Better version of D-76 for Tri-X

[NB23]

From the horse's mouth © 2017 Kodak Alaris Inc. December 2017 • J-78

View attachment 318765
(. . .)
View attachment 318764

No need to go to such extremes. Just read the printed manufacturer's instructions.

The 10% info has been added over time.

 

[NB23]

@NB23 That was a nice little sermon. It doesn't exactly mesh with what you described as your current procedure, though, which would result in significantly weakened developer by the 8th roll. Returning used developer to the jug doesn't just return spent developing agents, it also boosts the bromide content of the developer. So every roll developed for the same time should be ever so slightly lower contrast and thinner. Every roll will develop differently.

No sermon, really. I know my writing may sound that way... sorry for that

 

[Donald Qualls]

Leica most likely suggested D-76 stock because that's an old manual, and anything you could do to soften grain in 35 mm was considered a good thing (films then weren't what they are now).

 

[Don_ih]

Leica most likely suggested D-76 stock because that's an old manual, and anything you could do to soften grain in 35 mm was considered a good thing (films then weren't what they are now).

It wasn't a suggestion - they didn't say there was any other way to use it. D76 was one of numerous developer recipes - but cited as being low contrast with good shadow detail.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Does anyone know anything about Clayton F76+ which is supposed to be similar to Kodak D76? North Coast Photo Lab in California uses it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Based on this listing at Freestyle, it appears to be a phenidone-based D-76 emulator.

 

[Ian Grant]

Secondly, is it correct that Kodak's packaged D-76 is a PQ rather than an MQ as in the original formula?

Tom

Ilford published a PQ version of D76/ID11 in Kendall's Phenidone patent, and later spent some years working on it eventually marketing it as Autophen, a long-life replenished developer for large scale photo-finishers. It was available was a powder or a liquid, it was discontinued as the amateur D&P market switched to colour films & prints.

Ian

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Based on this listing at Freestyle, it appears to be a phenidone-based D-76 emulator.

Don: Their review on that link says:

Designed to match Kodak D-76 in quality of tonal range, grain structure and contrast.

That's good to know. Thanks. Alan.

 

[Ian Grant]

Don: Their review on that link says:

Designed to match Kodak D-76 in quality of tonal range, grain structure and contrast.

That's good to know. Thanks. Alan.

I think that's a key point, it's a concentrate, uses Sodium Metaborate (Kodalk) rather than Borax, and has a much lower Sulphite level once diluted 1+9.

The first MQ Borax developer was a Wellington & Ward formula. Wellington had worked as a senior manager at Kodak Ltd (Harrow UK) from its founding. There are a series of traceable steps from Wellington's initial formula to D76.

While Clayton F76 is more dilute than D76 and has much a lower Sulphite level, it has a higher pH, so in real terms it's like a more active version of D76, somewhere between 1+1 & 1+3 dilution.

Ian

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

D-76 can also be used in 1+9 dilution if one adds a little bit of sodium hydroxide, about 0.6g/l, to the working solution.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Ilford ID11 is an excellent equivalent to D76.

 

[Bill Burk]

Since a Gallon of D76 develops 16 rolls of 36 exposure 135 film, regardless…

My whole life I have done 32 rolls per gallon bag of D-76.

That’s four quart bottles a batch*, two runs per bottle at 1:1

Quart tank holds four rolls.

I almost always use it all, even if it takes a few years. If I find a half bottle on the sink shelf after I haven’t been in the darkroom for a while I might throw it out. But if it’s only been a couple weeks I will still use it.

Only once in my life have I had a suspected “failure to develop”. But that could have been the famous “grabbed stop by mistake” trick.

It’s definitely less than Kodak recommended stock per square inch. I make up for it with longer development time. Standard time for me is 13:30 (TMAX100/ Tri-X, TMY2) to aim 0.62 CI.

*I mix water to give 8 ounces more than a gallon, each quart bottle holds 34 ounces and I top them off.

I won’t say it’s best but it’s certainly economical. NB23, you definitely process a safe quantity.

 

[Roger Cole]

My whole life I have done 32 rolls per gallon bag of D-76.

That’s four quart bottles a batch*, two runs per bottle at 1:1

Quart tank holds four rolls.

I almost always use it all, even if it takes a few years. If I find a half bottle on the sink shelf after I haven’t been in the darkroom for a while I might throw it out. But if it’s only been a couple weeks I will still use it.

Only once in my life have I had a suspected “failure to develop”. But that could have been the famous “grabbed stop by mistake” trick.

It’s definitely less than Kodak recommended stock per square inch. I make up for it with longer development time. Standard time for me is 13:30 (TMAX100/ Tri-X, TMY2) to aim 0.62 CI.

*I mix water to give 8 ounces more than a gallon, each quart bottle holds 34 ounces and I top them off.

I won’t say it’s best but it’s certainly economical. NB23, you definitely process a safe quantity.

Your "quart" bottles appear to be liter bottles then.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Your "quart" bottles appear to be liter bottles then.

Seems that way. That's only about 5% weaker solution, however, and so long as you're consistent it won't cause any problems.

 

[Bill Burk]

That's pretty funny.