Achieving more contrast with D-76

M-88 · Jun 9, 2020

Good day

I'd like to know, how to achieve more contrast with a basic developer like D-76. This is especially important considering that HP5+ usually looks rather uninspiring, unless pushed. But pushing it is not always convenient thanks to its high speed and imminent increase of grain. I've read that increasing developing time can yield more contrast, that more vigorous agitation can also yield more contrast, but to me it sounds like "bread is made of water, flour and yeast". I'd be grateful for more detailed instructions.

Please don't suggest to use any other developer, since thanks to regulations on customs terminal, I'm not allowed to import any kind of chemicals, especially in liquid form. Which means I can't have HC-110, Rodinal, Xtol, Microphen and many others. I mix D-76 at home from locally available chems and I also checked out formulas for high contrast developers, but I can't get potassium bromide here and neither can I find phenidone, so I'm pretty much stuck with D-76.

Thank you.

koraks · Jun 9, 2020

Just develop longer. It ain't rocket science. Start with adding 30% to your current development time and evaluate the results. If it's too subtle a difference, do +50%.

You also don't necessarily need a different developer. D76 is perfectly capable of creating contrast that is totally through the roof. Even on a 'mellow' film like HP5+.

However, keep one thing in mind: concluding that there's something wrong with development because you don't like your images is of course a possibility, but not necessarily the only right conclusion. Put it differently: you can have negatives that look unconvincingly flat and spiritless on the light table, but that create very contrasty, powerful prints. The question with negatives is mostly if they have both the shadow and highlight detail you need, and if the contrast is sufficient to match the desired output process (optical printing or digital post processing). In very many cases, when people complain of insufficient contrast, the problem is not so much in the film development, but either in exposure (insufficient shadow detail) or in the processing that comes after creating the negative. Printing (and also digital post processing) is an art in itself. An excellent negative cannot solve lack of proficiency and skill in further processing.

John Bragg · Jun 9, 2020

koraks said:
Just develop longer. It ain't rocket science. Start with adding 30% to your current development time and evaluate the results. If it's too subtle a difference, do +50%.

You also don't necessarily need a different developer. D76 is perfectly capable of creating contrast that is totally through the roof. Even on a 'mellow' film like HP5+.

However, keep one thing in mind: concluding that there's something wrong with development because you don't like your images is of course a possibility, but not necessarily the only right conclusion. Put it differently: you can have negatives that look unconvincingly flat and spiritless on the light table, but that create very contrasty, powerful prints. The question with negatives is mostly if they have both the shadow and highlight detail you need, and if the contrast is sufficient to match the desired output process (optical printing or digital post processing). In very many cases, when people complain of insufficient contrast, the problem is not so much in the film development, but either in exposure (insufficient shadow detail) or in the processing that comes after creating the negative. Printing (and also digital post processing) is an art in itself. An excellent negative cannot solve lack of proficiency and skill in further processing.

Amen to that.
Also this may be interesting.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/resources/shaping-the-tone-curve-of-a-rodinal-negative.50/

It is written by a very astute gentleman that used to hang out here. DF Cardwell. It holds true for any developer.

Regards, John.

M-88 · Jun 9, 2020

koraks said:
Just develop longer. It ain't rocket science. Start with adding 30% to your current development time and evaluate the results. If it's too subtle a difference, do +50%.

Ah so! I tried to do that, but increased time only by 10%, should have gone farther. I'll try to do this next time. What about dilution? Most of the time I use 1+1, other times just undiluted.

koraks said:
You also don't necessarily need a different developer. D76 is perfectly capable of creating contrast that is totally through the roof. Even on a 'mellow' film like HP5+.

That's something I am yet to achieve. Perhaps with a lot of experimenting.

koraks said:
However, keep one thing in mind: concluding that there's something wrong with development because you don't like your images is of course a possibility, but not necessarily the only right conclusion. Put it differently: you can have negatives that look unconvincingly flat and spiritless on the light table, but that create very contrasty, powerful prints. The question with negatives is mostly if they have both the shadow and highlight detail you need, and if the contrast is sufficient to match the desired output process (optical printing or digital post processing). In very many cases, when people complain of insufficient contrast, the problem is not so much in the film development, but either in exposure (insufficient shadow detail) or in the processing that comes after creating the negative. Printing (and also digital post processing) is an art in itself. An excellent negative cannot solve lack of proficiency and skill in further processing.

