Capacity of Stock D76 v Xtol

Don't believe all of what you read in Anchell.
On the other hand, D-76 is so cheap why bother with trying to stretch it? One of the most common mistakes my students made through the years was trying to save money by pinching pennies on developer and fixer. Inevitably the developer will give poor results on the best image you have ever made.

Jim

 

According to Kodak datasheet, a roll of film, 35mm-36 or 120, can be processed with 8 oz of D-76 or 4 oz of XTOL before extension of processing time is required. As I understand it, XTOL is more active than D-76 whatever that means....

 

I suggest that Eastman Kodak supplies the correct data for its products.

X-Tol capacity, Kodak document J-109, page 2: 15 rolls/liter (135-36 or 120).

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf (X-Tol)



D76 capacity, Kodak document J-78, pages 7 and 8: 120 rolls/gallon = 30 rolls/quart = approximately 30 rolls/liter.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.pdf (D76)

 

Xtol has a far higher capacity because it doesn't contain Metol. the Bromide build up is the limiting factor with D76/ID-11. Ilford introduced Autophen a PQ variant of ID-11 as a commercial photo-finishing developer and it had a very much higher capacity.

Ilford suggest up to 10 films per litre (35mm 36ex or 120) per litre of unreplenished ID-11. If you use Xtol then replenishment is a far better option and it's simple even on a relatively small scale.

Ian

 

When all else fails, follow the manufacturer's instructions. The manufacturer is going to know more about its product than the testinistas. That includes using the film at box speed.

I know that that fact really chaps the hides of the testinistas who pride themselves in claiming to know much more than they really know.

These comments are about testinistas in no way reflect on the OP nor on his well considered question. Instead those comments are directed at the test-it-all-know-it-all's who publish unfounded "facts" in the internet.

 

Amen, Amen. Love your term testinistas!

 

On page 8 of J78 the capacity numbers for replenished D76 are quoted at 120/gallon.

The numbers in J78 for straight, one-shot D76 are indeed 4/litre.

Personally, I like using a replenishment routine.

 

What a strange thread. Surely the pedantics of developer usage, diluted or otherwise are of no importance when processing what you shot into a printable negative?

 

We could say what a strange reply.

In practice it's actually extremely important to have your processing under your full control to get good consistent results.

In the late 1960's I used the technique of increasing dev times in unreplenished developer, I soon switched to replenishment as it made sense and results where totally predictable.

There's various development options but which ever is chosen it's important to learn to get it right that way you can concentrate on making images with confidence.

Ian

 

Or use the DD method....dilute and discard....works for me!

 

I agree and that is exactly why I wonder why the OP is questioning dilution/or not and quantaties of developer.

 

It seems counter-intuitive to me to re-use a single batch of Xtol until it runs out of oomph.
If you stopped after a few films,depending on your developer volume,you will have a "seasoned"batch of developer,which you can keep at a stable level of activity by replenishment.
Xtol,being its own replenisher,makes it more amenable to this than D76.
I first learnt about this on this forum - I'll never go back.
Thanks folks

 

No, I squeeze out the air. Hint: It is easier to do this with plastic bottles than with glass bottles.