Aesthetic reasons for using stock D-76

[michaelbothager]

I am wondering about which aesthetic reasons other photographers have for using D-76 in stock. Which subjective qualities of the final image have you found?

I’m contemplating to try out stock D-76 with Tri-X (have been using 1+1 so far). I know that there are going to be some differences compared to 1+1, such as grain, contrast, development time etc. I know that there are other great developers out there, such as XTOL/XTOL-R, HC-110 and many others, but for now I'm focusing on D-76.

Edit: I'm not going to be reusing the stock developer...

All the best
Michael

 

[Saganich]

When you get the process correct telling the difference between stock and 1:1 is not easy, but yea grain, contrast and development time will be different. In my experience 1:1 or 1:2 is useful for reducing contrast (expanding tonal range perhaps) or expanding development times for various reasons. What are the reasons? I like using stock for higher contrast and short development time...I get antsy if it's over 10 minutes...grain seems not to be an issue.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Well, if you are looking for which 'aesthetic' you will prefer there is no one who can answer your question but yourself.

I assume you are asking about 35mm.

My experience, though I am not sure I should relate it as it may throw you off from finding your own best answer:

D-76 FS & Plus-X produces slightly mushy grain, 1:1 the grain is more 'salt&pepper' - which I like. But as Plus-X is no more this observation is largely irrelevant for most people.

I have never particularly liked Tri-X in D-76 of any dilution. Absolutely hate it in HC-110. Rather like it shot at 200 and developed in Microdol-X 1:3.

Another film I don't like is TMY 400 in any developer.

So that's my D-76 advice - pretty useless.

As I view all films above ASA 25 with suspicion it may just be a '400' thing. Lucky I have a well stocked freezer. Now if someone would resurect a Kodachrome processing line...

 

[cliveh]

I am wondering about which aesthetic reasons other photographers have for using D-76 in stock. Which subjective qualities of the final image have you found?

I’m contemplating to try out stock D-76 with Tri-X (have been using 1+1 so far). I know that there are going to be some differences compared to 1+1, such as grain, contrast, development time etc. I know that there are other great developers out there, such as XTOL/XTOL-R, HC-110 and many others, but for now I'm focusing on D-76.

Edit: I'm not going to be reusing the stock developer...

All the best
Michael

There are no aesthetic reasons for using D76 or any other developer at whatever dilution you prefer. The aesthetics are mainly in the taking, printing and presentation.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's like which rubber band to choose, and how far you want to stretch it. All depends. There's nothing particularly either esthetic or non-esthetic about D76. If you can afford to use it full concentration instead of 1:1 for no apparent reason I can think of, that's your prerogative. Experiment; that's all I can think of. If you want more conspicuous grain, go HC-110 instead.

 

[Don_ih]

Stock D76 provides the full impact of the high solvency of that 100g/l of sodium sulphite, which can give you "smoother gradation" - or "mushy grain", if that's what you want to call it. 1:1, since it has reduced solvency, can give sharper negatives. Maybe. Probably more in theory than in reality, most of the time.

 

[michaelbothager]

Thank you for the input.

 

[Agulliver]

To be honest I've not been able to notice much difference between 1+0 and 1+1 with ID-11 (=D76))

The main reason I use it is that 1 litre of ID-11 stock fits well with my space/ability to store bottles and it lasts months if I don't use it. Generally I am using development times over 8 minutes as I often push process, but I can see it could be desirable to dilute 1+1 or 1+2 for pulling or for films with shorter dev times such as Fomapan 200.

Maybe it results in slightly different grain? But I've not really noticed.