Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,685   Posts: 1,548,605   Online: 1331
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Tapscott. View Post
    It would probably be better to buy either Kodak D-76, Ilford ID-11 or mix the standard D-76/ID-11 formula from scratch. I think it works better diluted 1+1 than at stock strength.

    Good advice. For a subsequent round of tests I just mixed the standard D76 and used it with the 1+1 dilution. That is what I should have done from the get go since I am going to use it fresh, and am not concerned with the keeping quality.


    Sandy King

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,401
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    Good advice. For a subsequent round of tests I just mixed the standard D76 and used it with the 1+1 dilution. That is what I should have done from the get go since I am going to use it fresh, and am not concerned with the keeping quality.


    Sandy King
    Just one further note, due to complexes formed by hydroquinone and the sulphite, MQ developers usually work best when they have been left to sit for a day or two after mixing. If you use them within a week of mixing, then you shouldn`t have anything to worry about.

  3. #23
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Tapscott. View Post
    It would probably be better to buy either Kodak D-76, Ilford ID-11 or mix the standard D-76/ID-11 formula from scratch. I think it works better diluted 1+1 than at stock strength.
    Does anyone know why D76 is D76, was it the 76th developer that Kodak designed or bought, if so, what are the previous 75, and what was the last numbered developer, developed? Yeah that pun was intended
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  4. #24
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,287
    Images
    148
    The number is irrelevant. It may just have been the 76th that Mees or someone wrote in a notebook.

    Many early Kodak developers were just generic clones of European developers or came from companies they bought like, Velox, Wratten Y Wainwright, Cadett & Neal and a whole host of others. D76 is itself probably a derivative of Wellington's MQ Borax developer, Kodak incrteased the Sulpite level substantially, but it was one of the newer Kodak designed developers at a point where Kodak began to seriously research film developers in the early 1930's.

    Ian

  5. #25
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,062
    Images
    65
    Virtually 100% of the time, a product has one name internally at Kodak and another externally. They are not related, and the "inventor" has no input regarding the name chosen to sell the product under. All color developing agents, B&W developing agents, bleaches, blixes, fixes and etc are used within KP and KRL with other names on them until sold, then for a while dual names are on the bottles and finally the product name only will appear.

    Thus, my blix was first identified at Kodak as Blix 1066, then as Ektaprint 3 blix / 1066 and finally as Ektaprint 3 Bleach Fix. The ID is now RA-Bleach Fix. CD-3 is known internally as D-109AH, and CD-4 is D-99.

    Thus, there is little logic to it all except for the fact that developer numbers are increasing with time. So, we have HC-110.

    PE

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,887
    Images
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Thus, there is little logic to it all except for the fact that developer numbers are increasing with time. So, we have HC-110.

    PE
    Do you know when HC-110 was released? Presumably it has changed over the decades similarly to Tri-X.

    Tom

  7. #27
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,062
    Images
    65
    Tom;

    IDK when HC-110 was released. I tried searching some data last night for Henn's work and found nothing that would help. I do know that developers evolve hardly at all. Most changes are due to improved manufacturing technology. Thus, Dektol once came sealed in a glass jar with 2 parts. One was in a cardboard container in the jar and the other was in the jar itself. Since they learned to encapsulate ingredients and pack under nitrogen, the whole thing now comes in a pouch as one part, but it is the same Dektol.

    The new Tri-x and the old stuff differ vastly due to emulsion technology and EPA restrictions on heavy metals. It has differenc reciprocity, LIK, and raw stock keeping for a few. It is also better in speed and grain.

    PE

  8. #28
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,287
    Images
    148
    The patent was 1971, in the UK it was mid to late 70's before anyone heard of it.

    Ian

  9. #29
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,062
    Images
    65
    Everything you ever wanted to hear about HC-110 but the exact formula.

    http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

    This is courtesy of Bill Troop. He sent his reference on to me.

    PE

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Getting back to D76, I am still trying to figure out how to objectively compare the film speed of D76, standard or any of the variants, with another developer, because , in my experience, they all change in terms of both energy and film speed with age.

    Does one assume a freshly mixed D76 for this type of comparison? Or one a week old? Or two weeks old? Or two months old.

    Sandy King

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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