I should have mentioned, that I am deprived from possibility to make prints, so it's just shoot and scan. Of course I can increase contrast in PP, but I don't like doing so. I mean, if I can get good contrast with FP4+, Tri-X and Tmax, what's so wrong with HP5+? Why is it so bland? Is it the film, or is it me? They are always well exposed, just flat.

M-88 · Jun 9, 2020

John Bragg said:
Amen to that.
Also this may be interesting.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/resources/shaping-the-tone-curve-of-a-rodinal-negative.50/

It is written by a very astute gentleman that used to hang out here. DF Cardwell. It holds true for any developer.

Regards, John.

Thank you! I read it but my mind is not clear enough right now. I'll get back to it when I'm off duty. Either way it seems I'll have to sacrifice a couple of rolls.

John Bragg · Jun 9, 2020

M-88 said:
Ah so! I tried to do that, but increased time only by 10%, should have gone farther. I'll try to do this next time. What about dilution? Most of the time I use 1+1, other times just undiluted.

That's something I am yet to achieve. Perhaps with a lot of experimenting.

I should have mentioned, that I am deprived from possibility to make prints, so it's just shoot and scan. Of course I can increase contrast in PP, but I don't like doing so. I mean, if I can get good contrast with FP4+, Tri-X and Tmax, what's so wrong with HP5+? Why is it so bland? Is it the film, or is it me? They are always well exposed, just flat.

HP5+ @ ei200

Derelict Car by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

M-88 · Jun 9, 2020

John Bragg said:
HP5+ @ ei200

Derelict Car by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

Yep, that is what I usually get.

markbau · Jun 9, 2020

M-88 said:
Good day

I'd like to know, how to achieve more contrast with a basic developer like D-76. This is especially important considering that HP5+ usually looks rather uninspiring, unless pushed. But pushing it is not always convenient thanks to its high speed and imminent increase of grain. I've read that increasing developing time can yield more contrast, that more vigorous agitation can also yield more contrast, but to me it sounds like "bread is made of water, flour and yeast". I'd be grateful for more detailed instructions.

Please don't suggest to use any other developer, since thanks to regulations on customs terminal, I'm not allowed to import any kind of chemicals, especially in liquid form. Which means I can't have HC-110, Rodinal, Xtol, Microphen and many others. I mix D-76 at home from locally available chems and I also checked out formulas for high contrast developers, but I can't get potassium bromide here and neither can I find phenidone, so I'm pretty much stuck with D-76.

Thank you.

For a start, ensure that you are using sufficient stock solution (250ml for a 35mm film) before you go slagging HP5+. If you're one of these people who puts tiny amounts of stock in their developer so their JOBO motor won't be overloaded you are behind the eight ball from the start.

M-88 · Jun 9, 2020

markbau said:
For a start, ensure that you are using sufficient stock solution (250ml for a 35mm film) before you go slagging HP5+. If you're one of these people who puts tiny amounts of stock in their developer so their JOBO motor won't be overloaded you are behind the eight ball from the start.

I have a tank which has inscription on it, stating minimum amount of developer for 135 (336 ml) and 120 films (450 ml) and I wholeheartedly follow this instruction. If I dilute, I fill the tank up to the top (500 ml). I have no Jobo, so the only thing that can get overloaded is my wrist

NB23 · Jun 9, 2020

D76 is a legendary formula. Why not simply appreciate its output you are getting?

M-88 · Jun 9, 2020

NB23 said:
D76 is a legendary formula. Why not simply appreciate its output you are getting?

Because when Tri-X develops with nice contrast and HP5+ ends up dull and flat, I'm doing something wrong.

John Bragg · Jun 9, 2020

M-88 said:
Yep, that is what I usually get.

That to me is a "normal" negative, so you are actually looking for HIGH contrast. Just develop longer.

Show us an example of what you are aiming for on one of your Tri-X negatives perhaps ?

