I have a single-roll developing tank, that only holds one 35mm reel. I believe it holds about 250mL. My plastic tank requires nearly 500mL to cover one reel, so I had favored this stainless tank as a way to save chemicals. However, the Kodak D76 data sheet suggests increasing development time by 10% when using an 8-ounce tank. My question is, if you have and use a small tank like this, have you ever noticed longer development times as a result of using this reduced amount of chemistry? At 1+1 dilution, we are talking about only 125mL of D-76 stock. Not to second guess Kodak's information, but if I have to use different development times with this small tank, it might not be worth it for consistency's sake.
FWIW, I was advised years ago to avoid those little tanks because of inconsistency problems--not enough room for proper agitation, I was told. Whatever, I have always used at least a double tank. And when souping one roll, always putting an empty reel on top; and always filling the tank. Economy is just not an issue because I use replenished D23 most of the time.
You were talking about that D23 in another thread. The concept appeals to me, especially the cheapness of it all. What I don't understand, never having seen or used replentishing, is the actual workflow. Let me try to get this straight.
So I suppose you mix up, say, 1L of D23, and 1L of D23R
You use some random amount of of the 1L D23 when you develop a roll(s) of film. After development is finish, instead of pouring the used developer down the drain, you pour the developer that you used back into the 1L bottle of D23, and then add the appropriate amount of D23R to the 1L of D23 for however many rolls you developed? Is this correct? And then, when the D23R is all used up, you toss out the D23 and start over?
With such a development routine, the small tank would no longer have much appeal. The things that concern me over the D23 route is how much the chemicals cost to order (startup cost) and how long the D23 and D23R last in bottles. If they only last 6mo I'm not sure it would end up being cheaper than my current 1-shot D76 routine.
BetterSense: I would give it a try with a roll of film that has not the utmost importance.
By the look at the shape of this tank you will get enough movement in your fluid to get an even development (the dome-shape)
I prefer the 500ml tanks aswell, holds 2x 35mm reels or 1x 120 reel.
As with Anscojohn I have an empty reel on to when just developing 1 reel of 35mm film.
Don't forget that with a 500ml tank filled with film you will have not too much spare space for the fluid to move either.
My $0.02: I'd never before heard that D-76 1+1 development times should be increased when using small solution volumes. I know that some developers/dilutions are pretty near the edge, though -- you do need a minimum amount of the developing agents to get the job done, and if you drop below a certain dilution (which of course varies from one developer to another), you'll need to use a minimum amount of solution volume to get consistent results. I don't happen to know what the limits are for D-76. FWIW, I started with D-76 in a plastic tank that required 350ml to do a single roll of film. I generally did single rolls with that volume, but I didn't do enough double rolls to say if there was a single/double roll consistency problem.
I have heard the claim that small tanks don't permit enough fluid motion for proper agitation. I've never seen this claim substantiated, though. If you're doing inversion agitation, there would obviously be significant differences in the nature of the fluid flow when doing a single roll with 250ml of solution in a single-roll vs. a two-roll tank -- with the two-roll tank, all that air will make a difference in the fluid flow. Whether this translates to a real difference on film, though, I don't know. I've not noticed differences between doing one or two rolls in my two-roll SS tanks, though, so I expect any differences would be pretty subtle.
IIRC you need at least 250ml of stock D-76 per roll of 35mm film (source: Darkroom Cookbook I think), a fact which I was unaware of for far too many years! I always wondered why my results were so poor when using D-76 1:1
Once I switched to using double the solution, my results and consistency improved a great deal.
I only use the single roll tank for stock (or when using Diafine)
I've had no problems using my single roll tank. That being said, I don't use it much since I'd rather develop at least two rolls at the same time to gain efficiency.
Per 80 sq. in. of film: 135-36, 120-12, 4 ea. 4x5, 1 ea. 8x10.
Anchell: "Undilute developers - at least 250ml (D76, Mic-X, Xtol),
Dilute developers - at least 500ml (D76 1:1, Rodinal 1:25 to 1:50, FX1, FX2, HC110 1:31 from concentrate, PMK,
Very dilute developers - 1 liter (D76 1:3, Rodinal 1:100, FX2 1:1, HC110 1:90 from concentrate).
These amounts may sound extreme to some. But saving on developer is penny wise and pound foolish."
I discovered this the hard way...by losing film that could not be re-shot.
Anchell: "Although it is true, as Kodak claims, that 100ml of undiluted D76 is sufficient to develop 8x10 inches of film, it may not always be enough to develop the film to its fullest potential. The amount of solution required to cover the film's surface should not be confused with the amount of developer required to fully develop a roll of film."
Adv Reply
