A Defensible Practice: How to Run a Darkroom You Can Live With

Part 3 of 13 in the Sustainable Darkroom series | ← Previous: Part 2 | Next: Part 4 →

I've spent two posts explaining why the sustainability conversation around analogue photography is often pointed in the wrong direction. Botanical developers offer genuine but limited advantages. Silver in fixer represents the overwhelming majority of environmental concern. The hierarchy of impact is clear: silver management » water efficiency » fixer efficiency » developer choice.

Now let's talk about what to actually do.

This post is practical. I'll describe specific interventions, rank them by impact, and be honest about which ones I currently practice versus which I'm now planning to implement after doing this research. The good news: the most effective actions are also the cheapest and simplest. The bad news: they require accepting that common practice—including, until recently, my own—is inadequate.

A note on fixer types: this post assumes you're using rapid fixer (ammonium thiosulfate), which is now standard for most film and paper processing. Rapid fixer works faster, washes out more easily, and handles modern tabular-grain films better than traditional sodium thiosulfate fixers. If you're still using sodium thiosulfate, the principles here still apply, but consider switching—it's better for both efficiency and archival quality.

The Hierarchy of Actual Impact

Before diving into methods, let me state the priority order explicitly:

1. Silver recovery from fixer — Eliminates approximately 95% of environmental concern
2. Water efficiency in washing — Reduces both water consumption and residual silver discharge by 75–90%
3. Fixer efficiency — Extends chemical life, reducing total waste volume
4. Chemistry handling — Proper storage, measuring, disposal of concentrates
5. Developer choice — Lower toxicity is better, but marginal compared to above

If you're implementing item 5 while ignoring items 1–2, you've optimised the wrong variable. Fix the big things first.

Silver Recovery: The Non-Negotiable Step

Why It Matters Most

Spent fixer contains silver at 3,000–8,000 mg/L.¹ Aquatic organisms die at 0.6–5 μg/L.² The concentration differential—roughly a million to one—means that even aggressive dilution in municipal systems doesn't reduce silver to safe levels reliably. Every litre of spent fixer represents grams of heavy metal entering your local watershed.

Silver recovery removes this problem at source. The methods available to home darkroom operators achieve 95–99% removal, transforming hazardous waste into something that can legitimately enter municipal treatment without ecological concern.³

Method 1: Metallic Displacement (Steel Wool)

This is the simplest and cheapest method, suitable for any home darkroom volume.

The chemistry: Iron metal reduces silver ions to metallic silver while itself oxidising:⁴

2 Ag⁺ + Fe → 2 Ag⁰ + Fe²⁺

The reaction is spontaneous at room temperature. Silver plates out onto the steel wool surface as a grey-black sludge, eventually falling to the container bottom as the wool dissolves.

The method:

1. Collect spent fixer in a dedicated container (a milk jug or 5-litre bottle works well)
2. When the container is full, add a ball of fine steel wool (grade 0000 or similar)
3. Leave the container in a well-ventilated space—the reaction produces hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg smell) and should not be conducted indoors
4. Stir once daily for 5–7 days
5. Test the solution with silver test strips or potassium chromate (yellow → red indicates remaining silver)
6. When silver is depleted, decant the liquid (now safe for drain disposal) and retain the silver sludge
7. Accumulate sludge until you have enough to sell to a refiner or dispose as hazardous waste (dramatically reduced volume)

Effectiveness: 95–99% silver removal when properly maintained.³

Cost: Steel wool is cheap. No ongoing chemical costs.

Limitations: Produces iron-laden effluent (not toxic, but may affect plumbing); requires outdoor or well-ventilated space due to H₂S generation; takes a week per batch.

For home darkrooms, this is the most accessible recovery method. It requires essentially no investment, minimal ongoing attention, and reduces fixer's silver content to safe levels reliably.

Method 2: Metallic Replacement Cartridges

Commercial cartridges use the same chemistry as steel wool but in a more convenient form factor.⁵

How they work: Spent fixer flows through a cartridge containing steel wool or iron mesh. Silver plates out continuously; treated fixer exits the cartridge ready for disposal.

Advantages:

• No odour issues (sealed system)
• Continuous operation (no batching required)
• Consistent performance when properly sized

Disadvantages:

• Higher cost ($50–350 for cartridge systems)
• Requires flow-through setup
• Must be sized appropriately for your volume

For darkrooms processing more than a few rolls weekly, cartridge systems offer convenience. For occasional practitioners, batch processing with loose steel wool is more practical.

