D-76 economically?

veke · Nov 27, 2013

Hi! I have used D-76 as 1:1 and whisked away after one developing. There is a possibility to use it twice by adding 10 per cent to developing time, perhaps three times adding yet another 10 per cent? Or. It is possible to dilute 1:3 so that I can develop 3 times with the same amount of stock solution and each mixture is fresh. Perhaps the freshness has something to do with quality, all the rolls get same kind of developer instead of adding time to compensate a development. Hopefully someone understands what I mean. If not then I will write in Finnish...

What do you recommend? Or is the still some other solutions to develop more films more economically than 1:1 one-shot.

cliveh · Nov 27, 2013

veke said:
Hi! I have used D-76 as 1:1 and whisked away after one developing. There is a possibility to use it twice by adding 10 per cent to developing time, perhaps three times adding yet another 10 per cent? Or. It is possible to dilute 1:3 so that I can develop 3 times with the same amount of stock solution and each mixture is fresh.

What do you recommend? Or is the still some other solutions to develop more films more economically than 1:1 one-shot.

I recommend you stick with 1:1 and discard. Be more discerning with your shots, shoot less film and thus develop less film. Cost should not be your priority for your photographic art.

eddie · Nov 27, 2013

I think trying to stretch the use of chemicals is a false economy. Considering the cost of your film, and your time, it's not worth the effort.

Roger Cole · Nov 27, 2013

D76 is cheap, dirt cheap compared to the film you develop in it even. Use 1+1 and discard. If you really want to save more money, invest in a scale and the components and start mixing it yourself. You'll save money and avoid developer going bad and always have fresh developer.

jp498 · Nov 27, 2013

D76 1:1 is pretty cheap. Pyrocat-hd in glycol might be a little less.

Bill Burk · Nov 27, 2013

veke,

I have developed three rounds in one bath of D-76 1:1 without changing the development time.

With sensitometry tests, I measured a loss of contrast of about 15% for each pass.

If you care about your photographic negatives, then it is not good to add 15% variation to your process.

You might end up with negatives with insufficient detail for quality printing.

jnanian, a forum contributor here, uses a very economical developer, caffeinol, which you might look into if economy is your greatest concern.

jp498 also gave a good recommendation.

D-76 is best used as one-shot, for consistent quality... as cliveh, eddie, Michael R 1974, Roger Cole and jp498 agree.

Shawn Dougherty · Nov 27, 2013

I've been using D23 1+3 for awhile now. Economy is NOT the reason though. At 1+3 you still need to make sure you have a minimum amout of stock solution per square inch... As others have pointed out, most developers are cheap. D76 certainly is, let your results be your guide.

fotch · Nov 27, 2013

If you shoot that much film that your looking to save money on developer, try the replenishing method. Those who use it usually express better results. For me, I never ever shot so much film that I would need to do this, rather, might have to throw it away because it got old.

The film is far more costly, so, are you bulk loading? Using less than the premium brand films?

Ian Grant · Nov 27, 2013

Use replenishment it's very easy, reliable and consistent as well as being extremely economic it's also how the developer was designed to be used.

Ian

Mark Fisher · Nov 27, 2013

If I do my math right, you can do about 26 rolls of 35mm for the $6-ish dollars....that is $0.23 per roll.

Aron · Nov 27, 2013

A good thermometer, a reliable exposure meter, quality (possibly in date) film, paper and fresh chemistry are the things where trying to save money is counterproductive. Also, we have to provide a healthy demand for these products to continue to be manufactured.

In the grand scheme of things, developer is about the cheapest among the photographic expenses.

Also, Rodinal diluted 1+50 and a couple of other developers can be very cheap used one-shot.

PhotoJim · Nov 27, 2013

I think D-76 gives its best results when diluted 1:1 and it shouldn't be reused if you do this.

A good way to lower your costs is to mix your own D-76 from scratch. You need only a few chemicals and an accurate scale (which need not cost much). Then you can drop your costs in half.

BradS · Nov 27, 2013

Roger Cole said:
If you really want to save more money, invest in a scale and the components and start mixing it yourself. You'll save money...

PhotoJim said:
A good way to lower your costs is to mix your own D-76 from scratch.... Then you can drop your costs in half.

It depends very much on how much you have to pay for sodium sulfite and shipping. However, assuming that you buy commercially packaged D-76 locally and assuming that you mix your homebrew in distilled water (at about $1.00 per gallon), it is actually more economical to use the gallon size of commercially packaged D-76 than it is to mix your own.

