D76 1:3, 1+3. 100ml:300ml water, mess up?

pdeeh said:

perhaps it would help move the discussion forward if you would explain how you interpret the datasheet and your rationale for that interpretation?

Click to expand...

Practical experience and not believing everything I read.

cliveh said:

Practical experience and not believing everything I read.

Click to expand...

As I posted earlier clive, well I agree that Kodak's recommendation for a minimum of 250 ml of "stock" D76 most likely includes a generous safety margin, I would respectively submit that using just 100 ml of stock in a 400 ml tank would most likely move the process way outside that safety margin.

cliveh said:

I beg to differ. If you look on the bottom of a Paterson tank it states 295ml for one 35mm film. 500ml is for 120 and Matt mentions using a litre?

Click to expand...

For me, it is a matter of consistent, repeatable results. Yes, I understand that 500 ml of fluid requires a 120 tank, but using D-76 diluted, requires 500 ml of the diluted solution, otherwise I have sometimes had underdeveloped negatives. I quit playing that game a long time ago. I got tired of thin negatives, as the OP has described.

MattKing said:

As I posted earlier clive, well I agree that Kodak's recommendation for a minimum of 250 ml of "stock" D76 most likely includes a generous safety margin, I would respectively submit that using just 100 ml of stock in a 400 ml tank would most likely move the process way outside that safety margin.

Click to expand...

As Miha states 1 Litre of chemistry and 4 rolls of 35mm equals 500ml of developer to 500ml of water for 4 rolls of film. This is 125ml of developer per roll. Can I take it this is inside your safety margin.

cliveh said:

As Miha states 1 Litre of chemistry and 4 rolls of 35mm equals 500ml of developer to 500ml of water for 4 rolls of film. This is 125ml of developer per roll. Can I take it this is inside your safety margin.

Click to expand...

This probably depends on the nature of what you are photographing. If the shots include a lot of bright, high key subjects, there would be a much greater chance of running into problems with developer exhaustion, than if the shots included large areas of dark shadows.

It may be that your preferences in photography factor in as well - wandering through your APUG gallery uploads I note very few images that I would describe as high key or predominantly based on bright highlights.

And of course if, like I do, you shoot shorter 35mm rolls (24 exposures is my favourite choice when bulk loading) then that tends to get you back closer to the manufacturer's recommendation.

I am inherently conservative about things like capacity, so I am more likely than some to add extra safety margin rather than count on using as much of the margin as possible.

This is probably part of the reason I use HC-110 in a replenishment regime, and have a selection of sizes of tanks to choose from.

I don't doubt that your experience leads you to an appropriate conclusion for you. I'm just suggesting that it is a good idea to recommend caution to others.

Cliveh.

Patterson only states how much liquid (Liquid nitrogen for all they care) it takes to cover one of their 35mm reels and 120 reels. They aren't the developer/fixer manufacturers and therefore don't address this issue. If you ever look with the top off how much 295ml is, with the reel in there, it barely covers it, and i personally would at least just go to 350ml to be safe (one of the reasons i went to 400ml)

As to the reason behind stating minimum amount of developer

KODAK states this is the minimum amount of developer per roll that you will ever need. So if you develop say 36 scenes that are pure white (maybe a small black dot somewhere, idk) and you use less than minimum amount of developer needed, you are still within safety margins. Me using less than stated half of minimum, would probably get gray negatives. And so, this minimum, is Kodaks insurance, so that no one can come back and say, hey, your d76 sucks, and doesn't develop fully. With the minimum amount of d76, this would be user error.

The film is expensive.

D-76 is cheap.

It is not worth taking a chance of getting results like the OP complains about.

mopar_guy said:

The film is expensive.

D-76 is cheap.

It is not worth taking a chance of getting results like the OP complains about.

Click to expand...

hey, thanks for reading the thread... and thanks for your oh so relevant opinion.

I agree there could be an issue with a 1:3 dilution, but for my own development I use 150ml of neat D76 with 150ml of water and have not found this a problem, even on high-key images.

Clive,

I think you're right to let experience speak, and let's not try to fix what isn't broken.

But the OP asked about an improvement, which is what we should try to accomplish to help with.

It may or may not be that the amount of developer used by OP is enough according to Kodak's instructions.
Irrespective of that, OP has stated that the use of Grade 5 filtration has helped in printing, which to me suggests underdeveloped negatives - for what the OP is trying to achieve.

To gain an improvement, and to change as little as possible in their work flow, to develop the film longer makes sense, because it would enable similar print quality with less printing gymnastics.

I always say that the paper and developer combination used by the printer, is first target in how film should be exposed and developed, in order to get the results that we want. To see the potential of US photographers controlling the whole chain of events is tremendously empowering. When you learn this, printing becomes a lot less frustrating, and with much less darkroom waste as a result.
But it does take some hard work and an objective view of our own results, in order to get there.

Thomas, I agree and apologise to OP for going off topic.