D76 1:2?

[Doc W]

I just tested Arista Edu 100 in my Jobo with D-76 1:1. I found that to get N-minus development, I would have to develop for less than 4 minutes, which is not recommended in the Jobo. I figured I would try D-76 1:2. Is there a downside to increasing the dilution of D-76 beyond 1:1? Kodak doesn't mention anything.

 

[Bill Burk]

I think it makes sense. Whatever you lose can't be as bad as the lighting condition that leads you to use N- in the first place. I'd plan on a speed closer to 10 than 100 though.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Nope. I diluted D76 from 1+1 up to 1+3. I never used it straight.

 

[Doc W]

I think it makes sense. Whatever you lose can't be as bad as the lighting condition that leads you to use N- in the first place. I'd plan on a speed closer to 10 than 100 though.

Bill, the light requiring N-1 development needn't be THAT bad, lol. I often use N-1 development to tame highlights. I would agree with you if we were talking N-2 or more.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I just tested Arista Edu 100 in my Jobo with D-76 1:1. I found that to get N-minus development, I would have to develop for less than 4 minutes, which is not recommended in the Jobo. I figured I would try D-76 1:2. Is there a downside to increasing the dilution of D-76 beyond 1:1? Kodak doesn't mention anything.

D76 is used as dilute as 1+3 and the massive dev chart shows dev times for many films. I believe, all you lose is grain, which may be anther benefit.

 

[Ian Grant]

D76/ID-11 are excellent at 1+2, grain increases slightly more at 1+3. I never liked D76/ID-11 at 1+3 finding it gave flat boring negatives under normal lighting conditions, but that's what your after with N-2 development to tame contrast.

Ian

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

D-76 1+2 is my standard developer. 100ml stock solution + 200ml water = 300ml working solution for 1 sheet of 4x5. 13 minutes at room temperature with minimal agitation. This image was exposed at TXP box speed of 320 with an incident meter positioned under the subject's chin with the dome pointed toward the camera.

 

[Doc W]

Thanks for the replies. I am going to give it a go!

 

[JPD]

No one has mentioned the mathematics, which development time to use. If the times for 1+0, 1+1 and 1+3 are known, what would the time for 1+2 be?

 

[Anon Ymous]

No one has mentioned the mathematics, which development time to use. If the times for 1+0, 1+1 and 1+3 are known, what would the time for 1+2 be?

Add about 75% to the time for stock, about 25% to the time for 1+1.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

13 minutes at room temperature with minimal agitation is my workflow for 1+2 dilution. Depends on one’s desired aesthetic.

 

[David Lyga]

Why not 1 + 3? If it's good enough for Ilford to recommend for its ID-11, it's good enough for Kodak. - David Lyga

 

[craigclu]

I recall using D-76 at 1:2 and liking the results better than 1:3 for my duties. Francis Miniter had posted his system that seemed to work well as a starting point for me. I plugged it into a spreadsheet back then and it might be handy for others so I am attaching it.

 

[MattKing]

D-76 1+2 may avoid some capacity issues that 1+3 is a problem for - particularly for those who use small developing tanks.

 

[Doc W]

No one has mentioned the mathematics, which development time to use. If the times for 1+0, 1+1 and 1+3 are known, what would the time for 1+2 be?

I always test using a step tablet. I will post the times and other data when I am done.

 

[David Lyga]

D-76 1+2 may avoid some capacity issues that 1+3 is a problem for - particularly for those who use small developing tanks.

Even with 240 mL developing tanks using a full 36 exposure roll: there will not be 'capacity' issues. Period. Stuff is stronger than you think. 'Capacities' especially from Kodak, were stated for sloppy workers. - David Lyga

 

[MattKing]

Even with 240 mL developing tanks using a full 36 exposure roll: there will not be 'capacity' issues. Period. Stuff is stronger than you think. 'Capacities' especially from Kodak, were stated for sloppy workers. - David Lyga

Or possibly for those who work a lot in high key lighting situations.
The very conservative Kodak capacity recommendations are very effective at preventing inconsistent results - something that matters a lot for commercial labs and high volume users - and those who just generally care about those things.
I expect David that you aren't much bothered by the small and somewhat unpredictable inconsistencies in density and contrast that one is likely to see if one regularly exceeds the Kodak capacity recommendations, which is fine.

 

[David Lyga]

Or possibly for those who work a lot in high key lighting situations.
The very conservative Kodak capacity recommendations are very effective at preventing inconsistent results - something that matters a lot for commercial labs and high volume users - and those who just generally care about those things.
I expect David that you aren't much bothered by the small and somewhat unpredictable inconsistencies in density and contrast that one is likely to see if one regularly exceeds the Kodak capacity recommendations, which is fine.

In a way you are correct, and, in a way, you are not. The tiny contrast differences that commercial labs are concerned with could easily be modified if they manifested in the negative. (I have my doubts whether they actually would.) Thus, in a theoretical sense, you probably are correct. But, unlike most dire warnings about this 'catastrophe', the difference would be not only small, but easily mitigated.

I fairness to me, I do not believe that Ilford offers warnings about using ID-11 (the same formula as D-76) at a 1 + 3 dilution. Of course, this is strictly 'one shot'. - David Lyga