Capacity of Stock D76 v Xtol

[lawrenceimpey]

I like to work with stock rather than diluted developer but I'm having a problem believing that the number of films that can be put through 1 litre of Xtol is more than twice the number that can be put through the same quantity of D76.

According to Aschell & Troop the capacity of 1 litre of D76 is seven films '...if you choose to reuse D76 without replenishment, develop a maximum of 7 rolls per litre.' (The Film Developing Cookbook, p.43). However according to Kodak 'The capacity of the full-strength developer with normal, unreplenished processing is approximately 15 rolls of 135-36 or 120 film...' (Kodak Professional Xtol Developer, March 2008. J-109).

Any comments on the above, particularly from those who have tested the capacity of either developer, would be most welcome.

 

[Jim Noel]

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

 

[tkamiya]

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....

 

[Ian C]

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)

 

[Ian Grant]

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

 

[Sirius Glass]

According to Aschell & Troop the capacity of 1 litre of D76 is seven films ...

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.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

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!

 

[lawrenceimpey]

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

I have no intention of stretching it to the point of likely failure, thanks. I asked the question because I'm curious about finding the correct answer.

 

[lawrenceimpey]

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)

One of us is misreading J78. On page 7 they give the 'useful capacity' in litres (in brackets) in the last column. According to them the number of films is 4, which seems rather conservative to me.

 

[lawrenceimpey]

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

Many thanks, as far as I'm concerned that explains it. I might take it up to 10 for D76 (or even 11, if I'm feeling really wild).

 

[MattKing]

One of us is misreading J78. On page 7 they give the 'useful capacity' in litres (in brackets) in the last column. According to them the number of films is 4, which seems rather conservative to me.

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.

 

[cliveh]

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?

 

[Ian Grant]

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

 

[tony lockerbie]

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

 

[cliveh]

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

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

 

[Smudger]

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

 

[lawrenceimpey]

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.
Ian

I've tended to steer away from replenishment but maybe will try it with Xtol as it sounds rather simple, since the replenisher is the developer. However, doesn't your replenisher get stale as you decant it into the developer i.e. as the air gap at the top of the bottle of replenisher increases?

Lawrence

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've tended to steer away from replenishment but maybe will try it with Xtol as it sounds rather simple, since the replenisher is the developer. However, doesn't your replenisher get stale as you decant it into the developer i.e. as the air gap at the top of the bottle of replenisher increases?

Lawrence

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