8 x 10 in D76 1:1

[markbau]

I've just started developing 8x10 sheets (HP5+) in BTZS tubes. The tubes require 240ml which of course means 120ml stock D76, 120ml water. I was looking at the current data sheet for D76 and it talks about 473ml of 1:1 D76 for 80 square inches. So my question is: am I using enough stock D76 (120ml) for a single 8 x 10 sheet? The negs contact print fine but just wanted to hear peoples thoughts on this.

 

[jim10219]

If they look fine, it is fine. If there isn't enough developer for the film, you'll immediately know, unlike fixer, which could takes years to see the impact of insufficient chemicals. You may have to adjust the time if the D76 starts to get exhausted, but if you're not having problems, then I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[markbau]

If they look fine, it is fine. If there isn't enough developer for the film, you'll immediately know, unlike fixer, which could takes years to see the impact of insufficient chemicals. You may have to adjust the time if the D76 starts to get exhausted, but if you're not having problems, then I wouldn't worry about it.

Thanks for the reply Jim, that's pretty much what I'm thinking, it's just that there is a huge difference between my 240ml of 1:1 and the 473ml of 1:1 that Kodak recommends for 80 square inches of film.

 

[MattKing]

It depends on the photo.
If your photo is of a high key subject - predominantly white or light tones leading to a negative that is moderately dense in most sections of the negative - you may very well encounter problems with developer exhaustion. Think of a photo of a snow scene or panorama of light sand, sea and sky.
If, however, your subject has lots of dark areas, leading to a negative that is thin or clear in many sections of the negative, you may not run into problems with developer exhaustion. Think of a photo in the forest, with lots of areas of shadow.
The Kodak capacity recommendations are quite conservative, and you might be safe with most of your negatives, but if you want to be sure of consistency I would suggest either using more developer at 1:1, using stock D-76, or switching to something else.

 

[reddesert]

If you develop 35mm film in a standard small tank with D-76 1:1, you are using about 8 oz or 250 ml of the 1:1 solution per reel, and one 36 exposure roll of 35mm film is about the same area of film as an 8x10". This is a very common thing to do, so I don't think you are going to run into critical developer exhaustion problems. Reading the Kodak datasheet carefully, https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j78.pdf , at the bottom of page 2 they recommend 1 reel per 16 oz of D-76 1:1, and increasing development time by 10% for 1 reel per 8 oz. Of course, those dev times are for roll film in small tanks, and your method is different, so just use whatever development time you have settled on.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Many times I've developed 8x10 in BTZS tubes with only 100ml of stock diluted 1+1. That was with Xtol.

 

[ic-racer]

You can process a sheet of evenly exposed film and check the center and edge densities after processing. The center will be under-developed if enough fresh developer is not supplied to the film.

 

[markbau]

You can process a sheet of evenly exposed film and check the center and edge densities after processing. The center will be under-developed if enough fresh developer is not supplied to the film.

I'm curious how a sheet of film, developed with not enough stock solution, would have varying densities. I would have thought that varying densities would indicate uneven development/poor agitation. I recall the first time I tray developed sheet film, the edges received more development that the central area, this was due to the way I agitated the tray and I remember later reading a book by St Ansel that warned about this.

 

[Bill Burk]

I violate the recommended stock vs. square inches regularly.

I do not critically compare grain quality, but I appreciate consistency in grain appearance. I would be critical of a lot of grain where I wanted fine grain. An example is a favorite shot I don’t print larger than 8x10 because I had Tri-X in the camera but wished it was taken on Panatomic-X.

So with that level of criticality, I find no significant difference in graininess due to development in less stock than recommended per square inch.

I do develop longer, 13:30 for TMY2 to get 0.62 CI. If you provide sufficient stock solution your results may reach your desired contrast levels at manufacturer’s recommended times.

I don’t see a compensating effect, I get straight lines across most of the 3.0 exposure range (typical Stouffer scale) that I test.

The only time I truly detected local developer starvation was when I tray developed a stack of sheets and accidentally had two sheets emulsion to emulsion. One had a sensitometry exposure strip on it, so it had very dense patches which starved the facing sheet.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Just as an aside there is no reason to reverse sheets in a tray. Michael Smith tested for this and there was no difference in densities
Just agitate properly