

[Tin Can]

In this University town we have a saying: "There are three kinds of people who never live past 52: Industrial Painters, Cropdusters, and Research Chemists". That's because they all tend to get just too comfortable being around certain things, and therefore eventually get careless. I do have a neighbor who was an industrial pipeline painter and in now in his mid-80's, but that's because the year he was fifty he ended up in the hospital for two full years and could never work again. Just yesterdaya few of us were reminiscing about so-and-so, this and that chemist who had a plant down the street, but now is either utterly bonkers or spastic, and
who once bragged about how safe the ingredients in his products were. Learn the hard way if you must. You can only roll the dice so many times. And with respect to darkroom chemistry, some of it is known for causing sensitization rather than poisoning. But it's just a matter of time until even somebody running big inkjet printers daily in an unventilated room ends up with glycol sensitization. Glycol is being progressively banned from industrial colorants. But it's hard enough to keep those machines unclogged using only true water-based pigments. I should know. I spent thirty grand one one of those machines (not my own money, thank goodness!), and it still takes thousands of dollars of years to maintain the damn device. The tiny nozzles of inkjet machines would be hopeless without glycol to keep the inks moist. But like I said, somebody one of these days will just break out in hives, or rash, or suddenly develop horrible lung irritation just from being exposed day after day to small amounts of it. Gloves are so damn cheap and ubiquitous nowadays that I can't imagine why anyone would detour them, and good ventilation
is just common sense.

Aren't copier toners known to be very hazardous for secretaries and other heavy users? I read something about dust. I do know my MFC Brother has plenty of warnings when changing toner cartridges. I use mine very seldom, what I do like is, it never clogs, never needs a wasteful head or nozzle cleaning and with my usage the toner lasts more than a year, maybe 2.3 years.