Experimental Methods: Lith Printing's Surprising Profile

Part 6 of 13 in the Sustainable Darkroom series | ← Previous: Part 5 | Next: Part 7 →

The previous five posts examined standard processing—B&W film development, fixer management, C-41, RA-4. This post and the next move into experimental territory: processes I use regularly that don't fit the standard workflow.

A note on what I'm skipping: Sabattier effect (solarisation) has essentially the same environmental profile as standard B&W printing plus a bit more developer and an extra light exposure. There's nothing distinctive to say about it from a sustainability perspective. If you're doing Sabattier, the guidance from Part 3 applies without modification.

What I will examine:

• This post: Lith printing and subsequent toning (selenium, gold, sulfide)
• Next post: Mordançage

These processes have genuine environmental considerations—but they're not always worse than standard methods. Lith printing, in particular, has a surprisingly favourable profile.

What Is Lith Printing?

Lith printing uses highly diluted, low-sulfite developers to produce distinctive results: high contrast, coloured tones (from pink through brown to olive), and characteristic grain. The technique exploits “infectious development”—a runaway reaction where the oxidation products of hydroquinone become developing agents themselves, accelerating shadow density while highlights remain delicate.¹

The distinctive lith look—hard blacks, soft highlights, warm mid-tones—comes from this non-linear development combined with the chromogenic oxidation products that deposit alongside metallic silver.

I use Moersch Easy Lith FT, though the principles apply to any lith developer (Moersch SE5, Fotospeed LD20, homebrew formulas).

The Chemistry of Lith Development

What's in the developer?

Lith developers are remarkably simple:²

• Hydroquinone: The sole developing agent (no metol, no phenidone)
• Low sulfite: Minimal antioxidant, allowing hydroquinone to oxidise and form reactive intermediates
• Potassium bromide: Restrainer that slows development, allowing the infectious effect to build
• Alkali: Usually sodium hydroxide or potassium carbonate

That's essentially it. Compare this to a standard B&W developer with multiple developing agents, chelating agents, and various additives.

The dilution factor

Here's where lith printing becomes environmentally interesting: working dilutions are extreme.

Moersch Easy Lith FT is used at dilutions of 1+15 to 1+30 or more. I typically work at 1+20, and I always add a splash of old brown developer from the previous session—this “old brown” seeds the infectious development and gives more consistent results.

A typical working solution might contain:

• 25ml Part A
• 25ml Part B
• 1000ml water
• A splash of exhausted developer from last time

For comparison, my standard B&W developers are used at much higher concentrations:

• Adox Neutol WA: 1+7 to 1+15
• Adox Adotol Konstant: 1+9 to 1+15
• Ilford Multigrade: 1+9 to 1+14

At 1+20 dilution, working lith developer contains approximately 0.9–1.1 g/L hydroquinone. Standard MQ developers contain 2.0–2.5 g/L hydroquinone in working solution.

Lith printing uses less hydroquinone per print than standard B&W printing, despite longer development times.

Per-print chemical burden

Let's calculate actual chemical use:

Standard B&W print (Adox Neutol WA 1+9):

• Working solution: ~1.5 g/L hydroquinone (typical MQ developer)
• Volume per 8×10 print (tray): ~100ml
• Hydroquinone per print: ~150mg

Lith print (Moersch Easy Lith 1+20):

• Working solution: ~1.0 g/L hydroquinone
• Volume per 8×10 print (tray): ~100ml
• Hydroquinone per print: ~100mg

Lith printing uses approximately 30–40% less developing agent per print than standard processing.

The long development times (6–15 minutes) might suggest more chemical use, but the extreme dilution more than compensates.

Environmental Assessment

The good news

Lower developer toxicity per print: Less hydroquinone means less aquatic toxicity released per image made. If you're making 20 lith prints in a session, your total hydroquinone burden is substantially lower than 20 conventional prints.

Simple chemistry: No exotic chemicals, no chelating agents, no persistent organic compounds beyond the standard B&W suite.

Standard fixing: Lith prints are fixed in ordinary fixer—no special chemistry required. All the previous guidance about fixer management and silver recovery applies without modification.

The bad news

Hydroquinone classification: Moersch's safety data notes that hydroquinone is “classified with category 3 producing cancer and changing genetic ancestral estate.”³ This is standard for any hydroquinone-containing developer—lith printing doesn't make it worse, but doesn't escape it either.

Developer exhaustion: Lith developer exhausts unpredictably. The infectious development process means working solutions can “crash”—becoming suddenly inactive as hydroquinone is consumed. This can lead to wasted sessions where chemistry exhausts mid-print.

Paper selectivity: Not all papers lith effectively. Finding papers that work well may involve testing (and wasting) papers that don't.

Irreproducibility—the double-edged sword: Lith printing is famously difficult to reproduce exactly. The same negative, same paper, same chemistry will produce different results depending on developer exhaustion, temperature variations, and the precise moment you pull the print.

This is both a strength and a weakness:

As a strength: Each print is genuinely unique. The process rewards intuition and embraces happy accidents. There's an alchemical satisfaction in watching infectious development take hold differently each time.

As a weakness: It's easy to get an “okay” print, but hard to fine-tune toward a specific vision. You can't effectively “dial in” lith printing the way you can conventional work—make a test strip, adjust, and reproduce. Each print is somewhat of a fresh experiment.