MattKing · Jun 9, 2020

M-88 said:
I have a tank which has inscription on it, stating minimum amount of developer for 135 (336 ml) and 120 films (450 ml) and I wholeheartedly follow this instruction. If I dilute, I fill the tank up to the top (500 ml). I have no Jobo, so the only thing that can get overloaded is my wrist

The minimum amount numbers on your tank are related to how much liquid you need to cover the reels, not how much developer stock you need to not exhaust the developer.
For some developers, at some dilutions, filling a small tank won't get enough developer stock into the tank.
For D-76, if you are using 1 + 1 dilution, you need to use at least 500 ml of working solution in order to ensure that there is enough developer stock in the tank.
Sounds like you are doing that. \
In general, if you don't think there is enough contrast in your final results, increase the development time, increase the development temperature, increase the agitation and/or increase the contrast at the time of printing/post processing.
Or some combination of all four.
Can you show us a digital photo of your backlit negatives - that will tell us more than a scan?

halfaman · Jun 9, 2020

M-88 said:
What about dilution? Most of the time I use 1+1, other times just undiluted.

HP5 has a soft contrast by desing, that is one of the reasons it behaves so well when pushed. You need some "kick" during development. I always use stock dilution with D76 and HP5, 1+1 gives softer contrast and a little more grain.

You can try to increase pH adding an alkali (borax, sodium/potassium carbonate). pH of D76 stock is around 8, you can try to raise it to 10. It will increase contrast but it can also increase grain and base fog, decrease devleoping time if happens.

grain elevator · Jun 9, 2020

The interesting question behind this is, why don't the standard manufacturer times give equal contrast for all films, as they should per ISO at least for the lower part of the curve?

koraks · Jun 9, 2020

M-88 said:
Ah so! I tried to do that, but increased time only by 10%, should have gone farther. I'll try to do this next time. What about dilution? Most of the time I use 1+1, other times just undiluted.

Dilution can be varied as well, but 1+1 is perfectly fine with D76. If you want to boost contrast a lot, you can try 1+0 and the same time you used with 1+1. It'll make a lot of difference.
Also, +10% development time is only a marginal step. I'd certainly recommend making a much bigger step to get a real difference. You can always back it up a bit if it's too much.

Of course I can increase contrast in PP, but I don't like doing so.

That sentiment sometimes pops up, and I never quite get it. As Adams puts it: the negative is the score, the print is the performance. You can read the print also as the digital file. Why expect that a score in itself automatically creates a stellar performance without hard work on that end of the process? A negative in itself is just the base material; it needs to have the information you need for the end result. But making the end result meet your aesthetic (or functional) requirements involves making choices in translating it to the presentation medium. I sometimes taste a sentiment of people believing that his translation should be kept minimal. This is not hi-fi stereo where you want the least noise and where the ideal amplifier is just 'a wire with gain'! If you scan, the scanner and the software it comes with makes choices as to how the digital signal is processed. Arguing that no manual steps afterwards should take place because it would mess with the 'purity' of the image just doesn't make sense. There are people who tout the results they show as 'straight scans, without processing' - as if that says anything (it doesn't!) and as if that is a good thing (it nearly never is!) The fact that your scanner + software for some reason gives contrasty results with FP4+ or TriX doesn't mean those negatives are better - it only means that those negatives match with what the manufacturer of the scanner had in mind. It's nowhere written or suggested that scanner manufacturers are better at determining what your photo should look like than you are.

So you'll have to work on the performance part, and you should not be afraid to make (sometimes drastic) choices in that part of the process. There's nothing wrong with it. Only if what you can reasonably manage in the post processing part simply cannot yield the results you want, there is a good indication that there's something fundamentally wrong with your negatives.

M-88 · Jun 9, 2020

MattKing said:
The minimum amount numbers on your tank are related to how much liquid you need to cover the reels, not how much developer stock you need to not exhaust the developer.
For some developers, at some dilutions, filling a small tank won't get enough developer stock into the tank.
For D-76, if you are using 1 + 1 dilution, you need to use at least 500 ml of working solution in order to ensure that there is enough developer stock in the tank.
Sounds like you are doing that. \
In general, if you don't think there is enough contrast in your final results, increase the development time, increase the development temperature, increase the agitation and/or increase the contrast at the time of printing/post processing.
Or some combination of all four.
Can you show us a digital photo of your backlit negatives - that will tell us more than a scan?

