Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,982   Posts: 1,523,854   Online: 1062
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: D-76 at 1:3

  1. #1
    nhemann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NJ - Near NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    199
    Images
    22

    D-76 at 1:3

    Getting ready to fire up the big 5-reel (1.5L) tank and read on the internets that rather than going at 1:1 with D-76, I could save some chemisty and use 1:3 The idea being that the volume of the tank is so large there would be plenty of active ingredient to get the job done. Any opinions on the matter?

    In fact, in this particular case I am going to be doing 4 spools of 120 so a little less total film area.

    Thanks,

    N
    "There is no such thing as objective reality in a photograph"

    My flickr and (gasp!) dpug photos - take a look if you like.

  2. #2
    nhemann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NJ - Near NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    199
    Images
    22
    kick it up
    "There is no such thing as objective reality in a photograph"

    My flickr and (gasp!) dpug photos - take a look if you like.

  3. #3
    sly
    sly is offline
    sly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,346
    Images
    216
    I'm currently tending toward more dilute developer, (and longer times) because I like the negatives for the way I like to print. I'm sure that's pretty personal. I wouldn't advise diluting the developer without boosting the time. The more chemically savvy will chime in I'm sure.

    I stopped using my big tank for developing 4 rolls of 120. I was getting uneven development - surge marks. I won't try it again unless the negs aren't particularly important. (When would I ever have 4 rolls of 120 with no "important" frames?)

    If I'm doing multiple rolls, I use my 2 2 reel (120) tanks, stagger the times, and put all 4 reels in the tall tank for washing. I can then wash and dry the 2 tanks and start again if I've got lots of rolls (like after an overseas trip). The first set of 4 rolls wash while I get the tanks loaded with the next 4 rolls, and I just keep going until I'm done. (I've inherited lots of reels and a few tanks from folks who've abandoned the wet work of photography.)

  4. #4
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,124
    Images
    12
    You still need (edit) 250mL of stock per roll; 120mL is acceptable but requires about 10% time extension according to the datasheet. If by 1:3 you mean 1+3, then that will not be enough developer (375mL) in 1.5L to process four rolls properly. 1+2 (500mL stock) should be acceptable with 10% time extension.

    If the rolls were shot high-key, i.e. with most of the film heavily exposed, then you should seriously consider going back to 1+1.

    Kodak J-78

    Edit: I frequently use about 150mL per roll and get decent results at the nominal times, but I'm doing rotary which comes with a ~15% activity boost due to continuous agitation, obviating the need for time extension.
    Last edited by polyglot; 12-06-2011 at 08:51 PM. 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
    16,220
    Images
    148
    As above I'd go for 1+2 with D76/ID-11, this gives a great overall balance of film speed/sharpness/fine grain and a long tonal range.

    The problem with 1+3 is exhaustion of the developing agents at that dilution tends to cause a compensating effects and a lack of good highlight details and flatter negatives.

    Ian

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    BE
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    375
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    28
    As long as you observe the minimum developer amount, the difference between 1+1 and 1+3 will be hardly noticeable. I used to do 1+1 because my developer would've gone bad anyway, but now I use the 1L instead of 3,8L power packs and have switched to 1+3 dilution. As I said, the difference is marginal for medium and low speed emulsions.
    And the sign said, "long haired freaky people need not apply"

  7. #7
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,229
    Not to knock Ployglot, but I regularly do this, and add maybe 1 gram of sodium carbonate per liter of working solution to regain the energy. My extensive experimentation states plainly that you do not 'need' 250 ml of STOCK per 36 exp roll of 35mm film (or one 120 roll). You will be surprised with the negative quality using D-76 1 + 3 (but no further dilution, please) with the carbonate. That's only 60 ml of 'stock' per 36 exp roll, heresy to some but my experimentation proves the validity.

    Decide upon a regular dev time by testing with an exposed couple of inches of film and agitate for the same time as normal. To really gain precision with this use only a pro-rated amount of working solution for the couple inches of film, ie, if you use 250 ml per 36 exp roll then use only 25 ml per one tenth the amount of film. Use a plastic film container for the 'tank' and do this in total darkness. (These plastic containers hold a max of about 30 ml so this is ideal for a couple of frames which will fit in without overlapping.) Line the film against the container wall, emulsion side out, naturally. - David Lyga

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,554
    Compared with 1+1, 1+3 will give more highlight compensation, higher sharpness and a little more graininess. D76 is quite sharp at 1+3.

  9. #9
    mfohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westerville, Ohio
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    377
    Images
    51
    So, Michael R, based on your statement of higher sharpness and graininess at 1+3, should I expect slightly higher sharpness and graininess at 1+2 compared to 1+1? Enquiring minds want to know, and might benefit from your experience.

    Tnx,

    -- Mark

  10. #10
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,156
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    That's only 60 ml of 'stock' per 36 exp roll, heresy to some but my experimentation proves the validity.
    That reminds me. Much of my sensitometry was done with D-76 at 1:1 but with only 1 oz of 'stock' per 4x5 sheet when spec says 2 oz. So if my future tests show a trend towards higher contrast (because now I know to use 2 oz per sheet), the variable that I changed is the amount of stock solution per square inch.

    When I tried to use the same trays twice (thus 1/2 oz per sheet) my Contrast Index went down, which 15% more time would have made up for.

    So my opinion is the amount of stock D-76 is significant at 1/4th recommended, but at 1/2 recommended probably causes changes under 7%.

    You will have a more significant affect from the dilution, I assume you will be developing longer, so I assume you will automatically take care of both variables.

    I work for Kodak but the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC... I mean what would a computer tech support guy know about photography anyway.

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