Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,913   Posts: 1,556,253   Online: 863
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    70

    Capacity of Stock D76 v Xtol

    I like to work with stock rather than diluted developer but I'm having a problem believing that the number of films that can be put through 1 litre of Xtol is more than twice the number that can be put through the same quantity of D76.

    According to Aschell & Troop the capacity of 1 litre of D76 is seven films '...if you choose to reuse D76 without replenishment, develop a maximum of 7 rolls per litre.' (The Film Developing Cookbook, p.43). However according to Kodak 'The capacity of the full-strength developer with normal, unreplenished processing is approximately 15 rolls of 135-36 or 120 film...' (Kodak Professional Xtol Developer, March 2008. J-109).

    Any comments on the above, particularly from those who have tested the capacity of either developer, would be most welcome.

  2. #2
    Jim Noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,867
    Blog Entries
    1
    Don't believe all of what you read in Anchell.
    On the other hand, D-76 is so cheap why bother with trying to stretch it? One of the most common mistakes my students made through the years was trying to save money by pinching pennies on developer and fixer. Inevitably the developer will give poor results on the best image you have ever made.

    Jim
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Films NOT Dead - Just getting fixed![/FONT]

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,927
    According to Kodak datasheet, a roll of film, 35mm-36 or 120, can be processed with 8 oz of D-76 or 4 oz of XTOL before extension of processing time is required. As I understand it, XTOL is more active than D-76 whatever that means....
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    666
    I suggest that Eastman Kodak supplies the correct data for its products.

    X-Tol capacity, Kodak document J-109, page 2: 15 rolls/liter (135-36 or 120).

    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe.../j109/j109.pdf (X-Tol)



    D76 capacity, Kodak document J-78, pages 7 and 8: 120 rolls/gallon = 30 rolls/quart = approximately 30 rolls/liter.

    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...bs/j78/j78.pdf (D76)
    Last edited by Ian C; 02-10-2013 at 11:12 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #5
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,329
    Images
    148
    Xtol has a far higher capacity because it doesn't contain Metol. the Bromide build up is the limiting factor with D76/ID-11. Ilford introduced Autophen a PQ variant of ID-11 as a commercial photo-finishing developer and it had a very much higher capacity.

    Ilford suggest up to 10 films per litre (35mm 36ex or 120) per litre of unreplenished ID-11. If you use Xtol then replenishment is a far better option and it's simple even on a relatively small scale.

    Ian

  6. #6
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,190
    Quote Originally Posted by lawrenceimpey View Post
    According to Aschell & Troop the capacity of 1 litre of D76 is seven films ...
    When all else fails, follow the manufacturer's instructions. The manufacturer is going to know more about its product than the testinistas. That includes using the film at box speed.

    I know that that fact really chaps the hides of the testinistas who pride themselves in claiming to know much more than they really know.

    These comments are about testinistas in no way reflect on the OP nor on his well considered question. Instead those comments are directed at the test-it-all-know-it-all's who publish unfounded "facts" in the internet.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    I know that that fact really chaps the hides of the testinistas who pride themselves in claiming to know much more than they really know.

    These comments are about testinistas in no way reflect on the OP nor on his well considered question. Instead those comments are directed at the test-it-all-know-it-all's who publish unfounded "facts" in the internet.
    Amen, Amen. Love your term testinistas!
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Noel View Post
    Don't believe all of what you read in Anchell.
    On the other hand, D-76 is so cheap why bother with trying to stretch it? One of the most common mistakes my students made through the years was trying to save money by pinching pennies on developer and fixer. Inevitably the developer will give poor results on the best image you have ever made.

    Jim
    I have no intention of stretching it to the point of likely failure, thanks. I asked the question because I'm curious about finding the correct answer.
    Last edited by lawrenceimpey; 02-10-2013 at 02:08 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Clarification

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian C View Post
    I suggest that Eastman Kodak supplies the correct data for its products.

    X-Tol capacity, Kodak document J-109, page 2: 15 rolls/liter (135-36 or 120).

    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe.../j109/j109.pdf (X-Tol)



    D76 capacity, Kodak document J-78, pages 7 and 8: 120 rolls/gallon = 30 rolls/quart = approximately 30 rolls/liter.

    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...bs/j78/j78.pdf (D76)
    One of us is misreading J78. On page 7 they give the 'useful capacity' in litres (in brackets) in the last column. According to them the number of films is 4, which seems rather conservative to me.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Xtol has a far higher capacity because it doesn't contain Metol. the Bromide build up is the limiting factor with D76/ID-11. Ilford introduced Autophen a PQ variant of ID-11 as a commercial photo-finishing developer and it had a very much higher capacity.

    Ilford suggest up to 10 films per litre (35mm 36ex or 120) per litre of unreplenished ID-11. If you use Xtol then replenishment is a far better option and it's simple even on a relatively small scale.

    Ian
    Many thanks, as far as I'm concerned that explains it. I might take it up to 10 for D76 (or even 11, if I'm feeling really wild).

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin