D76 1:3, 1+3. 100ml:300ml water, mess up?

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by mesantacruz, Oct 3, 2013.

  1. mesantacruz

    mesantacruz Subscriber

    Messages:
    249
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    So as thread title states, i was looking through the 'benefits' (differences, although some say there aren't any or as noticeable). As i read through the old posts i came across something.

    pan f- primary film (35mm)
    hp5-secondary film (35mm/120)
    d76

    Ilford mgiv rc/fiber
    dektol 1:2.5, 1+2.5

    First i want everyone to know i HAVE been using it 100ml d76 to 300ml. Which according to some of the replies in old posts, this is not enough developer to fully complete developing. what i have found is that my negatives are indeed kind of 'flat' if no filter is used. if i use a 3 filter, most of my negatives look okay, as in they look good but a quick flash of '5' does the contrast justice. Lately i've been reading les, and bobs, split grading techniques, and this is just what i need.

    As i have gotten used to printing my 'flat' negatives, i like them more and more at his dilution. i find that pan f is to contrasty when d76 is used as a stock dilution, and that at 1+3 it is not (i might be wrong as things become clarified through your posts)

    My questions
    1. What would my negatives look like if i used 1+3 dilution with the correct (suggested) amount of developer? I believe 290ml is the least suggested amount.
    2. Will correct amount of suggested minimum developer open up shadows more?, i used to find that pan f seemed to0 under/overexposed. Now, i don't think so.
    2.5 What was i doing to the negative using less than recommended amount of developer? (in reference to shadows/highlights, during PRINTING/ENLARGING).

    Finally thank you to all who take a moment to respond.
     
  2. mauro35

    mauro35 Member

    Messages:
    221
    Joined:
    May 28, 2013
    Location:
    Finland
    Shooter:
    35mm
    The "flat" term you use makes me think about low contrast, that is not the same thing as incomplete development, but it can be lack of agitation or too short a developing time. How is the shadow density instead? I would use that to judge the amount of development, provided the negative shadows are correctly exposed. On the question whether 100mL of developer is enough or not, I have used Microphen 1+3 75mL developer and 225 mL of water (300mL total volume) with perfect results and no issues at all with incomplete development and D76 1+1 150mL developer+150mL of water with perfect results as well.
     
  3. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Member

    Messages:
    15,268
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I am not sure of your specific combination, or what Kodak recommends for developer volume. A quick look in their data sheet (link) shows that they recommend use of stock developer or 1+1. I see no recommendation for 1+3, so hard to say what the manufacturer recommends. It's probably safe to assume, though, that at 1+1 dilution, there is enough developer in the solution when you cover the reels, to fully develop the film.

    But, whether you develop with stock developer or diluted to 1+3, you should have enough developer in the working solution to develop the negatives to the same contrast. It's just that 1+3 gives you longer developing times (and that will effectively develop the shadows more than the shorter time required for stock developer). It also gives higher sharpness due to less solvent action, and it's a more economical way of using the developer.

    Other than that I have nothing to add due to my inexperience with D76 in particular.
     
  4. mesantacruz

    mesantacruz Subscriber

    Messages:
    249
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I think the shadow density is good, as i expose for it (mostly over expose) and when i print i usually get good detail, with great 'fall off' into deeper blacks. Now, sometimes i used to wish there was more shadow detail, and so i kept purposefully overexposing. By using pan f at ASA25, now though i have it set in camera at around ASA 32 and don't purposefully overexpose as much, but it amounts to about the same thing. the problem had before was my i used water temperatures that were all over the place. now i make sure it's at 68 degrees. I'm happy with the results, but would i be happier otherwise?
     
  5. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Member

    Messages:
    15,268
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Shadows are primarily decided by exposure, as you have found out.

    But, developing the film longer will change shadow detail a little bit. By diluting your developer you are forced to develop longer to get the same negative contrast, so that will, by design, give more shadow detail.

    Have you tried simply developing your film longer in order to get the 'normal' contrast that you get with stock developer? Or somewhere in between? If the developer exhausts it means it will not develop your film any further.

    But at the same time, if you're happy with the results you get now, change something, and then don't like it as much, then you didn't gain anything. It's up to you, really.
     
  6. mesantacruz

    mesantacruz Subscriber

    Messages:
    249
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I have tried developing longer, but at the time there were to many variables which i wasn't attempting to control, so what i did get was that the darks were too dense when enlarging, and the highlights were blown out. Now i understand that this is due to my underexposing negatives when photographing, hence, my compensation during photographing.

