D-76 1:1 in Stainless Steel tanks

[michaelbothager]

Hi Everyone

I tried searching, but could not find anything solid.

Whn developing Tri-X in D-76 dilluted 1:1, Kodak states in the specs for the developer, that it should be 473ml final solution (236ml stock & 236ml water) for a single 120 (or 135) film, and likewise 946ml for two 120 films. But mu tank only holds 450ml and 900ml respectively.

Should I just use 450ml final solution (e.g. 225ml D-76 stock and 225ml water), or should I use like 236ml stock and 214ml water per 120 roll?


All the best
Michael

 

[bernard_L]

Negligible impact. From datasheet:

In your case, the deficit wrt the "ideal" 473ml is much less than if developing in 237ml; which itself requires a 10% time increase.

 

[laser]

final solution (e.g. 225ml D-76 stock and 225ml water). Use 1:1.

 

[bernard_L]

Sorry mis-read your question. I thought you were worried about your 450 being less than Kodak's 473, while your question was about how to make up the 450. Laser's response, of course, and no time correction.

 

[Bill Burk]

The amount of liquid that fills the tank and covers the rolls leads to slightly “less than recommended” amount of stock solution per square inch.

One way to compensate for this is to increase development time.

You can expect that if you develop for 13:30 (mm:ss) at 20-degrees C, you may achieve contrast index of 0.62

 

[michaelbothager]

Sorry mis-read your question. I thought you were worried about your 450 being less than Kodak's 473, while your question was about how to make up the 450. Laser's response, of course, and no time correction.

Yes, that is my worry, will the slightly less amount of developer (14ml less pr roll compared to Kodak's specification) require any compensation, or is the discrepancy so small that it is negligeble.

 

[michaelbothager]

The amount of liquid that fills the tank and covers the rolls leads to slightly “less than recommended” amount of stock solution per square inch.

One way to compensate for this is to increase development time.

You can expect that if you develop for 13:30 (mm:ss) at 20-degrees C, you may achieve contrast index of 0.62

Bill, thank you – but this is over my head. I develop for 9:45, the standard time from Kodak's spec. I've not looked into Contrast Index etc. (yet ;o) )

 

[michaelbothager]

Negligible impact. From datasheet:

View attachment 314718
In your case, the deficit wrt the "ideal" 473ml is much less than if developing in 237ml; which itself requires a 10% time increase.

So the deficit is negligible?

 

[bdial]

I've always used 500 ml in stainless tanks. But I think you are close enough that it's not a problem.
Kodak's recommendations are a starting point anyway. If you're ending up with negatives that are slightly underdeveloped, you can extend the time a bit, the 20 ml difference won't keep the developer from working.

 

[MattKing]

You could also use 236ml of stock and 214 ml of water and cut back the development time a "tad" - where a "tad" is similar to "season to taste".
The difference is small in either way. The advantage of this latter approach is it gives you even more protection from the effects of developer exhaustion, in case you are developing a bunch of rolls with lots of bright, high key subjects (leading to dense negatives).
All suggestions here will work well. Just pick one and be consistent.

 

[bernard_L]

So the deficit is negligible?

As others have stated: Yes!
As per the Kodak datasheet I quoted, a 50% deficit in the amount of 1+1 developer requires a 10% time increase.
Your deficit (473 --> 450, i.e. 23ml) is only 5%, 10 times less than above; so a naive estimate would be that you require a 1% time increase. ,
Mind you, a significant dev time change (e.g. to adapt to contrasty or flat lighting) is typically 20%.

 

[pentaxuser]

Is the Kodak document which is quoted by bernard_L the December 2017 J78? Certainly his quote about what appears to be minimum stock solutions seems to be from that document:

To repeat those instructions they say "You can develop one 135-3 roll (80 square inches) in 473 mL (16 ounces) or two rolls together in 946 mL (one quart) of diluted developer. If you process one 135-36 roll in a 237 mL (8-ounce) tank or two 135-36 rolls in a 473 mL (16-ounce) tank, increase the development time by 10 percent (see the following tables). "

I am having difficulty understanding if the last sentence is describing a "like for like" situation

In the first sentence it suggests that you can develop one 135 (80 square inches) in a diluted developer of an unspecified dilution but I presume 1+1 in 473ml or 2 films in twice as much. So far so good but then in the second sentence it speaks of processing a single 135 film in a 237 ml tank or 2 x 135 in 473 increasing the development time by 10% and refers the reader to the following tables.