Yes, I'm doign the way you described it.
Unfortunately I couldn't find any recent HP5+, I must have moved them to other flat. I have a few 120 shots, which are given below:

The flocking on both sides of my TLR started to peel off, hence irregularities on sides of the images. And I don't really have a light table, hopefully it's adequate, otherwise, I'll just put the film against the window tomorrow morning and shoot it like that.

M-88 · Jun 9, 2020

halfaman said:
HP5 has a soft contrast by desing, that is one of the reasons it behaves so well when pushed. You need some "kick" during development. I always use stock dilution with D76 and HP5, 1+1 gives softer contrast and a little more grain.

You can try to increase pH adding an alkali (borax, sodium/potassium carbonate). pH of D76 stock is around 8, you can try to raise it to 10. It will increase contrast but it can also increase grain and base fog, decrease devleoping time if happens.

I do have borax, naturally for mixing D-76 so I can add some more. Can you tell me how much do I need, or should I obtain a pH-meter?

grain elevator said:
The interesting question behind this is, why don't the standard manufacturer times give equal contrast for all films, as they should per ISO at least for the lower part of the curve?

No idea. Maybe for sake of "diversity"? Or maybe because all emulsions are different and therefore they are designed to give different results?

ic-racer · Jun 9, 2020

The datasheet for D-76 is available on line from Kodak Alaris. My rule of thumb is 25% but I print with multigrade paper.

MattKing · Jun 9, 2020

Those negatives look appropriate. The images look slightly more dense than the edge printing, which might be an indication that you are over-exposing and under-developing slightly.
Try increasing the development as suggested above.

grain elevator said:
The interesting question behind this is, why don't the standard manufacturer times give equal contrast for all films, as they should per ISO at least for the lower part of the curve?

The OP is mixing up his own version of D-76, so the possibility is quite real that his D-76 is sufficiently different from the packaged stuff to require adjustment for it.
In addition, while they are similar, the curves for Tri-X and HP5+ are different, and the OP's perception of the results may be affected by that.

M-88 · Jun 9, 2020

koraks said:
Dilution can be varied as well, but 1+1 is perfectly fine with D76. If you want to boost contrast a lot, you can try 1+0 and the same time you used with 1+1. It'll make a lot of difference.
Also, +10% development time is only a marginal step. I'd certainly recommend making a much bigger step to get a real difference. You can always back it up a bit if it's too much.

Indeed, stock solution works quite well when pushing, 1+1 is nice with low speed films. However, their high speed counterparts are where things get tricky for me. Maybe this happens because I usually shoot low speed film, or push high speed one, never really working at ISO 400.

koraks said:
That sentiment sometimes pops up, and I never quite get it. As Adams puts it: the negative is the score, the print is the performance. You can read the print also as the digital file. Why expect that a score in itself automatically creates a stellar performance without hard work on that end of the process? A negative in itself is just the base material; it needs to have the information you need for the end result. But making the end result meet your aesthetic (or functional) requirements involves making choices in translating it to the presentation medium. I sometimes taste a sentiment of people believing that his translation should be kept minimal. This is not hi-fi stereo where you want the least noise and where the ideal amplifier is just 'a wire with gain'! If you scan, the scanner and the software it comes with makes choices as to how the digital signal is processed. Arguing that no manual steps afterwards should take place because it would mess with the 'purity' of the image just doesn't make sense. There are people who tout the results they show as 'straight scans, without processing' - as if that says anything (it doesn't!) and as if that is a good thing (it nearly never is!) The fact that your scanner + software for some reason gives contrasty results with FP4+ or TriX doesn't mean those negatives are better - it only means that those negatives match with what the manufacturer of the scanner had in mind. It's nowhere written or suggested that scanner manufacturers are better at determining what your photo should look like than you are.

So you'll have to work on the performance part, and you should not be afraid to make (sometimes drastic) choices in that part of the process. There's nothing wrong with it. Only if what you can reasonably manage in the post processing part simply cannot yield the results you want, there is a good indication that there's something fundamentally wrong with your negatives.

