Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,483   Posts: 1,571,188   Online: 1113
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    201

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

    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. #2

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    159
    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. #3
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,492
    Images
    299
    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.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    201
    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. #5
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,492
    Images
    299
    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.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    201
    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. #7
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,560
    Images
    343
    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 cliveh; 10-03-2013 at 05:25 PM. Click to view previous post history.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    159
    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. #9
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,492
    Images
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by mesantacruz View Post
    If i develop for longer, will my highlights blow out? or will i just get more shadow detail?
    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.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  10. #10
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,788
    Images
    60
    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.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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