    If i develop for longer, will my highlights blow out? or will i just get more shadow detail?

    edit: i ask because if i gain contrast from losing highlight detail, i'd rather just keep as i am.
     
  7. cliveh

    cliveh Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,811
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    If you are using 100ml of neat D76 at 1:3, that is 400ml of working solution and as you have stated you only need 290ml. If you want to use it at 1:3, you only need 72.5ml of neat dev and 217.5ml of water. What does the edge data look like in terms of density?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2013
  8. mauro35

    mauro35 Member

    Messages:
    221
    Joined:
    May 28, 2013
    Location:
    Finland
    Shooter:
    35mm
    If you overdevelop too much you will eventually loose the detail in the highlights. I suggest trying to keep the variable involved in your processing to a minimum and modify developing times according to the final result you want to achieve. The shadow detail, as Thomas Bertilsson said, is basically determined at the time of exposure and you cannot retrieve detail that wasn' t there in first place by developing longer. But you can control the detail of the highlights, to a certain extent, varying the developing time.
     
  9. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Member

    Messages:
    15,268
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The longer you develop, the more contrast you get.

    It's up to you to find out how long you need to develop your film in order to get prints that you like. Keep things consistent, and change only one variable at a time.

    Add 10% to your current developing time and see how you like the prints.
    Adjust until you get it JUST right. :smile:
     
  10. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,196
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The capacity information in the Kodak datasheet linked to by Thomas indicates to me that Kodak recommends that you use at least 250 ml of stock D-76 per 135-36 or 120 roll.

    So if you are using D-76 1 + 3, they are essentially recommending you use at least one litre of working solution per roll.

    They don't, of course, make any recommendations for 1 + 3, but you can extrapolate the stock and 1 + 1 data.

    They tend to be quite conservative in their capacity recommendations, but if they are recommending 1 litre, and you are using only 400 ml, you have probably gone outside any margin for error.

    If you use smaller amounts, you are likely exhausting the developer in the highlight areas, and should expect lower than normal contrast.
     
  11. mopar_guy

    mopar_guy Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,176
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Location:
    Washington,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The only way that I use D-76 diluted is 1:1. If I use D-76 1:1, I mix 250 ml D-76 stock to 250 ml water for one 36 exposure roll of film and use this as a one shot. The 250ml of stock is the minimum amount to use and get consistent results.
     
  12. mesantacruz

    mesantacruz Subscriber

    Messages:
    249
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Okay, from responses i think i got my answers, through your guys responses.
    Just to clarify, i did stop experimenting about 2 months ago, and began being as consistent as possible. i thought i would stick to 1+3 dilutions and saw that 100ml of developer simple enough.


    1. If i use the intended amount of developer at current dilution i would have 1L working solution and my negatives would indeed be contrastier as they are currently flat (don't think i would want this)

    2/2.5 I guess by not using the full amount of developer, i was not getting Blown Out highlights (correct?).

    As for edge data, it is not extremely dark or clear. Looking back through negatives, there's a clear point where you can tell i began to develop 1+3, and looking through them I think it's just my printing which has gotten better throughout this time, along with my improvement in consistency.

    While i was at one point wanting extremely contrasty photos, i found this somewhat restricting with 36 photos. The flat negatives i have now are due to exhausted developer.

    What i will do is develop 1+1 as mentioned above with a couple of rolls and see how i like that.
     
  13. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,196
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I would say instead that your highlights weren't fully developed - and in many cases were probably underdeveloped.

    It is better to reduce contrast by reducing time, because it will have a more predictable effect on all the tones from mid-tones through the highlights.
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. cliveh

    cliveh Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,811
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    I beg to differ. If you look on the bottom of a Paterson tank it states 295ml for one 35mm film. 500ml is for 120 and Matt mentions using a litre?
     
  16. pdeeh

    pdeeh Member

    Messages:
    3,582
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I've seen discussions about the minimum amount of stock D76 for one roll of 135 or one roll of 120 hashed over many times here and elsewhere. It's still unclear to me.
    The Kodak datasheet says
    One way of interpreting this is that the minimum amount of stock to be used for a single roll is ~250ml and so 1+1 requires a total volume of ~500ml including the diluent.

    In other places I've seen different interpretations, and I've seen other folk say 100ml stock is enough for a roll.
     
  17. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Member

    Messages:
    15,268
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    If you need 250ml of stock solution to fully develop a film, at 1+3 dilution, you have to add 750ml (since that is 3x the developer stock solution, implied by the 1+3 dilution).
    That makes for 1l solution.

