Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,536   Posts: 1,544,189   Online: 867
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298

    D76 - 1:1 or 1:3?

    I'm really curious.

    Would it be a huge drawback to develop all my films (100, 25 and 400) in 1:3 dilution instead of 1:1?

    Let's leave safety out of it.

    I don't mind a little larger grain, if that's affected. If I want to see no grain at all, I pick up a TLR.

    Thanks

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,055
    Diluting a dev will give you larger grain, better sharpness, better tonality and control of highlights.

    I don't know if I'd go 1+3 with 400 speed film in 35mm, that might be a bit too grainy.

    Here's what I do FWIW: slow 35mm films, ISO 50 and under. D-76 1+3.
    Medium speed 35mm, ISO 100, D-76 1+1
    Fast 35mm, ISO 400 + D-76 1+0

    Slow-medium 120 films, D-76 1+3
    Fast 120 films, D-76 1+1

    That's what works for me; a good compromise between sharpness & grain.

  3. #3
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,270
    Images
    148
    Or full strength and replenished.

    This is how the developer was originally designed to be used. All the attributes of using diluted but far more economical.

    Ian

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Van Buren, Arkansas
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,412
    Images
    101
    I don't see what SAFETY would have to do with it in any way, unless you fall asleep during the long processing times.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by jim appleyard View Post
    Diluting a dev will give you larger grain, better sharpness, better tonality and control of highlights.
    What do you mean by better tonality?

    More contrast or less contrast? Sorry, I'm not up to snuff on the film linguo.

    I don't know if I'd go 1+3 with 400 speed film in 35mm, that might be a bit too grainy.

    Here's what I do FWIW: slow 35mm films, ISO 50 and under. D-76 1+3.
    Medium speed 35mm, ISO 100, D-76 1+1
    Fast 35mm, ISO 400 + D-76 1+0

    Slow-medium 120 films, D-76 1+3
    Fast 120 films, D-76 1+1

    That's what works for me; a good compromise between sharpness & grain.
    Ah-ha.

    I see what you mean. So slow films have small crystals anyways, and don't benefit from stock developer. And fast films become too grainy with diluted developer, so it's better to use straight.

    Nice. I guess I'll have to experiment and find out what I like.

    I want to just shoot instead

    I don't see what SAFETY would have to do with it in any way, unless you fall asleep during the long processing times.
    lol

    Or full strength and replenished.

    This is how the developer was originally designed to be used. All the attributes of using diluted but far more economical.
    So you mean that using replentished developer is comparable to using a diluted developer?

    I don't really want to mess with replentished stuff. I process relatively small volumes and it's just too many variable for me to keep track of.

    Thanks for the fast replies.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE View Post
    I don't see what SAFETY would have to do with it in any way, unless you fall asleep during the long processing times.
    Actually, I'll just stick with what kodak recommends.

    I've calculated, and it's 25 cents worth of developer per roll.

    Looking at the difference in the development times, it's not worth it to "save" the developer.

    BW is so cheap! Coming from digital, it's nothing.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Westminster, Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,504
    Why?

    Time is money. Better spent making pictures then watching a developing tank.
    When I grow up, I want to be a photographer.

    http://www.walterpcalahan.com/Photography/index.html

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinholemaster View Post
    Why?

    Time is money. Better spent making pictures then watching a developing tank.
    Yes, I agree.

    I had a little epiphany after I ran the numbers.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    692

    A related question about D-76 volume

    A related question if I may:

    If you follow Kodak's word to the letter, it takes 8 oz. of D-76 for each 80 sq. in. of film developed. Working at 1:1 this means 16 oz. of diluted D-76 per roll of film. That means using a tank large enough to hold the film & developer. If you go to 1:3, the volume of dilute D-76 goes to 32 oz. A lot of liguid for 1 roll of 135 or 4 sheets of 4x5 film.

    I hope I haven't lost you. My question: Do you really need 8 oz. of D-76 per 80 sq. in. of film? Does anyone use less D-76 and if so, how much do you use?

    Thanks!

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    298
    I don't really know the answer to your question, since I never developed at high dilutions yet.

    But, I'd bet that kodak recommendations leave the developer in great excess. So the volume at 1:1 is still going to be just enough to cover the film spool, with no excess in the tank.

    At least I would assume it is the case for dilutions up to 1:3. If you're using some crazy dilution like 1:15, then you might increase the overall volume of the developer, but I don't think you do it with 1:3.

    Again, this is an assumption.

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