This has waste implications. With conventional printing, you might make 3–4 work prints to optimise exposure and contrast, then produce final prints with confidence. With lith, even after extensive experience, the hit rate for “excellent” versus “acceptable” prints is lower. You may generate more paper waste chasing a specific result that the process doesn't want to give you.

I've learned to accept this. Lith printing is a conversation with chemistry rather than a specification to execute. But if your goal is minimal waste through precise control, lith is the wrong technique.

Net assessment

Lith printing is environmentally favourable compared to standard B&W printing on a per-print basis. The extreme dilution reduces hydroquinone use significantly; the fixing process is identical; no additional problematic chemicals are introduced.

This may seem counterintuitive—experimental processes feel like they should be worse—but the maths is clear. If you're concerned about hydroquinone toxicity in your darkroom waste, lith printing is actually a better choice than conventional MQ development.

Toning Lith Prints

I often tone my lith prints—selenium, gold, and sulfide are all options I use regularly. I primarily use Moersch toners (including his Polychrome kit for multi-toning effects) and Foma toners. The underlying chemistry is similar across brands, so the environmental considerations apply regardless of manufacturer.

Selenium Toning

Selenium toner (Moersch SE-6, Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner, Harman Selenium Toner) contains sodium selenite, which is:

• H300: Fatal if swallowed
• H331: Toxic if inhaled
• H411: Toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects⁴

Selenium is a genuine heavy metal concern. Unlike silver, there's no straightforward recovery method for home use. Kodak's guidance explicitly states: “Used KODAK Rapid Selenium Toner is regulated as a hazardous waste under USEPA RCRA regulations for commercial users. We recommend that domestic users do not discharge this material to the sewer.”⁵

Practical approach:

• Use selenium toner at high dilution (1:9 to 1:19) to extend life
• Replenish rather than discard—selenium toner keeps indefinitely if topped up
• When eventually exhausted, dispose via hazardous waste collection
• Never pour selenium toner down the drain

The toning bath accumulates silver from prints as a secondary product. At exhaustion, it contains both selenium compounds and silver—proper disposal is essential.

Gold Toning

Gold toners (Nelson's Gold Toner, Kodak Gold Protective Solution) use gold chloride, which is:

• Expensive (self-limiting for overuse)
• Low acute toxicity to humans
• Aquatic toxicity data limited but concerning at high concentrations

Gold toners are typically used once and discarded—the gold plates onto silver and is consumed. The environmental burden is primarily the gold mining industry's impacts rather than direct aquatic toxicity.

Practical approach:

• Gold toning is inherently expensive; this limits waste
• Used gold toner contains no recoverable gold (it's on your print)
• Disposal via hazardous waste is prudent but may not be required depending on jurisdiction

Sulfide Toning (Sepia)

Sulfide toners produce hydrogen sulfide gas (H₂S)—the “rotten egg” smell—which is:

• Acutely toxic at high concentrations
• Detectable by smell at very low (safe) concentrations
• A ventilation concern rather than a disposal concern

The sulfide compounds themselves have moderate aquatic toxicity but biodegrade. Disposal is less problematic than selenium.

Practical approach:

• Always work with good ventilation
• If you can smell it strongly, ventilation is inadequate
• Sulfide toner can generally be disposed via municipal sewer with dilution (check local regulations)

Toning summary

Toner	Primary Concern	Disposal
Selenium	Heavy metal, aquatic toxicity	Hazardous waste required
Gold	Mining impacts, cost	Hazardous waste prudent
Sulfide	H₂S inhalation during use	Municipal sewer with dilution

Putting It Together

A typical lith printing session in my darkroom:

1. Mix lith developer at 1+20 (~1.0g hydroquinone per litre)
2. Process prints — 6–15 minutes development, standard stop and fix
3. Wash using running water
4. Optionally tone — selenium, gold, or sulfide
5. Final wash and dry

Environmental profile:

• Developer: Lower hydroquinone burden than standard B&W
• Fixer: Same silver concerns; same recovery methods apply
• Toner (if used): Selenium requires hazardous waste disposal; sulfide is manageable

Net assessment: Lith printing is environmentally neutral-to-favourable compared to standard B&W printing, except when selenium toning is involved. The selenium adds a genuine heavy metal concern that doesn't exist in standard processing.

If you're doing lith printing without selenium toning, your environmental profile is actually better than a conventional B&W printer using MQ developers. The extreme dilution wins.

Recommendations

For lith printing:

• The process itself is surprisingly sustainable
• Standard fixer management applies—recover silver or dispose properly
• Don't be deterred by the “experimental” label; the chemistry is simple and the dilution works in your favour
• Accept that the irreproducibility may generate more paper waste than conventional printing

A note on washing: For lith prints, the same washing considerations apply as for conventional printing. Part 8 covers print washing efficiency in detail—the sequential water changes and HCA approach work identically for lith prints. RC paper needs only brief washing regardless of development method; fibre-based lith prints benefit from the same HCA + sequential changes protocol as any fibre print.

For toning:

• Selenium: Use sparingly, replenish rather than discard, dispose as hazardous waste
• Gold: Expensive enough to be self-limiting; dispose prudently
• Sulfide: Ventilation matters more than disposal; manageable with care

For those concerned about hydroquinone specifically:

• Lith printing uses less hydroquinone per print than standard MQ development
• If hydroquinone is your primary concern, lith printing is actually preferable to D-76

---

References