Just as an aside 80 square inches seems a lot for a 135 or 120. The exposed frame are is about 54 sq inches so is the rest the leader and trailer areas and do these amount to almost half the exposed frame area?

On the next page there are times for small tanks and large tanks and there is in fact slightly more than a 10% increase. Tri-X for instance goes from 8 to 9 mins but I assume this is simple rounding up of 48 sec to 1 min. Am I right?

So it would seem that if you want to develop 1 x135 film in a diluted developer which I assume to be 1+1 a 10% increase in development time compensates for a reduction in stock volume from 237 to 119. For ease lets call those 240 and 120 ml respectively

So to summarise, the minimum stock of D76 required for a 135 and 120 film is 120ml

Have I reached the right conclusion above based on my reading of the Kodak instructions and if not where have I misinterpreted them?

I note that Kodak does not give times for 1+3 dilutions unlike Ilford's equivalent which is ID11 nor in fact times for 1+1 although it may assume that the 10% it quotes and the times for large tanks cover this adjustment for a 1+1 dilution?

Finally if 120ml is the minimum stock for a 135 or 120 film then I presume that at 1+3 this requires 480ml so a 480-500ml tank will be enough a single 135 or 120 at 1+3?

Thanks

pentaxuser

P.S. I think bernard_L's post which occurred while I was composing my own casts light on some of my assumptions

 

[reddesert]

Hi Everyone

I tried searching, but could not find anything solid.

Whn developing Tri-X in D-76 dilluted 1:1, Kodak states in the specs for the developer, that it should be 473ml final solution (236ml stock & 236ml water) for a single 120 (or 135) film, and likewise 946ml for two 120 films. But mu tank only holds 450ml and 900ml respectively.

Should I just use 450ml final solution (e.g. 225ml D-76 stock and 225ml water), or should I use like 236ml stock and 214ml water per 120 roll?


All the best
Michael

If you have the very common stainless steel tank that holds 2 35mm reels or 1 120 reel, that holds about ~15-16 oz or ~ 420-450 ml of solution. The difference between this and Kodak's 473ml suggestion for a single roll of film is negligible.

The text that bernard_L posted from the datasheet is also referring to the issue that happens if we try to develop two 35mm rolls in that same 16oz / 450 ml tank using D76 1:1. (Or one roll of 220, but that is less common.) If we develop two 35mm-36 rolls in the two-reel stainless tank, using 1:1 dilution, they will physically fit but we fall below the minimum required developer volume per roll, so Kodak recommends extending the developing time by 10%.

The same thing happens with the larger stainless tank that holds 4 35mm reels and takes ~30-32 oz or 900-950 ml of solution. If we develop 2x 120 rolls at D-76 1:1 dilution, it's fine, but 4x 135-36 rolls at 1:1 dilution falls below the minimum developer volume.

 

[mshchem]

Once again US measures raise to haunt us. 473ml is one US pint, (not a good British pint ) . I would just dilute 1:1, use enough diluted solution to cover the reels. 450ml (225 ml of stock) is more than adequate.

 

[mshchem]

And another thing the old Nikor tanks were 8 ounce, 16 ounce and 32 ounce (US)

 

[beemermark]

When I was young (maybe 50 years ago) an old photographer took me under his wing. We would go into his darkroom to enlarge his negative. He had, literally, barrels of chemical powder compounds that he would take a handful (again literally) to throw in the water to make the developer, stop bath, and fixer. He used the same highly measured handful of each powered chemical to develop his film. He made wonderful, absolutely, beautiful 16x20 prints. Temperature? What ever felt right to his hand from the tap. Most people over think this. Not saying you should do the same (Harold knew exactly how big his hand was) but again, it's not as critical as you think.

 

[pentaxuser]

The text that bernard_L posted from the datasheet is also referring to the issue that happens if we try to develop two 35mm rolls in that same 16oz / 450 ml tank using D76 1:1. (Or one roll of 220, but that is less common.) If we develop two 35mm-36 rolls in the two-reel stainless tank, using 1:1 dilution, they will physically fit but we fall below the minimum required developer volume per roll, so Kodak recommends extending the developing time by 10%.

