Alternate d76 formulas, worth trying?

john_s said:

I noticed on Ian's web site a Kodak formula for D-76 based on the Australian MSDS. Maybe not now, but in times past, the Australian MSDS docs had more detail than those in other countries, presumably because of local regulations. I told this to Bill Troop years ago and he found it very useful. I wonder if the "Australian" D-76 formula is actually closer to the "real" Kodak D-76.

(yes, I know that MSDS is not the formula but still sometimes useful)

Click to expand...

It's quite possible the Kodak Australia MSDS & Bottle formula is close to or even the current version wch is know to be somewhere between the original D76 formula and D76D. Some countries not just Australia required far more accurated MSDS listings than others but that seems to have been relaxed.

Ian

Ozxplorer said:

John, I have no idea how old this can of D76 might be... it’s been a long while since Kodak left the Australian market!
View attachment 247265

Click to expand...

I don't remember when Australia "metricated," but The regulations were quite strict about quantities that were irregular, so customers would not be confused. One importer of chocolate had to relabel product with lower amounts of grams that the real amount because the factory produced an "odd" figure, like 110g.

My cans of Dektol were 3.8L (1 US gallon), so my guess is that your 5L can came after that.
Brings back memories when packaging failure hadn't been invented.
Fred, what is the character after the words BORAX AS BORAX?

Kodak had a retail outlet in Collins Street Melbourne, a Very Good Address where you could speak to people who knew everything. I had an unused roll of 16mm Kodachome, expiry date around 1955 which I wanted to use. This was in the early 1970s. It was labelled 10 ASA, not as bad as it sounds for a movie camera used in daylight because of the fairly long shutter speed (1/30). They said to give it a half stop extra exposure which I did. I took the exposed roll to them (pre paid development for Kodachrome in those days, paid in the 1950s) and they had to send it to Hawaii because the local factory did not do that version (current version was 25 ASA). They apologised that it would take a little longer. Film came back beautiful.

Writing this makes me realise that I'm not young any more.

Also, I noticed that the contents on the Aust can are percentages, and fortunately the total mass of contents is shown (530g), so the amounts for 1L of stock, the amounts can be calculated, as Ian has done on his web site.

john_s said:

Writing this makes me realise that I'm not young any more.

Click to expand...

agreed; our Photography beginnings do back a long way... a simpler more coherent, respectful and somehow a happier time! Thank you for your walk back through your Kodak Melbourne memory lane experience. How the mighty has fallen and all by their own hand too...! I’ll pop out to my studio/darkroom in the morning to check the reference to Borax on the D76 label and get back to you then with more detail. Take care...

Ozxplorer,
Strange but the empty 5 l can of D-76 I have on my desk as a penholder has a different Cat number: CAT 501 0699, and is made in France by KODAK-PATHÉ.
On the bottom there is a number stamped: 801 60 88, and no mention of Borax or Boric Acid, just a warning for Hydroquinone...

john_s said:

what is the character after the words BORAX AS BORAX?

Click to expand...

John, didn’t need to go out to check. I had a look at a different image taken at the same time... the Borax reference Is “Borax as Borax bp”. The term “bp” indicates boiling point and thus Is probably another method for qualifying the Borax as anhydrous.

“The term borax is often used for a number of closely related minerals or chemical compounds that differ in their crystal water content:
- Anhydrous Borax (Disodium tetraborate, anhydrous; Na2B4O7), CAS No: 1330-43-4 (EC No 215- 540-4).
- Borax Sodium salts (Borates, tetra, sodium salts (includes anhydrous, decahydrate, pentahydrate), CAS No: 1303-96-4. Borax pentahydrate (Na2B4O7•5H2O). Borax decahydrate (Na2B4O7•10H2O). Anhydrous Borax is a free flowing mixture of clear, glass-like particles and white granules formed by the crushing of relatively large masses of fused materials.“

Philippe-Georges said:

no mention of Borax or Boric Acid, just a warning for Hydroquinone...

Click to expand...