Method 3: Electrolytic Recovery

Passing current through spent fixer plates silver onto a cathode, producing high-purity metal (95–99.99% depending on technique).⁶

Advantages:

• Produces pure, saleable silver
• Continuous operation
• High recovery efficiency

Disadvantages:

• Equipment cost (€500–2,000+)
• Requires power supply and monitoring
• Generates chlorine gas at anode (ventilation critical)
• Not cost-effective at home darkroom volumes

Electrolytic recovery makes sense for community darkrooms processing hundreds of litres per month, or for practitioners who want to actually sell recovered silver. For home use, the economics don't work—you'll spend more on equipment than you'll ever recover in metal value.

The Economics Reality Check

Let me be direct about this: silver recovery at home darkroom scales is not profitable.

At current silver prices (~€2/g), a litre of exhausted fixer at 5 g/L contains roughly €10 worth of silver. The steel wool method costs almost nothing, but the time involved exceeds minimum wage if you're counting. Metallic replacement cartridges cost more than you'll recover in years of hobby processing.

The point isn't profit. The point is not poisoning waterways. Do silver recovery because it's the right thing to do, not because you'll get rich. The value proposition is ethical, not economic.

Water Efficiency: The Second Priority

The Problem with Standard Washing

Traditional film washing advice calls for 20–30 minutes of running water. At typical flow rates (2–4 L/min), this consumes 40–120 litres per roll—absurd volumes for what amounts to diffusion-limited chemical removal.

The archival concern is legitimate: residual thiosulfate causes long-term image degradation.⁷ But the engineering response—flooding with water until the problem goes away—is crude and wasteful.

The Ilford Method: 90% Reduction, Proven Archival Quality

Ilford's official archival wash protocol uses sequential fill-and-dump cycles rather than continuous flow.⁸ The method originated from research by L.F.A. Mason at Ilford:

1. Fill the tank with water, invert 5 times, drain
2. Fill the tank again, invert 10 times, drain
3. Fill the tank again, invert 20 times, drain
4. Done

Total water consumption: 1.5–2 litres per roll.

This geometric progression (5-10-20) isn't arbitrary. Research on diffusion kinetics shows that equilibrium between film and water is reached within 10–15 seconds of agitation.⁹ Additional water flow after equilibrium contributes nothing—you're just diluting the surrounding water, not the film's residual chemistry.

Independent testing with residual hypo indicators confirms the Ilford method achieves no detectable residual fixer when followed correctly. Archival quality equals or exceeds continuous washing at a fraction of the water consumption.

Wash Aid: Further Reduction

Adding a hypo clearing agent (sodium sulfite or sodium metabisulfite solution, typically 2%) between fixing and washing accelerates thiosulfate removal from the emulsion.¹⁰

The chemistry: sulfite ions compete with thiosulfate for binding sites in the gelatin matrix, displacing fixer chemistry and reducing the diffusion time required.

Protocol with wash aid:

1. Brief rinse (30 seconds running water to remove surface fixer)
2. Wash aid bath (1–2 minutes with agitation)
3. Final wash (5 minutes continuous, OR 3 fill-dump cycles)

This cuts total wash time from 30 minutes to under 10, with equivalent or better thiosulfate removal.

Wash aids are particularly important for fibre-based paper, where fixer penetrates the paper base and requires extensive diffusion to remove. Standard fibre washing (30–60 minutes continuous) can be reduced to 5–10 minutes with proper wash aid use.¹¹

Print Washing: Where Water Really Adds Up

Washing prints—particularly fibre-based prints—consumes far more water than film processing. A single 8×10 fibre print can require 40–60 litres under standard protocols.

Efficient print washing:

1. Use RC paper when archival longevity isn't critical - i.e, test prints (30 seconds wash, ~4 litres)
2. Implement wash aid for fibre prints (reduces wash time by 80%)
3. Use sequential water changes rather than continuous flow
4. Print in batches to amortise wash water across multiple prints

I'll be honest: I've largely moved to RC paper for work that doesn't require extreme archival properties, for test prints, and work where fibre is the only option. The water savings are substantial, and modern RC papers have addressed most of the delamination concerns that gave the format a bad reputation in the 1970s–80s.¹²

Fixer Efficiency: Extending Chemical Life

Two-Bath Fixing

Running two fixer baths in sequence—with film moving from first bath to second—extends total capacity dramatically.¹³

How it works: The first bath does most of the fixing work but accumulates silver rapidly. The second bath (fresher) ensures complete fixing even as the first bath exhausts. When the first bath is depleted, discard it, promote the second bath to first position, and make fresh second bath.

