D-76 1:1 in Stainless Steel tanks

Thanks Matt. Just curious really for curiosity's sake There may be a difference in philosophy, judgement on marketing risk etc between the Kodak of yesteryear and that of Ilford of that era. We are after all talking about an era in both cases that bears little relationship to the modern day.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Thanks Matt. Just curious really for curiosity's sake There may be a difference in philosophy, judgement on marketing risk etc between the Kodak of yesteryear and that of Ilford of that era. We are after all talking about an era in both cases that bears little relationship to the modern day.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I'd suggest that the differences are more likely to relate to the differences in the target markets.
For one thing, the modern Ilford targets the USA and Canada as its largest market. That is a big change from days of yore.

Finding it hard to follow this thread in my phone, so not sure whether this has already been said …
I would measure out 236ml of stock (if you can be that accurate, otherwise 240ml), and top up to your 450ml capacity. Then you’ll be sure there are enough molecules in there, and you’ll have a repeatable method. You can tweak development time over successive films to get the contrast how you like it.

Just wanted to say thank you for all the suggestions and replies. Much appreciated.

I just use enough developer/water at 1:1 to cover the film, never worried the precise amount and never noticed any trouble. Trying to calculate square inches of film vs how much developer would be insane -- a roll of 120 is a lot less surface area than two rolls of 36 exp 35mm, and yet i always -- always -- use the same amount and it always comes out the same.

It is possible to over-think things.

There are people who report problems with developer exhaustion from too little stock solution. It's usually from people using very dilute solutions in rotary tanks, I think. But, for the very specific case of D-76 1:1 in steel tanks with 35mm reels (or 220, I suppose), one is below the nominal recommended developer volume and Kodak's datasheet recommends extending the time by 10%. That's not much, but Kodak thought it was enough to mention.

If one develops film outside this particular case (for ex if one uses Paterson tanks that hold more liquid per reel, or develops 1 roll of 35mm in a 2-reel tank, etc), it doesn't apply.

What I found strange is that despite the alleged similarities between D76 and ID11, I cannot find any reference in the Ilford instruction sheet to a minimum amount of stock to be used.

In the most extreme example i.e. rotary processing in a 240 ml Jobo tank the user may be tempted to use as little as 35ml basing this on 1+3 and the 140ml required for rotary processing.

Does this mean that Ilford is confident that 35ml of ID11 stock is OK or does it mean that it expects users to be sensible, astute or whichever appropriate word you choose to realise that while rotary is fine it requires at least as much stock as does inversion? In this case the minimum stock would be 60ml at 1+3

It just seems to me that it either expects the user to have enough knowledge of the properties of ID11 to know what the unspecified minimum stock needs to be or it doesn't say anything because users can and should assume that even at 1+3 using the Jobo minimum amount of 140ml that 35ml is fine?

I used ID11 on my beginner's nightschool darkroom course some 19 years ago and then bought ID11 for home use as that was the only developer I knew anything about. It was all so long ago but I feel very sure I have never used ID11 at 1+3 and I am certain I have never tried rotary processing with it. However I am almost certain that on the nightschool course and at home I used 1+1 so I found that 125ml was fine as a minimum stock quantity

It does raise interesting questions. Wouldn't it be great if it was 35ml stock per 35mm film as that's about 38 film per one litre packet

Everything in my instinct/being says that it has to be more than 35ml but you can't always rely on instinct

On top of Fort Apache when the sergeant says:"It sure is quiet tonight" there has to be a time when instead of an arrow through the hat, all that arrives is the sound of quiet snoring

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

I cannot find any reference in the Ilford instruction sheet to a minimum amount of stock to be used.

Click to expand...

From the Ilford datasheet for powder developers (emphasis added):

REUSING DEVELOPER WITHOUT
REPLENISHMENT
If a series of individual films is being developed in
a spiral tank using 1 litre of stock ID-11 or
MICROPHEN or PERCEPTOL, compensate for the
loss of developer activity after developing the first
film by increasing the development time 10% for
each successive film, (see table below). This
method of time adjustment relies on the used
developer, (250 -300ml for one film), being
poured back into the stock bottle and mixed with
the fresh unused part of the developer before
processing the next film. When using spiral tanks
this helps to give more consistent results by
reducing the risks of problems due to solution
losses and the restraining effect of the by-products.



In other words, it is there in the capacity information - essentially 10 rolls/litre or 100ml/roll, plus the additional practical recommendation respecting re-use of developer and 250 - 300ml for one film.

It is important though to remember this part of Ilford's recommendation.

Reusing stock developer solutions can make more
economical use of them but it is not without its
drawbacks particularly when small volumes are
being used. More inconsistencies will be seen by
reusing a developer than by using a fresh
developer solution on each occasion. The time
compensation can only be an approximation to
cover a range of circumstances such as film and
negative types, solution losses and its age, etc.
For example, if your negatives are night shots
which will be relatively clear when developed then
little of the developing agents will have been used
in processing them. At the other extreme if the
negatives are well blackened after development
because they are of beach scenes in bright
sunlight then more developing agent will have
been used.
Overall reusing developer lowers image quality
slightly and increases the risk of physical damage.
As the developer oxidises with reuse and storage,
the risk of contamination is increased, precipitates
may be formed and tiny particles of emulsion from
the films processed previously may be held in
suspension. In addition there is also a risk of miss
counting the number of films that have been
processed by a batch of developer.
“One-shot” processing using stock or 1+1 or 1+3
developers eliminates or greatly reduces these
problems. One–shot processing is recommended
when image quality, reliability and consistancy are
more important than economy.
We do not recommend reusing diluted developers,
1+1 and 1+3, always use fresh solutions on each
occasion.

OK Matt It was maybe just me who failed to make the connection between the capacity when re-using developer by the method mentioned and the overall capacity of the developer but I do wonder if all or even most newcomers would have made that connection.

Equally as I sort of hinted at, believing that 35ml for rotary is stretching credibiilty as well or is it for relative newcomers?

I think that a statement in the instructions which covers minimum quantities of stock required would have been sensible. It is after all, newcomers that keeps the likes of Ilford running and the more help they get from Ilford the better or so I would have thought

It reminds me of the thread that involved the minimum quantity of Perceptol required. As I recall the thread, there were 2 schools of thought. The first school said that Perceptol could develop 4 films and this was based on the following piece in the Ilford instructions as follows:

" If a series of individual films is being developed in a spiral tank using 1 litre of stock ID-11 or MICROPHEN or PERCEPTOL, compensate for the loss of developer activity after developing the first film by increasing the development time 10% for each successive film, (see table below). This N = standard development time Page 8 of 9 N = standard development time nr = not recommended POWDER DEVELOPERS method of time adjustment relies on the used developer, (250 -300ml for one film), being poured back into the stock bottle and mixed with the fresh unused part of the developer before processing the next film.

This was followed by a table showing that beyond 4 films the "pour back into the 1L of stock " was not recommended for Perceptol so 250ml was the minimum stock of Perceptol required. I this case a 1L tank is required for 1+3. Given how rare a 1L is ( certainly not the normal tank for 1 x 135 film ) and the strain on a lot of rotary processors with 1L of liquid to rotate it just struck me as requiring an expansion of the Ilford statement

I had used about 65ml in a slightly overfilled Jobo 35mm tank - they only require 240ml - but will take more, at a 1+3 dilution for HP5+. I had used 1+3 to get me the max speed of 320 and the negs looked fine as did the prints but decided to ask llford if this was OK as a minimum

The reply I got suggested that 70ml would have been better but there was not as much as even a hint that the minimum was 250ml.

The point of this long story being that there was an apparent but IMO a relatively serious contradiction between the conclusion drawn from the Ilford statement that 1L of stock in not recommended beyond 4 films so 250ml minimum required and Ilford's reply to me

So it suggests that there may be a large margin of safety to put it mildly between the minimum stock required based on the number of films developed in the re-use statement and what is actually needed

I put this out for consideration for all who wish to read this


pentaxuser

snusmumriken said:

Finding it hard to follow this thread in my phone, so not sure whether this has already been said …
I would measure out 236ml of stock (if you can be that accurate, otherwise 240ml), and top up to your 450ml capacity.

Click to expand...

It’s easier to use 1:1 and add a little time. That way a pint of stock makes a quart at 1:1 and that covers four rolls.

You end up using the whole gallon evenly.

pentaxuser said:

OK Matt It was maybe just me who failed to make the connection between the capacity when re-using developer by the method mentioned and the overall capacity of the developer but I do wonder if all or even most newcomers would have made that connection.

Click to expand...

FWIW, the "powder developer" Ilford datasheet sometimes seems to me to have come from an earlier time, when the idea of rotary processors that use relatively very small amounts of liquid was something new!
It strictly avoids any discussion of the necessary volumes for that sort of application, while being careful to advise that, with respect to "spiral" tanks, it was important to make sure you have enough developer in your tank to cover the reels!
I'd be careful about extrapolating the re-use instructions respecting Perceptol to the situation with ID-11. ID-11 was designed for commercial use, often in a replenished line. Perceptol is a quite different entity.
Most of the capacity related behaviors of developers relate to how they were formulated to respond to the conditions of commercial labs.

Indeed, much of the technical information regarding Ilford and Kodak chemistry is dated. When I was using XTOL, one shot, in Paterson tanks I diluted 1:1, even then, I typically was developing 120, 1 film per spiral.

I switched to replacement, and full strength stock solution. There's mountains of information out there, especially the old Kodak, Ilford and dozens of other books.

Not knowing to use enough stock solution when processing film is learned by datasheets and experience.

I remember the first time I discovered bromide drag on two sheets of 8x10 Tri-X I tried processing in a Jobo 2830 drum. I met the 100ml "minimum" stock required for each sheet, still streaked. Now I use fresh, and only undiluted. Also I have Expert drums now. Still with any rotary processing diluting developer, more than 1:1 is very, very risky. MHOFWIW

Easier just to round it off to 500 ml total solution, with 250 ml of Dektol stock at 1:1. That might be tiny bit too much for a 500 ml SS tank once the reel is in there, but so what? It's also a handy way of dividing up your mixed chemistry in advance for optimal storage beforehand. I you mix a one liter or one quart pkg of powder, put that into four separate 250 ml glass bottles.

And do yourself a favor. Don't re-use or replenish anything if you're not a commercial lab.

The biggest problem with Dektol is that it's activity behaves somewhat differently freshly mixed versus when it reaches pH equilibrium a few days later, and stays that way for a few months properly stored.

And like Matt said, Perceptol is a completely different animal. Even Perceptol 1:3 is a quite different animal in behavior from 1:1 or even 1:2.

When I was a wee lad my Dad and I developed film in Microdol-X. I remember Dad would buy the single powder in tiny steel cans to make 1 US quart. He made up the solution and stored it in a brown glass 1 qt bottle. He would paste a paper label on the bottle. We would develop my 126 Verichrome and his 135 Plus-X one at a time in an ancient Elkay tank. Dad would make a hatch mark, in #3 hard lead pencil, for each roll. We would adjust times according to the Kodak Darkroom Dataguide. Those were the days!

MattKing said:

Overall reusing developer lowers image quality
slightly and increases the risk of physical damage.
As the developer oxidises with reuse and storage,
the risk of contamination is increased, precipitates
may be formed and tiny particles of emulsion from
the films processed previously may be held in
suspension.

Click to expand...

That was an interesting statement from Ilford. Almost worthy of a separate thread. As a regular re-user of 2-bath developer, I’d really like to know what these problems look like, so that I can tell if I’ve got them.

DREW WILEY said:

Easier just to round it off to 500 ml total solution, with 250 ml of Dektol stock at 1:1.

And do yourself a favor. Don't re-use or replenish anything if you're not a commercial lab.

The biggest problem with Dektol is that it's activity behaves somewhat differently freshly mixed versus when it reaches pH equilibrium a few days later, and stays that way for a few months properly stored.

And like Matt said, Perceptol is a completely different animal. Even Perceptol 1:3 is a quite different animal in behavior from 1:1 or even 1:2.

Click to expand...

Drew, where did the reference to Dektol come from and what's its relevance to D76 at 1+1? I don't think I can recall it being mentioned before

So what are those who replenish Xtol( one of the favourites here) risking?

Can you expand on Perceptol's difference? I thought that most developers were different at 1+1 and 1+3 Is there something unique to Perceptol

My point in mentioning Perceptol was only to point put that there seems to be a discrepancy between the conclusion drawn by some here that if it is not recommended to be used more than 4 times in the Ilford "pour back and re-use regime" that means that 250ml is the minimum stock solution needed for each film when I had asked it that question when I had used about 62ml and its reply was that 70ml was safer. It made no mention of 250ml being needed or even hinted at it.

It just struck me as strange that if 250ml is the minimum stock solution required it would not say this. After all 70ml is a long way short of 250ml

Thanks

pentaxuser

Must be a typo. Sorry. I meant D76, not Dektol.

I've explained my own reason for Perceptol 1:3 on previous threads; but in short, it allows for more conspicuous grain structure and edge effect, which can either be an asset or liability, depending. I employ it 1:3 only with TMax 100 film, which has great detail capacity but very disappointing edge acutance in most developers. This cures that, but behaves in an obnoxious too grainy manner with other films, including TMY400. For those, I either use PMK pyro or, in the past, have used 1:1 Perceptol. But I keep certain other developers on hand for specific applications, including HC-110 and D76.