What about Kodak's quote on 1 x 135 as follows: "If you process one 135-36 roll in a 237 mL (8-ounce) tank or two 135-36 rolls in a 473 mL (16-ounce) tank, increase the development time by 10 percent (see the following tables). "

If we adopt for ease the Jobo size tanks of 240 and 480 ml for respective tank capacities, can I ask if my conclusion on this was correct which was that if you develop 1x135 in a 240ml tank at 1+1 or the equivalent which 2x135 in a 480 ml tank then in the 240ml tank this uses 120ml of stock

So 120ml is the minimum amount of stock for 1+1 but to compensate for a smaller amount of stock you do as Kodak suggests and increase development time by 10%

Actually if anyone else cares to look at my #12 I'd appreciate responses on all my points, assumptions and conclusions from the post

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Bill Burk]

Bill, thank you – but this is over my head. I develop for 9:45, the standard time from Kodak's spec. I've not looked into Contrast Index etc. (yet ;o) )

It’s 38% more time. But that is probably higher contrast than you want so you could try 30% more time.

 

[MattKing]

Unlike with some other developers, D-76 seems to allow for reasonably effective compensation for developer exhaustion via increasing development time. So for that reason the datasheet makes that recommendation in the sections that deal with capacity - the "10% increase in time" section.
You won't see that sort of recommendation for other developers. I don't know whether that difference is due to the nature of the developer, or because there is such a relatively vast amount of experience out there using D-76 diluted in a commercial lab environment, leading to lots of reliable data on the issue.
It may be a bit of both.

 

[pentaxuser]

Matt does that mean that my conclusions from Kodak's quote are in fact correct i.e I have drawn the logical conclusions from what Kodak quotes?

Is D76 unique in not stating times for 1+1 OR 1+3 but instead suggesting that a 10% increase in the stock development time compensates for all films ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Is the Kodak document which is quoted by bernard_L the December 2017 J78? Certainly his quote about what appears to be minimum stock solutions seems to be from that document:

Most likely yes - all the relatively recent versions use similar language.

To repeat those instructions they say "You can develop one 135-3 roll (80 square inches) in 473 mL (16 ounces) or two rolls together in 946 mL (one quart) of diluted developer. If you process one 135-36 roll in a 237 mL (8-ounce) tank or two 135-36 rolls in a 473 mL (16-ounce) tank, increase the development time by 10 percent (see the following tables). "

I am having difficulty understanding if the last sentence is describing a "like for like" situation

In the first sentence it suggests that you can develop one 135 (80 square inches) in a diluted developer of an unspecified dilution but I presume 1+1 in 473ml or 2 films in twice as much. So far so good but then in the second sentence it speaks of processing a single 135 film in a 237 ml tank or 2 x 135 in 473 increasing the development time by 10% and refers the reader to the following tables.

On the next page there are times for small tanks and large tanks and there is in fact slightly more than a 10% increase. Tri-X for instance goes from 8 to 9 mins but I assume this is simple rounding up of 48 sec to 1 min. Am I right?

So it would seem that if you want to develop 1 x135 film in a diluted developer which I assume to be 1+1 a 10% increase in development time compensates for a reduction in stock volume from 237 to 119. For ease lets call those 240 and 120 ml respectively

You are reading the wrong table. You need to read the 1:1 table. And the tanks we are talking about here are all small tanks. The large tanks refenced on those tables are the ones with gallons of developer and either take racks with multiple reels in them or use dip and dunk technology.

The references to smaller than 16 oz tanks for more than one roll suggest a 10% increase. So you pick the time recommended for your film and temperature combination in the small tank part of the 1:1 table, and add 10%. If the table time recommended is 10 minutes (20C, Tri-X, D76 1:1), then add an extra 10% = 1 minute more.

Just as an aside 80 square inches seems a lot for a 135 or 120. The exposed frame are is about 54 sq inches so is the rest the leader and trailer areas and do these amount to almost half the exposed frame area?

A roll of 135-36 is 64.5 inches long by 1.4 inches wide - including the edges and sprocket holes. That makes for a total area, including the leader, the trailer and the holes, of slightly over 90 square inches.
Someone probably knows what the total area of the sprocket holes is - cue "A Day in the Life" here.
A roll of 120 film is ~ 32.5 inches long by ~2.4 inches wide, including the edges. That makes for a total area, including the leader and the trailer, of approximately over 78 square inches.

So it would seem that if you want to develop 1 x135 film in a diluted developer which I assume to be 1+1 a 10% increase in development time compensates for a reduction in stock volume from 237 to 119. For ease lets call those 240 and 120 ml respectively

So to summarise, the minimum stock of D76 required for a 135 and 120 film is 120ml

As I've posted earlier, D76 is a bit different from other developers, in that some developer exhaustion can be (mostly?) compensated for by increasing development time.

So to summarize, the minimum stock of D76 required for a 135 and 120 film is 120ml, if one doesn't extend the development time. And Kodak limits its recommendations for less stock to the situation where the amount of stock is reduced by 1/2.

I note that Kodak does not give times for 1+3 dilutions unlike Ilford's equivalent which is ID11.

Correct.

Nor in fact times for 1+1

Incorrect - read from the 1:1 table instead.

Finally if 120ml is the minimum stock for a 135 or 120 film then I presume that at 1+3 this requires 480ml so a 480-500ml tank will be enough a single 135 or 120 at 1+3?

Probably, but not necessarily.
While ID-11 is in most ways extremely similar to D76, there are some differences arising from, among other things, the originally patented Kodak packaging advancements that permitted a single package, instead of two packages. For the same reason, Ilford 1 +3 times may work well for D76, but the differences in the two products are important enough to test for your optimum times.

Here is a screen shot of the applicable 1:1 table from the datasheet

Hope this helps

 

[mshchem]

I've got cans of "single powder" Kodak print and film developers from the early 70's still perfectly good. The only problem with some cans is when the marketing department (I worked in engineering so I will always blame marketing) pushed through easy-to-use aluminum pull top cans. These are no good. The original all steel cans are usually good.

D-76 is a great developer, still terrific stuff.

 

[Bill Burk]

MattKing’s post #21 is worth printing out and taping to the wall of your darkroom.

Now look at TMAX 400 time on this chart, 12 1/2 minutes… and my experience developing TMAX 400 in steel tanks 1:1 … having found time of 13 1/2 minutes (adjusting time until I reach ASA/ISO contrast parameters).

This one minute, 10% additional time, is right by my experience

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Matt for that comprehensive reply to my conclusions and pointing out that the tables refer to full strength and 1+1 respectively so for Tri-X the times are 8 mins and 10 mins respectively thus there are times for 1+1 dilutions

My problem was in not reading what a large tank was. It seems to be a very large tank indeed and has nothing to do with the bigger round tanks used for home processing so we can exclude the large tank table

However what you have made clear and is reinforced by Bill is that for less than 16 oz tanks such as the normal 35 mm single tank you need to add 10% to the 1+1 table to get to the correct dev time

About the differences in the two developer in relation to using 120ml for a 1+3 you said: "While ID-11 is in most ways extremely similar to D76, there are some differences arising from, among other things, the originally patented Kodak packaging advancements that permitted a single package, instead of two packages. For the same reason, Ilford 1 +3 times may work well for D76, but the differences in the two products are important enough to test for your optimum times"

Does this mean that Kodak feels its D76 may have problems at 1+3 or that it hasn't published 1+3 times for other reasons? Do you know how the differences relate to not publishing 1+3 times?

While most agree that the 2 developers are largely interchangeable in terms of times for the same films I found that while this is true of Tri-X at both full strength and 1+1 plus 10% the times vary by quite a bit for the two TMax films if my maths are correct:

Kodak Tri-X in D76 is 8 mins and 11 mins in full strength and 1+1 plus 10 %respectively. In ID11 is it is 7.5 and 11 min so virtually the same.
Tmax 100 is 9 mins and 13mins 12 secs in D76 but 8 mins and 11 mins in ID 11 so over 2 mins and in TMax 400 it is 8 mins and 13.75 mins in D76 but only 10 in ID 11 so an even greater gap and assuming interchangeability between the two developers for the Tmax film would seem to lead to less than ideal outcomes

A case of using the Kodak developer for Kodak films or doing tests with ID11

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I expect that Kodak doesn't give 1 + 3 times because:
1) no commercial lab would be likely to use D76 that way, and D76 has always been oriented to that market; and
2) individual users are much, much, much more likely to run into real problems with developer exhaustion if they are tempted to use D76 that is that dilute in normal sized tanks.
And as far as different films and different recommendations with respect to ID-11 and D76, Kodak and Ilford actually use different (although similar) approaches to evaluating negative contrast, so the starting point recommendations are quite likely to be different. And there are so many differences between the T-Max (and Delta) films and Tri-X (and HP5+) that I wouldn't expect to gain anything useful by the comparisons.