D-76 at 1:3

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by nhemann, Dec 6, 2011.

  1. nhemann

    nhemann Member

    Messages:
    203
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011
    Location:
    NJ - Near NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Getting ready to fire up the big 5-reel (1.5L) tank and read on the internets that rather than going at 1:1 with D-76, I could save some chemisty and use 1:3 The idea being that the volume of the tank is so large there would be plenty of active ingredient to get the job done. Any opinions on the matter?

    In fact, in this particular case I am going to be doing 4 spools of 120 so a little less total film area.

    Thanks,

    N
     
  2. nhemann

    nhemann Member

    Messages:
    203
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011
    Location:
    NJ - Near NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    kick it up
     
  3. sly

    sly Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,496
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Location:
    Nanaimo
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'm currently tending toward more dilute developer, (and longer times) because I like the negatives for the way I like to print. I'm sure that's pretty personal. I wouldn't advise diluting the developer without boosting the time. The more chemically savvy will chime in I'm sure.

    I stopped using my big tank for developing 4 rolls of 120. I was getting uneven development - surge marks. I won't try it again unless the negs aren't particularly important. (When would I ever have 4 rolls of 120 with no "important" frames?)

    If I'm doing multiple rolls, I use my 2 2 reel (120) tanks, stagger the times, and put all 4 reels in the tall tank for washing. I can then wash and dry the 2 tanks and start again if I've got lots of rolls (like after an overseas trip). The first set of 4 rolls wash while I get the tanks loaded with the next 4 rolls, and I just keep going until I'm done. (I've inherited lots of reels and a few tanks from folks who've abandoned the wet work of photography.)
     
  4. polyglot

    polyglot Member

    Messages:
    3,472
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    South Austra
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    You still need (edit) 250mL of stock per roll; 120mL is acceptable but requires about 10% time extension according to the datasheet. If by 1:3 you mean 1+3, then that will not be enough developer (375mL) in 1.5L to process four rolls properly. 1+2 (500mL stock) should be acceptable with 10% time extension.

    If the rolls were shot high-key, i.e. with most of the film heavily exposed, then you should seriously consider going back to 1+1.

    Kodak J-78

    Edit: I frequently use about 150mL per roll and get decent results at the nominal times, but I'm doing rotary which comes with a ~15% activity boost due to continuous agitation, obviating the need for time extension.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2011
  5. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,032
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    As above I'd go for 1+2 with D76/ID-11, this gives a great overall balance of film speed/sharpness/fine grain and a long tonal range.

    The problem with 1+3 is exhaustion of the developing agents at that dilution tends to cause a compensating effects and a lack of good highlight details and flatter negatives.

    Ian
     
  6. dnjl

    dnjl Member

    Messages:
    376
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Shooter:
    35mm
    As long as you observe the minimum developer amount, the difference between 1+1 and 1+3 will be hardly noticeable. I used to do 1+1 because my developer would've gone bad anyway, but now I use the 1L instead of 3,8L power packs and have switched to 1+3 dilution. As I said, the difference is marginal for medium and low speed emulsions.
     
  7. David Lyga

    David Lyga Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,872
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Not to knock Ployglot, but I regularly do this, and add maybe 1 gram of sodium carbonate per liter of working solution to regain the energy. My extensive experimentation states plainly that you do not 'need' 250 ml of STOCK per 36 exp roll of 35mm film (or one 120 roll). You will be surprised with the negative quality using D-76 1 + 3 (but no further dilution, please) with the carbonate. That's only 60 ml of 'stock' per 36 exp roll, heresy to some but my experimentation proves the validity.

    Decide upon a regular dev time by testing with an exposed couple of inches of film and agitate for the same time as normal. To really gain precision with this use only a pro-rated amount of working solution for the couple inches of film, ie, if you use 250 ml per 36 exp roll then use only 25 ml per one tenth the amount of film. Use a plastic film container for the 'tank' and do this in total darkness. (These plastic containers hold a max of about 30 ml so this is ideal for a couple of frames which will fit in without overlapping.) Line the film against the container wall, emulsion side out, naturally. - David Lyga
     
  8. michael_r

    michael_r Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,542
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Compared with 1+1, 1+3 will give more highlight compensation, higher sharpness and a little more graininess. D76 is quite sharp at 1+3.
     
  9. mfohl

    mfohl Subscriber

    Messages:
    497
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Westerville,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    So, Michael R, based on your statement of higher sharpness and graininess at 1+3, should I expect slightly higher sharpness and graininess at 1+2 compared to 1+1? Enquiring minds want to know, and might benefit from your experience.

    Tnx,

    -- Mark
     
  10. Bill Burk

    Bill Burk Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,984
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    That reminds me. Much of my sensitometry was done with D-76 at 1:1 but with only 1 oz of 'stock' per 4x5 sheet when spec says 2 oz. So if my future tests show a trend towards higher contrast (because now I know to use 2 oz per sheet), the variable that I changed is the amount of stock solution per square inch.

    When I tried to use the same trays twice (thus 1/2 oz per sheet) my Contrast Index went down, which 15% more time would have made up for.

    So my opinion is the amount of stock D-76 is significant at 1/4th recommended, but at 1/2 recommended probably causes changes under 7%.

    You will have a more significant affect from the dilution, I assume you will be developing longer, so I assume you will automatically take care of both variables.

    I work for Kodak but the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC... I mean what would a computer tech support guy know about photography anyway.
     
  11. Gerald C Koch

    Gerald C Koch Member

    Messages:
    6,239
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Southern USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Trying to save on developer is a foolish economy. Follow Kodak's recommendation as to the minumum amount of developer required. As Ian points out developer that is too dilute will result in flat negatives and a distorted tonal range. Developer is cheap, film is not.
     
  12. komla

    komla Member

    Messages:
    27
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    'Everybody' says that ID11 and D76 is the same thing. Ilford states 100ml stock vs Kodak 250 ml pr 135/120 film. I guess it is not the same thing?
     
  13. nhemann

    nhemann Member

    Messages:
    203
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011
    Location:
    NJ - Near NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thank you all for the advice and opinions, the collective mind here never fails me. Gerald, I def appreciate what you mean - sorting out the rash of info out there can be a real nightmare and I was asking more out of a waste not, want not mentality than as a penny pincher.
     
  14. michael_r

    michael_r Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,542
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Generally, solvent developers are sharper the more they are diluted. There is a corresponding grain increase. So yes, these effects are what one would observe going from stock strength to increasingly dilute working solutions. Along with the grain and sharpness effects, contrast also generally decreases with dilution: total density range as well as local contrast, particularly in the higher values which will show compression (a gradual shouldering). Note of course these contrast effects can be altered by adjusting development time and agitation, so what I'm giving you are basic directional changes.

    It therefore follows developer dilutions should be adjusted to control working characteristics, not to save money. If you do it properly it doesn't save any money anyhow since best practice is to add more water, not decrease the amount of developer concentrate/stock (if you want high quality, repeatable and consistent results).
     
  15. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,032
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The most economic way to use D76 is as it was designed for in the firtst place - replenished.

    Once seasoned a replenished developer like D76/ID-11 and Xtol etc gives all the benefits of use at about 1+2, the increased sharpness and acutance, a better tonality but in addition it gives finer grain.

    Ian