D-76 question

[wogster]

In other words, do the math and get your answer.

Well, Ian said that as he reduced his volume of film use, he found at some point it was cheaper to use a different process, then D76 + D76R, so I was wondering at what point that was. I can do the math and figure it out, but I already know that for my own shooting patterns a one shot concentrated developer will be cheaper. There are others though that might want to know this, especially those lost in the digital wilderness for a while, returning to film use.

 

[Ian Grant]

Paul, it's not just the cost it's also the storage life if a replenished developer isn't being used sufficiently. I haven't used Deep tanks since the mid 80's so went back to how I'd worked in my youth (at school) using 2.5 litre bottles.

It's worth noting that Kodaks capacity figures are quite conservative and in practice those numbers would usually be exceeded by quite a long way, without any problems, we were experienced enough to spot when the developer was close to collapse & needed replacing.

A major bonus of using a replenishment system is there are no chemicals to mix each time you process, so it's load spirals et and away, it's easy to keep or bring the chemistry to the right temperature, so it can cut the overall processing cycle as there's less preparation etc.

With replenished Xtol I was often processing 20-30 roll, leaving it stored a month or so before the next batches and my working solution lasting over a year with no problems, I would process a single film first to double check the developer was still OK. The only reason I've just stopped using Xtol this way is I'm rarely back in the UK, and it's easier to fly with concentrated developers, plus my Xtol doesn't get used/is stored too long.

If you process 3 or 4 rolls of film a week or 6-12 sheets of 5x4 or larger then using a replenishment system is definitely worth contemplating.

Ian

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Ian,

How would you go about setting up a tank line? I've been developing my 8x10 film in a Jobo print drum, 2 sheets at a time, and have noticed slight but noticeable uneven development in smooth tonal areas such as sky, cloud etc.

Tom.

 

[Ian Grant]

The line was already installed when I rented my factory unit back in the late 70's, there was a commercial photographer sub tenant, as we weren't competitors he stayed & we shared film darkroom. The Kodak (UK) tanks were sunk into a bench in the darkroom, a line of 4, Dev stop, fix & wetting agent/final rinse. A 5th tank sat in the sink for washing. Roll films were processed in stainless steel spirals in a basket, sheet film on hangers, agitation was by hand.

These lines & tanks do come up for sale on Ebay occasionally, but I think I'll make a smaller system at some stage for my 10x8 work, probably using fibre glass, or PVC allowing 4 or 5 sheets to be processed together.

Ian

 

[richard littlewood]

Tom
Dont know if this will help but during development in my Jobo (CPE-2) I lift the tank each min ever so slightly to quickly disengage it from the drive gear, and lower to engage it again quickly to alter the point where the drum goes into foreward/reverse, and it always seems to end up in a different position. Some might say this is unkind to the poor little Jobo, but as long as there is not a gallon of developer in there, it dosnt seem to mind. Just another tweak in searching for even-ness. On the whole rotary deving should make for the most even negs.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I see Hewes still appear to be making deep tank systems. From www.hewes.co.uk it seems a 7 litre tank could accommodate 5 sheets of 8x10 film at a time. I do however have rather limited countertop space in my darkroom, so deep tanks may not be practical from that point of view, unless placed in the sink.

Tom.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Tom
Dont know if this will help but during development in my Jobo (CPE-2) I lift the tank each min ever so slightly to quickly disengage it from the drive gear, and lower to engage it again quickly to alter the point where the drum goes into foreward/reverse, and it always seems to end up in a different position. Some might say this is unkind to the poor little Jobo, but as long as there is not a gallon of developer in there, it dosnt seem to mind. Just another tweak in searching for even-ness. On the whole rotary deving should make for the most even negs.

Richard,

I use an ATL-2300, so the 3005 expert drum would probably be a good option. Unfortunately the cost for that unit has recently risen to £350.00.

I enjoyed visiting your website, interesting design, another reminded that I need to upgrade my own.

Tom

 

[Ian Grant]

Yes deep tanks do need dedicated space thats why I've stuck to using my Paterson tanks for 120 and Jobo 2000 's for 5x4, but there's a hole in the market place for something better for 10x8 processing, replenishment makes the volumes needed economic, I don't like rotary drums.

Ian

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Yes deep tanks do need dedicated space thats why I've stuck to using my Paterson tanks for 120 and Jobo 2000 's for 5x4, but there's a hole in the market place for something better for 10x8 processing, replenishment makes the volumes needed economic.
Ian

Referring to a more compact unit?

Tom.

 

[Ian Grant]

Yes something compact & preferably light tight to allow daylight processing. I don't enjoy hours of dish processing. This needs a new thread ideally.

Ian

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Yes something compact & preferably light tight to allow daylight processing. I don't enjoy hours of dish processing. This needs a new thread ideally.

Ian

Would you include all tanks (Dev, stop, fix, wash, rinse aid) within a single unit?

Tom.

 

[Mark Antony]

I ran a pair of handlines for a while (name escapes me) they had PVC tanks of 15L that were heated in a jacket of air the E-6 unit was quite large about 5ft x 7ft. I loved using them especially to develop 8x10 sheets 10 at a time in those Hewes hangers and baskets. If I win the lottery I'll invest in some more and run C41 and E-6.
Replenishment is a good method if your throughput is high enough, I seem to remember about 1 round (replenisher put in=same as tank volume) per week being considered good for process control.
After I'd processed a basket I'd keep a film tally and put the amount of replenisher in recommended by the data-sheets I could do 4-5 baskets a day.
Once the tank was seasoned the tone and contrast was wonderful, better than the dip and dunk I replaced it with and more consistent than hand processing in a rotary tube.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Mark,

In terms of replenishment rate: If for example the recommended rate was 50ml per 80 sq", and you processed 10 films; would you remove 500ml of solution from the 15L tank and add 500ml of replenisher?

To give a worked example: If I had 7000ml developer solution, and total change over is recommended on a weekly basis; with a replenishment rate of 70ml per 80 sq", I would have to (or be able to) put 100 rolls or sheets of 8x10 through the system within a week.

Tom.

 

[Mark Antony]

Yes Tom that's how it worked replenisher is stronger than tank solution from memory. 35mm and 120 would have say 30ml per film 4x5 sheet 1 etc you' just count the films from you tally take out the tank sol and replenish using makers per film rates.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

How was the consistency? I guess developing other photographers films makes consistency harder to judge unless you run process control films.

Another related question: How did you hang the sheet film to dry?

Tom.

 

[Mark Antony]

I ran process control strips, it was pretty consistent the film was put in a Marrutt drying cabinet:
http://www.marrutt.com/film-drying-cabinets.php

 

[Ian Grant]

Film is dried in the hanger used during development.

Ian

 

[dancqu]

I'm just a tinkerer at heart. Michael

I tinkered with D-23 at a 1:7 dilution and found
the results very good. So I've stuck with it. D-76
is actually a very similar developer so should also
work at that dilution. For starters I'd give a 120 roll
in 500ml of solution 20 minutes with 2 or 3 inversions
every other minute.

Yield, 16 rolls per liter of stock strength. Dan

 

[Ronald Moravec]

You can not stretch it by dilution because you need a minimum 4 oz of stock to make any dilution for 80 sq in. of film, or 1 36 exp roll.

to use 1:3, mix 4 oz stock and 12 water . A 16 oz tank is therefore required for a single 36 exposure roll .

 

[dancqu]

You can not stretch it by dilution because you need
a minimum 4 oz of stock to make any dilution for 80
sq in. of film, or 1 36 exp roll.

Has that 4 oz minimum been verified by testing?
At one time D-76 was suggested to be used only
full strength . Then Kodak OK'ed 1:1 one-shot.
Now users report 1:3 one-shot is OK.

I've never seen, other than by myself, D-23
recommended any more dilute than 1:3. After
a few rolls of 120 through at 1:7 I can say it
works very well.

I don't use D-76 but if I did I'd test to find it's
minimum. Without some independent verification
that 1:3 suggested maximum dilution may as well
have come off a box of Kodak's D-76. Likely full or
1:1 strengths are still the only suggested strengths.
With enough time I think D-76 1:7 can do it. Dan

 

[Ian Grant]

Kodak have recommended using D76 FS + replenishment, or alternately 1+1 or 1+3 for as long as I've been active in photography, late 1960's.

The issue with over diluting a developer is you run a high risk of compressing the tones as you will exhaust the developer, in some cases this might be beneficial, and people do this deliberately with Rodinal at 1+100 or 1+200 where a scene contains a long dynamic range/high contrast. But for normal lighting or the typically flat lighting found in the UK the last thing you want is to flatten & compress the tonal range.

Although Ilford and Kodak don't publish a time a 1+2 dilution is far better in my experience than 1+3 with ID-11/D76.

Ian