D-76: full strength or 1:1?

[paulfish4570]

For:

Arista Premium 400 (Tri-X) 35mm

Acros 100 120

Acros 100 35

Fomapan 400 120

I just finished brewed my first gallon of D-76, no fuss, no muss. I have been using Tmax 1:4 on Tri-X, Kentmere 400 and Arista 400, but only have enough Tmax for, oh, two more rolls. I want to be ready with D-76.

Thanks,
Paul

 

[Rick A]

I like 1+1 for most films I use it with, except Adox Ortho25 then its straight. Some folks like it at 1+2 or 1+3, its a personal preference issue, and you will have to try them for yourself, then decide.

 

[Wade D]

I used D76 straight for 35 years. It was not till I moved to a place that is very hot in summer that I tried it 1:1 to get a long enough dev time. I was pleasantly surprised by the negs. I use Arista Premium 100 & 400. Also using up my old stock of Plus-X 4x5 and it turns out great as well.

 

[paulfish4570]

I developed a roll of 120 last night with straight D-76 (my little kitchen stays cool, and I kept the chemicals right in font of the A/C). I miscalculated the volume needed to completely cover the expanded reel, and had to race to add a few mls. So, the negs look great except for a quarter-inch edge the length of the strip that had 30 seconds or so less development. AND the light-tight Paterson funnel does NOT lock in the normal position with spout down in the small Super System 4 tank, which I should have checked before going dark. Aieeeeee! I had to race about to go from developer to water to fixer, covering and uncovering with the tight lid. This discrepancy is NOT listed in the Super System 4 instructions ...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I used D76 straight for 35 years. It was not till I moved to a place that is very hot in summer that I tried it 1:1 to get a long enough dev time. I was pleasantly surprised by the negs. I use Arista Premium 100 & 400. Also using up my old stock of Plus-X 4x5 and it turns out great as well.

That's pretty much it for me. I like my normal development times to be around 10 min, so I have some 'room' to reduce or extend development for the Zone System. If your development times are too short (<4 min) dilute the developer, if not D76 1+1 is very economical. If they are too long (>16 min) use D76 straight.

Some people opt for weak developer (D76 1+3) with the aim to exhaust the developing activity in the highlights and keep it going in the shadows. If done right it it promises to increase shadow density and to produce roll-off highlights. I don't like that, because I like as much contrast in the highlights as I can get and shadow density is best controlled with exposure.

One thing to be aware of:

The longer the development time, the coarser the grain, but I use D76 1+1, and with medium format grain has never been an issue.

 

[paulfish4570]

Thank you much, Ralph.

 

[tac]

D76 1:1 one-shot has been my developer of choice for many years. One caution is to mix it and let it sit for a few days before using - it runs a little 'hot' when first mixed.

Ilford ID-11 is pretty much the same thing, btw.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

tac describes a well documented tendency of D76 to increase in activity with age. You'll find more info on this in the Darkroom Cookbook and in several threads on APUG. I would not worry about it too much unless you keep the stock solution for more than several months, but I recommend to mix the working solution just before use. This can be combined with getting the stock solution to development temperature.

 

[Colin Corneau]

...I recommend to mix the working solution just before use.

Which using 1:1 would make easier, I guess? I use D76 occasionally and always @1:1 -- good results for me. Mostly I do this when I push a film a stop or 2 and Rodinal isn't recommended, but that's just a personal choice.

Good information Ralph, thanks.

 

[photoncatcher]

A lot of it depends on my film size. For 120, I usually go with it straight up. I gone to 16X20 with no apparent grain. For 35mm, I almost always go 1:1. With the right camera, and good focus on my part, 8X10s are no problem.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

A lot of it depends on my film size. For 120, I usually go with it straight up. I gone to 16X20 with no apparent grain. For 35mm, I almost always go 1:1. With the right camera, and good focus on my part, 8X10s are no problem.

Why the change in dilution?

 

[dancqu]

If Mileage Is Of Interest

Solution volume 500ml, dilution 1:7.
One roll, one-shot. Dan

 

[jp498]

I like the look of 1:1. I originally started using d76 that way to conserve developer and to be able to get to the right temperature quickly. If your stock is at 60f you can add some 80f water to get right at 70f.

 

[BradS]

I like it diluted 1+1 for everything.

 

[fotch]

I usually do 1 to 1.

 

[paulfish4570]

My next roll will be 1:1 ...

 

[bmasonoh]

I use 1:1 but then again I haven't had reason to try anything different. I imagine there are scenarios (as those mentioned above) that would warrant different dilutions.

 

[JohnArs]

I prefer XTOL not by much but it works even better then the old soup!!

Cheers Armin

 

[wclark5179]

I used to always use 1:3 because it's the most economical. But now that I'm allowed here on APUG I'm learning that there are benefits to using a 1:1 dilution.

Thanks!

This is a nice spot, here on APUG!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Back to the title of this thread. What does 1:1 mean?

I see that some folks write dilutions as 1:1 vs 1+1 for example. I know, people mean the same concentration with both descriptions, but is it?

Let's take another example:

1:3 is what?
1/3 strength or 1 part stock solution + 3 parts water?

When referring to a drawing scale 1:1 means full size. Does it also mean full strength or is it a 50/50 solution, and therefore, 1+1, because that's what we mean when we use it, right?

Confused? Then just look at that:

Kodak uses 1:3, Ilford 1+3 and so does the Film Developing Cookbook and The Massive Development Chart.

Now I'm confused.

What do you think?

 

[Colin Corneau]

I think context is everything.

Talking about film developing, it's commonly accepted that 1:1 and 1+1 are synonymous -- even though they certainly aren't in other contexts.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I think context is everything.

Talking about film developing, it's commonly accepted that 1:1 and 1+1 are synonymous -- even though they certainly aren't in other contexts.

I agree, but what would you mix if Kodak is asking for 1:3? I would make it 1/3 stock and the rest water. In other words, 1+2.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Back to the title of this thread. What does 1:1 mean?

I see that some folks write dilutions as 1:1 vs 1+1 for example. I know, people mean the same concentration with both descriptions, but is it?

Let's take another example:

1:3 is what?
1/3 strength or 1 part stock solution + 3 parts water?

When referring to a drawing scale 1:1 means full size. Does it also mean full strength or is it a 50/50 solution, and therefore, 1+1, because that's what we mean when we use it, right?

Confused? Then just look at that:

Kodak uses 1:3, Ilford 1+3 and so does the Film Developing Cookbook and The Massive Development Chart.

Now I'm confused.

What do you think?

I prefer the 1+? notation

To me it is less ambiguous as to the dilution rate

Just my $0.02

Martin

 

[paulfish4570]

I hereby change the formula notation for this thread to 1+1. I used 1:1 because that was what was listed. 1 part + 1 part makes sense to me.

 

[mike c]

I can only sound it out loud ! 1part developer to (or plus) 3parts water,for a total of four parts all together.
Mike