• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Better version of D-76 for Tri-X


No sermon, really. I know my writing may sound that way... sorry for that
 
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).
 
Donald Qualls said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
Does anyone know anything about Clayton F76+ which is supposed to be similar to Kodak D76? North Coast Photo Lab in California uses it.
 
TomTX said:
Secondly, is it correct that Kodak's packaged D-76 is a PQ rather than an MQ as in the original formula?

Tom
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
NB23 said:
Since a Gallon of D76 develops 16 rolls of 36 exposure 135 film, regardless…
Click to expand...
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.
 
Roger Cole said:
Your "quart" bottles appear to be liter bottles then.
Click to expand...

Seems that way. That's only about 5% weaker solution, however, and so long as you're consistent it won't cause any problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register