    I get better prints from negatives that are fully developed, and find underdeveloped negatives, especially when compensating development occurred, very difficult to print. Particularly portraits.

    To the original poster, it sounds like you are getting results that you are OK with, but then you ask whether you think more fully developed negatives would benefit you.
    I say you might, because that's how I like to print them, but I like really rich tonality with deep fat blacks and vibrant highlights. If you like more muted tones, you should probably stick to what you're doing. There are no rules for what you must do.
    However, if you need to go to a #5 filter to get the zing you want from your prints, AND employ a split printing technique that definitely is most beneficial for high contrast negatives, then that suggests to me that you might want to try developing your negatives a bit longer as they seem under-developed.
    Start small, add just a little, like 10% more. Give it a fair shake, and see how you like it. I very much doubt you will block up your highlights doing this, but if you do it's easy to revert, and at least then you will know.

    Only you can fully answer the question, by trying it. Don't dismiss it until you try.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2013
  18. cliveh

    cliveh Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,811
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    But you don't need 250ml of stock solution (neat dev) to develop one film at a ratio of 1:3 with water. For one 35mm film you need a total final volume of 295ml (Paterson tank) and for one 120 film you need a total final volume of 500ml (Paterson tank).
     
  19. bdial

    bdial Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,460
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Location:
    North East U.S.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    If 250 is the minimum amount of developer needed, and you're diluting 1:3 you need a tank that can hold 1 L, otherwise the film doesn't have enough developer available.
    If the tank only holds 295 ml, there is not enough developer available to do the job, even though the ratio of what's there is 1:3.

    To the OP, what are you looking to accomplish with the 1:3 dilution?
     
  20. cliveh

    cliveh Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,811
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Who says 250ml is the minimum amount of neat developer needed to develop one 35mm film. That would imply that I need 500ml of final working solution to develop at 1:1, which I don't.
     
  21. pdeeh

    pdeeh Member

    Messages:
    3,582
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    which is exactly the point of my post above http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1554055

    Of course cliveh may have me "ignored" in which case he won;t see this either ...
     
  22. cliveh

    cliveh Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,811
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    I'm not ignoring you, but don't agree with that particular interpretation.
     
  23. miha

    miha Member

    Messages:
    1,250
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Location:
    Slovenia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    My Kindermann SS only takes 1 litre of chemisty and 4 rolls of 35mm film at once. I have developed this way numerous times with ID11, Perceptol and Microphen all at 1+1 with success and repeatability.
     
  24. pdeeh

    pdeeh Member

    Messages:
    3,582
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format


    perhaps it would help move the discussion forward if you would explain how you interpret the datasheet and your rationale for that interpretation?
     
  25. mesantacruz

    mesantacruz Subscriber

    Messages:
    249
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I came to the dilution of 1+3 because i was experimienting. Also my water tap temp, which i was not checking at one point. I thought if it was warmer i could shave off a couple minutes depending on temp. which i wouldn't have to calculate exactly because of high dilution (laziness). When i began to control temp (68 deg.), i just kept the dilution. Also, i read good things about 1+3 dilution. When i began to check my process, i came across minimum developer necessary which i was not meeting. Reason for dilution may be for O/U mentioned below or affecting grain/contrast, i personally liked my results, and for the sake of some sort of consistency kept the dilution.

    I also noted as i keep looking through apug history that what i'm actually doing is Overexposing + Underdeveloping, which i apparently like, as my scenes for the most part tend to be high contrast. This is why my 100ml is probably not developing my negatives completely and retaining highlights. IF you look up Overexposing + Underdeveloping you'll get lots of hits here on apug. And if you look up d76 1+3 you'll also get several hits. Most O/U threads don't mention exhausting developer through high dilutions, but 1+3 threads caution against possible exhaustion if not enough developer is used. I didn't realize what i was doing, but now everything is pretty clear.



    taken from

    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.pdf

    Several people have noted that the REASON for minimum developer noted is for high key scenes, where say 100ml (as i use) tend to not be enough to give clean whites, etc. So while it might be enough for many occasions, it might not always fit the bill.


    Thanks to everyone. I don't know if i missed something else.
     
  26. mesantacruz

    mesantacruz Subscriber

    Messages:
    249
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    just realized someone already referenced the kodak datasheet... as i went to breakfast, and came back to finish my reply... sorry pdeeh.
    :sad: