Better version of D-76 for Tri-X

[TomTX]

Comparing the packaged D-76 made by Kodak and mixing up the original formula from raw chemistry by ones self, is there a significant difference in developing times with films like Tri-X?

Something on the internet says that at some point Kodak replaced the Borax with Kodalk in the packaged product and developing times became shorter, which was what the photo labs were demanding but the result was that the new formula was 'too short for good shadow and mid-tone development'. Does anyone concur with this statement.

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

Tom

 

[Donald Qualls]

The main advantage of packaged D-76 vs. home mixed is that the commercial product has additional buffering so it doesn't change pH and activity over few days after it's mixed. Home mixed D-76 (to original published formula) should be used within 4-5 days at most, else your contrast will creep up. Commercial D-76 stock solution will last at least couple months (up to 6 months?) in sealed bottles.

As far as I know, aside from this buffering change, Kodak hasn't updated D-76, for instance by switching to phenidone (or you could say that's what Xtol is -- a phenidone/ascorbate update of D-76).

 

[Anon Ymous]

Kodak's D76 is an MQ developer.

I've never seen anything anywhere saying that a reformulated D76 from Kodak resulted in reduced development times. For the record, you can also mix the D76d variant and get better buffering, all you need is some boric acid.

 

[Don_ih]

Home mixed D-76 (to original published formula) should be used within 4-5 days at most, else your contrast will creep up

I have not found that to happen at all. I've mixed 1 litre of D76 from scratch many times and used it over a few weeks at 1:1. Perhaps this phenomena is when used at stock. As it is, I now mix using an additional gram of Borax because I find the contrast to be a bit too low for my liking.

 

[Ian Grant]

Current commercial D76 is somewhere between the published formula for D76 and D76d.

Kodak Australia Ltd published the percentages of the constituents on the packaging, which indicated that the buffering was 4g Borax and 2g Boric Acid. It actually listed the Hydroquinone as 4.5%, Borax 3.6% and Boric Acid 1.8%,, but as we know the Hydroquinone level is 5g/litre, so that gives the 4g & 2g figures.

The main reason for increasing the Buffering was the increasing use of D76 being used dilute at up to 1+3.

Ian

 

[gone]

Having bought two packages of the new stuff that was bad right out of the package, I only shoot the older tins and packs of D76 that's bought on auctions. That developer is like the old D76 because it is the same old D76. I think the new stuff is the same too, but the packaging defect did a job on a lot of them.

 

[halfaman]

I friend of mine mixed the D76 formula published everywhere and the contrast was notably softer than with Kodak D76 with the same film and developing times. So it didn't look to me like that they were the same "stuff".

 

[Alan9940]

I have not found that to happen at all. I've mixed 1 litre of D76 from scratch many times and used it over a few weeks at 1:1. Perhaps this phenomena is when used at stock. As it is, I now mix using an additional gram of Borax because I find the contrast to be a bit too low for my liking.

Same here. Many years ago, I used to use packaged D-76 and found "contrast creep" to be a real problem. Sounds like Kodak fixed this at some point.

 

[Donald Qualls]

found "contrast creep" to be a real problem. Sounds like Kodak fixed this at some point.

The extra buffering of modern packaged D-76 was the fix for this. Contrast creep is a good way to describe the effect of home-mixed D-76 increasing pH as it ages.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use Photographers Formulary version, times matched Kodaks published times. I stopped using Kodak branded D76 when I could no longer get in quart sizes.

 

[bernard_L]

Current commercial D76 is somewhere between the published formula for D76 and D76d.

Kodak Australia Ltd published the percentages of the constituents on the packaging, which indicated that the buffering was 4g Borax and 2g Boric Acid. It actually listed the Hydroquinone as 4.5%, Borax 3.6% and Boric Acid 1.8%,, but as we know the Hydroquinone level is 5g/litre, so that gives the 4g & 2g figures.

The main reason for increasing the Buffering was the increasing use of D76 being used dilute at up to 1+3.

Ian

Great! first time solid piece of information on he commercial D-76.

 

[NB23]

On a tangent and off topic, as per my habit, there might be some hidden good info for who wants to analyze the effect of my actions on D76 (maturing? Ph shift? Pseudo-compensation?...)

Since a Gallon of D76 develops 16 rolls of 36 exposure 135 film, regardless wether used as Stock, 1:1 or 1:3, I have decided to pour back my used Solution into the gallon and reuse, without compensating development time, until I reach 16 rolls. When 16 rolls are reached, I flush away the whole gallon.

My calculations confirmed that this was the best way to go, especially with the fact that I don’t need to worry about air in the bottle anymore as the Gallon bottle stays always full.

 

[Don_ih]

The extra buffering of modern packaged D-76 was the fix for this. Contrast creep is a good way to describe the effect of home-mixed D-76 increasing pH as it ages.

I thought the contrast shift was within a day of mixing D76. All I've ever heard is that D76 is not at full strength the day it's made - it should sit for a day before being used.

Since a Gallon of D76 develops 16 rolls of 36 exposure 135 film, regardless wether used as Stock, 1:1 or 1:3

2 litres of D76 will easily develop 16 rolls of film. 2 rolls per tank, 1:1 developer to water, toss it. (250ml dev + 250ml water)

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I use Kodak's packaged powder for a gallon of D-76. Just after mixing it (distilled water), I pour it in 2 litre, 3 500ml, and 1 250 ml amber glass bottles to the brim.
Yesterday I developed a roll with my common first frame for control, with gray card and pure white included, and development was perfect with D-76 mixed a year and a month ago: I have not seen development change after a year and three months. I have never mixed D-76 from scratch.

 

[NB23]

I thought the contrast shift was within a day of mixing D76. All I've ever heard is that D76 is not at full strength the day it's made - it should sit for a day before being used.



2 litres of D76 will easily develop 16 rolls of film. 2 rolls per tank, 1:1 developer to water, toss it. (250ml dev + 250ml water)

Even 1 Liter will “easily” develop 16 rolls, if you go 1:3.

It will also “easily” develop 100 rolls if you choose a ridiculously high dilution and stand-develop. Because stand development is not a rodinal thing but only a rodinal hype magical thinking technique that helps absolutely no one on the planet.

However, it is a Kodak directive that one film requires 250ml of STOCK D76, regardless of dilution.
If a person chooses to dilute 1:1, then the official way to do it is two rolls of film in a 1000ml tank completely filled with a 1:1 dilution. This indeed costs you 500ml of stock solution.
500ml for Two films.

Or one single roll into a completely filled 1000ml tank of 1:3 dilution... which still requires 250ml of stock. You see, you can’t get away from the 250ml minimum Stock.

The dilution is a function of “How” you want your developer to affect your negative. NOT a function of economy.

And I am not into the sport of how cheap I can go and still get away with a barely acceptable negative. I leave to the internet newbs and to the stand development crowd. They sure seem so happy to wreck a negative in order to save 0.34$ of developer. Power to them.

My advice for D76 is to always stick to the 250ml rule and to live with the fact that 9.99$ develops 16 36exp/120 films. No more, no less. 16 films equalling 1280 square inches per gallon.

1280 square inches of film per gallon. 80 square inches per 250ml. That’s the calculus.

 

[NB23]

Nothing prevents you to reuse 1L of D76 for up to 10 films just like one does with Microphen, by adding 10% time (what a halfass that is)

Nothing prevents you to do stand development with absolutely any developer in the world, except your own mind. There is no rule whatsoever about this. If you ask me, xtol is as effective as rodinal for this Poor technique.

You can use D76 with no minumum 250ml stock per 80 square inch of film (remember, a 24 exposure film counts as only 55 square inch) AKA 1:1 or 1:3 dilution, and choose to compensate by adding 10% development time, or not. You can choose to do exactly what you want. But the data has always been 250ml (or was it 237ml?) of stock per film, no matter the further dilution.