Capacity improvement: 4–10× compared to single-bath fixing, depending on film type and silver content.

Archival benefit: The fresh second bath ensures no residual silver halides even if the first bath is marginal.

Two-bath fixing is standard practice in professional labs for good reason. It works, it's cheap, and it dramatically reduces total fixer consumption.

Fixer Testing

Rather than discarding fixer on a schedule, test it with hypo check solution (potassium iodide) or commercial test strips.¹⁴

Fresh fixer: Clear or very light yellow with hypo check Exhausted fixer: Milky precipitate indicates silver halide accumulation

Testing lets you run fixer to actual exhaustion rather than arbitrary roll counts. The capacity varies enormously with film type—slow, fine-grain films contribute less silver per roll than fast films—so testing captures this variability.

A Note on Rapid Fixer

As mentioned at the start, this post assumes you're using rapid fixer (ammonium thiosulfate)—products like Ilford Rapid Fixer, Adox Rapid Fixer, or similar. This isn't arbitrary preference.

Ammonium thiosulfate offers significant advantages over sodium thiosulfate:¹⁵

• Faster fixing times (2–4 minutes vs. 5–10 minutes)
• Better handling of modern films (T-Max, Delta, and other tabular-grain emulsions have elevated iodide that exhausts sodium thiosulfate rapidly)
• Lower wash times (ammonium thiosulfate washes out faster from both film and paper)

Research published in the Journal of Imaging Science and Technology indicates sodium thiosulfate “cannot adequately fix modern films or papers” due to iodide accumulation.¹⁶ If you're processing contemporary emulsions, rapid fixer is the better choice for both efficiency and archival reliability.

From a sustainability perspective, faster fixing and faster washing means less time, less water, and better results. There's no trade-off here—rapid fixer is simply better for most applications.

Developer Handling: The Minor Optimisations

Developer choice is the least impactful intervention, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Of course, choice of developer also impacts the aesthetics, which to my mind, is a more important consideration. But anyway, this is a blog about sustainability, so let's rank by that.

Preferred Developer Types

Ranked by environmental profile:

1. Ascorbic acid-based (Xtol, Eco-Pro, etc): Food-safe reducing agent, minimal aquatic toxicity, drain-safe disposal.¹⁷ Excellent image quality with fine grain and good shadow detail.

2. Phenidone-vitamin C developers (POTA variants, Gainer formulas): Phenidone is moderately toxic but used at very low concentrations (~0.1 g/L).¹⁸ Combined with ascorbic acid, these offer good performance with minimal environmental burden.

3. Caffenol and botanical developers: Drain-safe, very low toxicity, but requires fresh mixing each session and produces variable results. Best if sourced from post-consumer waste.

4. Rodinal/R09: p-Aminophenol is toxic to aquatic life (LC₅₀ 0.9–24 mg/L for fish)¹⁹ and non-biodegradable, but the extreme concentration (1:50 to 1:100 dilutions) means minimal chemical per roll. Long shelf life reduces packaging waste. Requires proper disposal.

5. MQ developers (D-76, ID-11): Hydroquinone is acutely toxic (LC₅₀ 0.044 mg/L)²⁰ and metol causes skin sensitisation. Both used at moderate concentrations. Drain disposal is legal in most jurisdictions but represents higher environmental burden than alternatives.

Practical Developer Recommendations

For most photographers, Xtol or a similar ascorbic acid developer offers the best balance: excellent image quality, minimal toxicity, straightforward disposal, adequate shelf life. It's not the cheapest option, but developer cost is a tiny fraction of total photographic expenses.

If you value Rodinal's aesthetic or shelf life, use it at high dilution (1:100) to minimise chemical consumption, and dispose of concentrates properly. The total p-aminophenol per roll at 1:100 dilution is approximately 0.05 grams—minimal in absolute terms even if the compound is problematic.

If you're committed to botanical developers, source coffee from waste streams and accept the shelf-life limitations. Fresh-mixed caffenol is genuinely low-impact; purchased instant coffee carries embedded agricultural harm that undermines the sustainability case.

Bringing It Together: A Defensible Darkroom

Here's my current practice, and where I'm headed after doing this research:

Developer: Xtol, stock solution, processed 1:1 or 1:2 depending on film. Stored in accordion bottles to minimise oxidation. Drain disposal after use—this is genuinely safe for municipal treatment.

Fixer: Ilford Rapid Fixer, two-bath system. I test silver levels before disposal; usually achieve 50–100 rolls per first bath before it exhausts.