Replenished is by far the most economical way to use D-76

jim appleyard · Nov 27, 2013

Here's a link to Ed Buffaloe's cost chart for devs. The prices may be out of date, but still some info there.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Developers/Cost/cost.html

Xmas · Nov 27, 2013

Hi

D76 was designed to be reused it was a cheap dev and replenished if you don't have the replenishment kit then you pour back into the stock bottle and give the next film say 10% more time.

note I don't use D76 so don't know exact times I get allergies.

The exact number of films you should get and exact % should be on packaging.

If you use it stock you get finer grain
If you use it 1+3 you get sharper edges but only one shot

Drug dealers micro scales are cheap and you can use specialist devs for ISO, sharper or soft working or less allergy.

You will turn into warlock and we will need to come around and burn you.

BradS · Nov 28, 2013

jim appleyard said:
Here's a link to Ed Buffaloe's cost chart for devs. The prices may be out of date, but still some info there.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Developers/Cost/cost.html

last updated in November 2000...yes, his costs are wildly out-of-date. Yet, even so, he shows that the commercial package is cheaper than homebrew (and, I don't think he counted the cost of the distilled water that I'd use with homebrew but not with commercially packaged).

It has been a couple of years since I did the analysis and the cost difference two years ago was much larger than it was in 2000.

Still, I usually mix my own because I like D23 (which is not commercially available) and so, have the chems around anyway.

Keith Tapscott. · Nov 28, 2013

Aron said:
A good thermometer, a reliable exposure meter, quality (possibly in date) film, paper and fresh chemistry are the things where trying to save money is counterproductive.
Also, we have to provide a healthy demand for these products to continue to be manufactured.

In the grand scheme of things, developer is about the cheapest among the photographic expenses.

+1. Manufacturers will discontinue products that don't sell well. Thankfully, D-76 remains very popular.

veke · Nov 28, 2013

Wow, great discussion here! I appreciate.

Fine, I will continue with 1:1 in important films and a longer development time for the less important.

The cost of chemicals is not the only cost. I develop films mostly at work, some as my hobby, and we do not pour the used chemicals into tubes but deliver it in large tanks to a place where it is destroyed. And it costs. Last delivery from us was about 150 litres, developer and fixer put together. That is why I try to use the chemicals as efficiently as possible before sending the used chemicals away. But you are perfectly right when saying that 1:1 and discarding is the best solution if wanting good constant quality. From now on I wiil follow your advice when impostant photos are concerned and archivable negatives are needed.

Thank you, again.

Ian Grant · Nov 28, 2013

Xmas said:
If you use it stock you get finer grain
If you use it 1+3 you get sharper edges but only one shot

When you use it replenished you get finer grain, better sharpness and better tonality (longer tonal range) than Full Strength.

If you use it dilute a good compromise is 1+2 better economy than FS or 1+1.

Ian

Xmas · Nov 28, 2013

Well I'm confused

ID11says on 1l packs

1+0 is 10 max according to Ilfords sheet
1+1 would be 6 (-7)in 300 ml tank for discard after use
1+2 would be 10 in ditto
1+3 would be more...

note ID11 is more than similar to D76

replenish is different package and bottle cept when I use Microphen or ID68 when it add fresh stock for replenish

using stock you need to increase time for following films for Microphen they say 10% per film

It is not a wonderful idea to try more than ten...

In the past pro labs always used replenish and needed silver recovery.

mauro35 · Nov 28, 2013

veke said:
Hopefully someone understands what I mean. If not then I will write in Finnish...

That was funny....

IloveTLRs · Nov 28, 2013

I haven't used D-76 for a while now, but I used to buy the 1 liter package. I'd use it straight, over and over again, until there was "soot" at the bottom of the container. I think I developed at least 20 rolls with the same solution. I was always pleased with the results, and indeed I thought D-76 was like wine in that it got better as it got older.

Now I don't have easy access to it anymore, so I use R09 (Rodinal) 1:50 one-shot. A big bottle of it last for a very long time.

Roger Cole · Nov 28, 2013

I mix commercial developers with distilled water too and so use it for dilution. Not always necessary depending on your water but it's cheap insurance.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Axle · Nov 28, 2013

Once you start diluting your chemistry you're in OneShot territory. As mentioned before D-76 is dirt cheap!

And one thing you don't want to start doing in this hobby is cheaping out. You've spent a good amount of money in camera and lens, you start using cheaper film and skimping on processing you'll start getting poor results.

Trust me...I've made that mistake.

Truzi · Nov 28, 2013

I don't know the OP's situation, but I can appreciate being in a situation where money is very tight - I've been there in the past. That said, I have to agree with not taking a risk with developer. You only get one chance with the negatives. If you skimp on paper and paper developer, you can always do those again in the future.

My problem with D-76 is sometimes I don't use enough film and I have to dump it. Even though it's cheap, it does feel bad when you have to do that.

D-76 economically?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency