D-76 and Tri-X, Stock vs. Dilluted

[michaelbothager]

Hello all-knowing Hive-mind ;o)

It seems like I can not wrap my head around using D-76 as stock solution vs. diluting it 1:1.

Normally I develop Tri-X with one-shot D-76 1:1, two rolls of 120 film in a 1 liter tank for 10 minutes. This makes the active developer 250 ml pr. film. I do like the grain and acutance of the film like this.

So if I was to load four 120 rolls in the same tank (two on each spool), then I should use the undiluted stock solution, 1 liter, and develop for 10 minutes, and toss the developer afterwards (e.g. one-shot)? This also makes for 250 ml pr. film. It would also cut the work-time in half, and cut the D-76 waste in half as well.

Is this reasoning sound? Is there anything I am missing or misunderstanding? Should the grain and acutance of the film stay similar, or is there more to it?

All the best
Michael

 

[MattKing]

I don't think you are cutting waste in half - you are still using 250 ml stock per roll.
There will be a difference with respect to grain and acutance, but the difference may be small enough to not matter to you.

 

[1kgcoffee]

You could reuse D-76 stock, like xtol, but I wouldn't recommend it. One shot is best, use and dispose, and 1:1 at least. You still get excellent contrast and grain from tri-x. If you want more grain and contrast, agitate more. Using stock d76 is kind of waste and gets expensive. I actually like to push tri-x a stop or two and develop in d76 1:2. I have pushed it all the way 9600 iso in xtol.

If you use 1:2, You're only using 1/3 the volume of d76 per roll, have longer development time, finer grain, and less contrast.

If you like grain and contrast, also consider rodinol. It's much cheaper.

 

[nworth]

The advantage of using stock D-76 is that it can be reused several times (almost indefinitely when replenished with D-76R). Kodak lists the capacity as 16 rolls per gallon (about four rolls per liter). They list the capacity of D-76 diluted 1+1 as 8 rolls per gallon, which works out to the same cost. It is of interest that the capacity for diluted D-76 works out to only 2 rolls per liter, and everyone has had it perform at twice this rate (1 roll in 250 ml or even 125 ml or 8 oz.). My experience is that undiluted D-76 also has at least twice the rated capacity. Kodak started to recommend diluted D-76 with the introduction of its "thin emulsion" films in around 1958. It helped control the contrast of these films. But present day films seem to work fine in undiluted D-76 as well as the diluted formulation. Diluted D-76 gives slightly more sharpness and slightly more grain than the undiluted developer. Note that the development time for undiluted D-76 is shorter (usually by a factor of about 0.7, but this varies) than for diluted D-76.

 

[voceumana]

Undiluted D76 is prone to have blown out highlights, whereas diluted is not. You will get a different effect.

 

[RattyMouse]

Use HC-110 and just say NO! to replenishment

 

[michaelbothager]

Thank you guys, I'll stick to 1:1, and just do two rolls pr. tank.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Read the Kodak tech publication. D-76 at full strength has a higher sodium sulfite component and therefore more silver-solvent activity. This means "finer" but softer grain and a bit less acutance. D-76 1+1 delivers a bit sharper but more pronounced grain and a bit more acutance.

As for "blown highlights" (I really beginning to hate that term...): Any developer will give you difficult to print high values if you overdevelop. If you're getting "blown highlights" with D-76, you're developing to a higher contrast index than you should be; reduce your developing time.

The advantage to using a replenishment work-flow is that you get ready and repeatable results for large throughputs without wasting a lot of time mixing chemicals for each run, think commercial processing. Low-volume work, like the most of us do here, lends itself to one-shot processing for maximum repeatability and quality. You can pick the one that works best for your situation; both can deliver excellent results. (FWIW, I'm solidly in the one-shot camp, with about 200+ 4x5 negatives per year.)

Beware of the hive mind; in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King...

Best,

Doremus

 

[Bill Burk]

As for "blown highlights" (I really beginning to hate that term...): Any developer will give you difficult to print high values if you overdevelop.

I don't think many people overdevelop. If anything there is a lot of underdevelopment going on these days (or maybe what I feel is going on... "just right development for perfect exposures - where the exposures were sometimes less than enough").

You could blow out the highlights with simple scenarios like photographing a scene primarily in the shade that includes sky.

 

[Bill Burk]

So if I was to load four 120 rolls in the same tank (two on each spool)

Michael,

If you can fit two rolls of 120 on one reel, then I'd say you're asking for mechanical problems. Kinks could cause you to lose whole sets of shots which might outweigh any savings you gain from jamming them together (You save developer expense plus time you gain not having to do two runs of developing, but is it worth the risk?).

But supposing I could safely load four 120 rolls on two reels in a 1 liter tank, and get even development...
I would still use 1:1 but extend the development time because I have less than the recommended stock solution per square inch.

D-76 can develop more film per square inch than recommended, (the amount of active developer when recommended amount is used, is more than you need). The greatest effect I have seen is the required time to reach the same contrast index.

Using less than the recommended amount of developer means that development byproducts become a greater percentage of the solution towards the end of development... I haven't analyzed how bad that problem is, but since you are using the developer one-shot, you aren't making a problem for the next rolls of film.

In other words, if you don't use 250 ml per roll, the only problem you cause is that you can't rely on published times.

But you still can get good development results.

 

[MattKing]

If you can fit two rolls of 120 on one reel, then I'd say you're asking for mechanical problems.

Bill:
The Paterson clone reels (Arista, AP, Samigon, etc.) I use are big enough for 220, so have lots of room for two rolls of 120 - I do this regularly.
I believe the same applies to the brand name Paterson reels.
The only problem I have ever had with loading two 120 rolls occurred when I was using rotary agitation. During the development stage of the process, the films would move in the channels, and would sometimes overlap. I now use rotary agitation for a three minute pre-soak, hand agitation during the development stage, and rotary agitation for the rest of the process - no more wandering or overlap.
Some people use tape between the rolls, and avoid overlap that way. Other people use the Jobo reels that have the red clips that are there to prevent overlap. Some people probably have had success using the mini-blinds that the Sidekick processors require. In any event, it can be reliably done.

 

[Bill Burk]

OK Great!

If you can do it then I'd say go for it. Don't let the concern for not meeting recommended minimum stock solution per roll stand in the way of processing 1:1

I've found the difference can be compensated for by adding time to development.