I don't have a problem with post-processing the images. But what I'm uncomfortable with is that some films come out nice and contrasty right from scanning software (although that is also a post-processing of a kind), while others need a lot of tweaking once they are scanned. One thing is when it can be done to look better and other thing is when it just has to be done in order to look acceptable. I understand that HP5+ is not an ultramodern thing, that its first ancestor is as old as my late grandfather, while its latest incarnation is as young as me, but this has nothing to do with my ignorance and inability to get things right, does it?

M-88 · Jun 9, 2020

MattKing said:
Those negatives look appropriate. The images look slightly more dense than the edge printing, which might be an indication that you are over-exposing and under-developing slightly.
Try increasing the development as suggested above.

Alright, then next question - should I underexpose the photos if I intend to overdevelop? Although, it will be a half step towards pushing, won't it?

MattKing said:
The OP is mixing up his own version of D-76, so the possibility is quite real that his D-76 is sufficiently different from the packaged stuff to require adjustment for it.

I'm using the following formula:
750 ml of water
2 grams of Metol
100 grams of anhydrous Natrium Sulfite
5 grams of Hydroquinone
2 grams of Borax
and then I add water to fill it up to 1 litre. This seems to be the most common formula for D-76. However it is possible that premanufactured chems have different contents.

MattKing said:
In addition, while they are similar, the curves for Tri-X and HP5+ are different, and the OP's perception of the results may be affected by that.

I spent several days studying both - Tri-X and HP5+ thoroughly just to find out that they are two completely different things and neither is a copy of the other (a common misconception among local photographers).

MattKing · Jun 9, 2020

M-88 said:
I'm using the following formula:
750 ml of water
2 grams of Metol
100 grams of anhydrous Natrium Sulfite
5 grams of Hydroquinone
2 grams of Borax
and then I add water to fill it up to 1 litre. This seems to be the most common formula for D-76. However it is possible that premanufactured chems have different contents.

Yes - because the manufactured stuff has to be packaged and shipped and must be able to withstand spending time on the store shelf.
However the difference is quite likely dealt with by just adjusting your standard developing time. Once you have done that, most likely your mix will behave similarly to the manufactured stuff (if your recipe is a good one).

M-88 said:
Alright, then next question - should I underexpose the photos if I intend to overdevelop? Although, it will be a half step towards pushing, won't it?

Stay with your current exposure. Adjust the development to achieve slightly flat but fully detailed negatives (perfect for scanning). Then evaluate whether your shadow densities are more than you need and/or your highlights blocked. If so, cut back on exposure.
What EI are you using?
By the way, development times are always recommendations. If you look at a Kodak Darkroom dataguide, there are lots of suggestions for adjusting them to take into account things like the lenses you are using, the type of enlarger you have, and other factors.
If your scans are lower in contrast than you like, it iis generally good, because post processing will adjust that. The best scans look very flat before you start working on them.

Vaughn · Jun 9, 2020

Tri-X and HP5+...Very different films, indeed! I need to build up contrast for alternative processes (printing directly from camera negatives), so I avoid HP5+. I have a bunch of 11x14 HP5+, so I hope to use it on scenes that already have a high SBR (scene brightness range) so that the film won't need to work as hard to get to the density range I need...along with using a staining developer.

Doremus Scudder · Jun 9, 2020

Analog Photography 101

If you want contrastier negatives, develop longer (and vice-versa).

No need to mess around with dilution and/or agitation.

FWIW, changing dilution with D-76 changes the degree to which the developer dissolves silver during development and affects the appearance of the grain. Straight D-76 results in softer-edged, "finer"-looking grain. D-76 1+1 gives a sharper-edged and more pronounced grain (still rather fine). This and the recommendation to increase development time to achieve more contrast should be in the instructions (or the easily-findable-on-the-web tech sheet on D-76). Have you read these?

Doremus

Achieving more contrast with D-76

M-88

koraks

Moderator

John Bragg

M-88

M-88

John Bragg

M-88

markbau

M-88

NB23

M-88

John Bragg

MattKing

Moderator

halfaman

grain elevator

koraks

Moderator

M-88

M-88

ic-racer

MattKing

Moderator

M-88

M-88

MattKing

Moderator

Vaughn

Doremus Scudder

Achieving more contrast with D-76

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency