Does it make any sense to try to reduce the environmental impact of chemical photography? Or should we simply move on if environmental issues are the main concern? After all, cameras existed well before the discovery that silver-based materials could be used to record projected images, and they work amazingly well with silicon-based digital imaging sensors, too. Beyond the issue of environmental impact, though, there is something enticing to me about using materials that are to hand to produce unique photographic results. Low toxicity is a bonus for storing this stuff in the studio with you and your studio lizard, right? At any rate, at the moment, I won't offer any hard and fast answers to these questions, but I have started playing around with different DIY developing and fixing methods.
Of course, I've tried coffee developers before and have gotten very nice results with them. Coffee can also be used with darkroom papers, something that I intend to try at some point. In the meantime, plant-based materials containing high levels of phenolic compounds are interesting candidates for film developers. Hence, mint. I steeped a handful of mint from the garden in hot water for an hour, added 40 g of sodium carbonate (not bicarbonate), 10 g of ascorbic acid and water to make 600 mL. I exposed a roll of Kodak XX at EI = 200, developed it at room temperature for 30 min, washed and fixed normally (commercial fixer). The negatives were super, super thin. I lost at least 4 stops of film speed, but I got images. So, time to see if this can be viable.
As far as fixing is concerned, saturated sodium chloride is a historical fixative. I think it is probably archival enough, by which I mean, your negatives will outlive you. Controlling what happens to your negatives after you leave this mortal coil depends on more than your choice of fixative, I reckon!