Philippe, the labelling difference is most probably the result of national label regulation as pointed out by @john_s but then again, D76 formulae published from time to time have revealed slight differences from each other. Grin, at least my can, sadly, still has D76 in it but good on you for keeping the film craft faith every time you reach for your pens! Take care...

john_s said:

Also, I noticed that the contents on the Aust can are percentages, and fortunately the total mass of contents is shown (530g), so the amounts for 1L of stock, the amounts can be calculated, as Ian has done on his web site.

Click to expand...

In theory, yes, but if you do the math, you'll notice that this deviates quite a bit from the various formulae out there.

1,8% of 530g is 9.54g boric acid (more or less 2g/l)
3,6% of 530g is 19.08g of borax (almost 4g/l)
4,5% of 530g is 23.85g of Hydroquinone (almost 5g/l)

The total of boric acid + borax + HQ is 52.47g. This leaves 477.53g for the rest. Assuming 5*2=10g Metol, we are left with 467,53g for sodium sulfite plus whatever chelating agents included, meaning 93,5g/l. Could this mean that this is close to 90g/l sulfite and the rest something like sodium hexametaphosphate?

Ozxplorer said:

John, didn’t need to go out to check. I had a look at a different image taken at the same time... the Borax reference Is “Borax as Borax bp”. The term “bp” indicates boiling point and thus Is probably another method for qualifying the Borax as anhydrous.

“The term borax is often used for a number of closely related minerals or chemical compounds that differ in their crystal water content:
- Anhydrous Borax (Disodium tetraborate, anhydrous; Na2B4O7), CAS No: 1330-43-4 (EC No 215- 540-4).
- Borax Sodium salts (Borates, tetra, sodium salts (includes anhydrous, decahydrate, pentahydrate), CAS No: 1303-96-4. Borax pentahydrate (Na2B4O7•5H2O). Borax decahydrate (Na2B4O7•10H2O). Anhydrous Borax is a free flowing mixture of clear, glass-like particles and white granules formed by the crushing of relatively large masses of fused materials.“

Click to expand...

"bp" often used to mean Brithish pharmacopeia (spelling?) an indication of a certain degree of purity, I think. I don't know why it would be on this label because Kodak would select purities for all components.

Anon Ymous said:

In theory, yes, but if you do the math, you'll notice that this deviates quite a bit from the various formulae out there.

1,8% of 530g is 9.54g boric acid (more or less 2g/l)
3,6% of 530g is 19.08g of borax (almost 4g/l)
4,5% of 530g is 23.85g of Hydroquinone (almost 5g/l)

The total of boric acid + borax + HQ is 52.47g. This leaves 477.53g for the rest. Assuming 5*2=10g Metol, we are left with 467,53g for sodium sulfite plus whatever chelating agents included, meaning 93,5g/l. Could this mean that this is close to 90g/l sulfite and the rest something like sodium hexametaphosphate?

Click to expand...

Interesting. I think I read once that there was something that allowed all components to be in together so that the metol would dissolve without having to be dissolved separately first, I think ID-11 is sold in two parts to address this.

john_s said:

Interesting. I think I read once that there was something that allowed all components to be in together so that the metol would dissolve without having to be dissolved separately first, I think ID-11 is sold in two parts to address this.

Click to expand...

The developing agents were coated with I thinksulphite to allow the single bag packaging.

The Australian pottle says 530g Net Weight, but also indicates the higher level of Borax as well as the Boric acid. Even origibal D76 would be 545g for 5 litres and that's excluding Sodium tripolyphosphate. However in an early article where Kodak publishe D76d (at that point un-named) they mentioned it's increased activity, there's two ways to correct this, cut development times compared to plain D76 or slightly increased Dilution. It would appear this is done here by reducing the total amount of chemistry (by weight) during packaging, this would reduce production costs slightly, well a not insignificant 7% approx.

When Agfa and Gevaert merged we saw something similar with Rodinal where the old formula had no free hydroxide, to save costs the pH was increased and the level of p-Aminopheol dropped, making a saving of around 10%.

Ian