In the end, even urine and coffee will give something. The threshold of Quality you desire is completely personal.

 

[Bill Burk]

I friend of mine mixed the D76 formula published everywhere and the contrast was notably softer than with Kodak D76 with the same film and developing times. So it didn't look to me like that they were the same "stuff".

That kind of supports the idea that packaged D-76 works more rapidly.

Haven’t tried from scratch myself but maybe one day. I have had good luck with Kodak’s (not looking forward to the brown batch but am sure it will hit me one of these days). I got a brown Dektol that I am using to prove to myself that it’s not really “bad”.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

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

Tom

Hello Tom,
No, D-76 has no Phenidone: it's Metol+Hydroquinone.
Stock for overcast, and 1+2 for sun, are my preferred uses.
Enjoy your Tri-X!

 

[NB23]

That kind of supports the idea that packaged D-76 works more rapidly.

Haven’t tried from scratch myself but maybe one day. I have had good luck with Kodak’s (not looking forward to the brown batch but am sure it will hit me one of these days). I got a brown Dektol that I am using to prove to myself that it’s not really “bad”.

I top off my dektol before each session, from the previous one. After a point it never gets darker, kinda stays coca-cola-ish. Too bad, I always expect it to go darker and caramelize a bit, but no. I also find it satisfying.

Toping off my paper dev really stretches its life to unexpected length. Its potency never seems to weaken. I’m waaay over the rated paper count and my prints are all solid black where needed.

 

[bernard_L]

However, it is a Kodak directive that one film requires 250ml of STOCK D76, regardless of dilution.

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

(. . .)

In the end, even urine and coffee will give something.

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

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

This is the best advice on specifically D-76 I can recall in more than 30 years doing darkroom.

You can use D76 with no minumum 250ml stock per 80 square inch of film (remember, a 24 exposure film counts as only 55 square inch) AKA 1:1 or 1:3 dilution, and choose to compensate by adding 10% development time, or not. You can choose to do exactly what you want. But the data has always been 250ml (or was it 237ml?) of stock per film, no matter the further dilution.

Stick to it, and with whatever film you choose, and D-76 will do the same thing, again and again, enough to calibrate shutters, cameras, lenses, enlargers and on. When I was at the paper (in another D-76 thread about the Ph rise) I recall shifting away from D-76 not for any quality reasons but because I was bored printing the same type of negatives all the time. Even now I still cycle back in to a few runs of The Standard and I am never actually disappointed, although lately I tend to choose Microphen.

In the end, even urine and coffee will give something. The threshold of Quality you desire is completely personal.


Ha! Thanks for the laughter in truth.

 

[Don_ih]

@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.

 

[TomTX]

Hello Tom,
No, D-76 has no Phenidone: it's Metol+Hydroquinone.
Stock for overcast, and 1+2 for sun, are my preferred uses.
Enjoy your Tri-X!

Thanks, I don't know why I got the idea about it being a PQ, that is weird. I swear I saw it once on the back of a packet of the stuff, a long time ago, perhaps I was hallucinating.

 

[TomTX]

Kodak's D76 is an MQ developer.

I've never seen anything anywhere saying that a reformulated D76 from Kodak resulted in reduced development times. For the record, you can also mix the D76d variant and get better buffering, all you need is some boric acid.

Thanks, I was thinking of doing just that. I have tried D-76d in the form of 'Fomadon-p', I bought four packets, twice I have had quite bad underdevelopment from them so I want to mix it up myself, I have the formula.

 

[Don_ih]

In the good ol' Leica Handbook, they give the standard formula for D76. They make no mention of volume to use per roll - they do say, however, that it should be used undiluted (take that as understanding 250ml stock solution per roll). They also say you can boost the borax to reduce the time and that max activity is achieved using Kodalk. They also following a replenishing scheme will extend the useful life of a stock solution (plus replenisher) at least 5x the life of the stock alone (which they don't bother to mention).
I like the added contrast of a higher amount of borax without reducing the developing time. But I never develop in the stock solution.