Silver management (current): I collect spent fixer in bottles and take it to municipal hazardous waste collection. I live in Finland, where this infrastructure exists and is straightforward to use. The silver gets handled properly, but I'm relying on external systems rather than addressing it myself.

Silver management (planned): After researching this series, I'm setting up steel wool recovery. It's cheaper than repeated hazardous waste trips, gives me direct control over the process, and—honestly—feels more appropriate for someone writing about sustainable practice. The outdoor space requirement is the main friction; I'm working out the logistics.

Washing: Ilford method for film (5-10-20 inversions). Wash aid plus sequential changes for fibre prints. RC paper when archival properties aren't critical.

What this achieves:

• Developer: Low-toxicity organic compounds, biodegradable, drain-safe
• Fixer: Silver handled responsibly (currently via hazardous waste; soon via recovery)
• Water: ~2 litres per roll film, ~50 litres per printing session
• Silver: Either collected for proper disposal or recovered for reuse

Is this perfect? No. The embedded impacts of film manufacture, paper production, and chemical synthesis remain. Hazardous waste collection transfers the problem rather than solving it. Even steel wool recovery doesn't capture 100%.

But it's defensible. It addresses the major impact (silver) directly. It reduces the secondary impacts (water, chemical toxicity) substantially. It acknowledges what can't be eliminated while minimising what can.

That's the goal: not perfection, but honesty about impacts and genuine effort to reduce them.

For Those Who Want to Go Further

If you're willing to invest more effort, here are additional interventions roughly in order of impact:

Community silver collection: Coordinate with local photographers to aggregate spent fixer. Higher volumes make professional recovery services cost-effective.

Electrolytic recovery: At community darkroom scales (>100 litres/month), electrolytic systems become practical. The recovered silver has genuine value.

Rainwater collection for washing: Eliminates the embedded energy of municipal water treatment for your highest-volume use.

Non-silver processes: Cyanotype, Vandyke brown, and gum bichromate eliminate the silver problem entirely.²¹ They have their own environmental considerations (iron compounds, dichromates) but avoid the heavy metal concentration issue. If sustainability is your primary concern, these processes deserve serious consideration.

Reduce printing: The environmental impact of capture (one roll, one processing session) is much lower than extensive printing. Contact sheets and selective enlargement reduce total chemistry and water consumption.

The Honest Summary

Silver-gelatin photography cannot be made environmentally neutral. The silver is intrinsic to the medium. The water consumption is substantial even with efficient protocols. The chemistry carries embedded production impacts regardless of how “natural” the final formulation seems.

But it can be made defensible.

Implement silver recovery. Use the Ilford wash method. Choose lower-toxicity developers. Extend fixer life. Test rather than guess. These interventions, collectively, reduce darkroom environmental impact by an order of magnitude compared to standard practice.

Is it worth doing? I think so. The alternative—claiming sustainability through developer choice while ignoring silver and water—is, in my opinion, environmental theatre. Better to acknowledge real impacts and address them genuinely than to perform virtue through purchasing decisions.

The most sustainable darkroom is one that confronts its impacts honestly and minimises what can be minimised. That's what defensible practice looks like.

---

Practical Reference

Silver Recovery Setup (Steel Wool Method)

Materials:

• 5-litre plastic container with lid
• Fine steel wool (grade 0000), approximately 50g per batch
• Silver test strips or potassium chromate solution (optional)
• Well-ventilated outdoor location

Process:

1. Accumulate spent fixer until container is full
2. Add steel wool, replace lid loosely (gas must escape)
3. Place outdoors; stir once daily for 5–7 days
4. Test for remaining silver; continue if positive
5. When negative, decant liquid (safe for drain); retain sludge
6. Rinse container; repeat

Ilford Wash Method

Film:

1. Fill tank, invert 5 times, drain (30 seconds)
2. Fill tank, invert 10 times, drain (45 seconds)
3. Fill tank, invert 20 times, drain (60 seconds)
4. Optional: final rinse with wetting agent

Fibre prints (with wash aid):

1. Brief rinse (30 seconds)
2. Wash aid bath (2 minutes, agitation)
3. Five water changes (1 minute each) OR 10 minutes continuous flow

Developer Environmental Ranking

Developer	Active Agent	Aquatic Toxicity	Biodegradable	Recommendation
Xtol	Ascorbic acid	Very low	Yes	Preferred
Caffenol	Caffeic acid	Very low	Yes	Good (if sourced well)
Rodinal 1:100	p-Aminophenol	Moderate	No	Acceptable
D-76	Hydroquinone	High	Yes	Avoid if alternatives available

---

References