D76 1:3?

[jgcull]

I was just looking up a developing time on the Massive Developing Chart, and I saw a suggested time for D76 diluted 1:3. I always use it 1:1.

Why might one want to dilute it further, other than saving the quantity? How might the results differ?

Thanks.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I was just looking up a developing time on the Massive Developing Chart, and I saw a suggested time for D76 diluted 1:3. I always use it 1:1.

Why might one want to dilute it further, other than saving the quantity? How might the results differ?

Thanks.

Less solvent effect, so more grain, but sharper.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's quite compensating at 1+3, it compresses the tones and unless it's a bright contrasty day images can be a bit flat. Although 1+2 isn't on the charts it's a better compromise.

Ian

 

[MikeSeb]

You don't really save any D76 by diluting it; you still need the same amount of "stock" developer (as initially mixed out of the package) per roll of film, regardless how you dilute it.

 

[CBG]

Higher dilutions are about tonality, grain, the impression of sharpness and acutance. More dilute developers tend to exhaust in the highlights, and to disproportionately keep working in the shadows, resulting in the compensating effects noted above.

 

[jgcull]

OK. Thank you all.

 

[johnnywalker]

You don't really save any D76 by diluting it; you still need the same amount of "stock" developer (as initially mixed out of the package) per roll of film, regardless how you dilute it.

You do need a minimum amount of stock developer per roll or square inch and my Paterson tanks want a minimum of 290 ml of solution per roll of 35mm. Isn't more than the minimum of stock a waste unless you're re-using it or want the particular look that goes with that concentration?

I don't know what the minimum per roll is for Perceptol, but at 1+3 I would be using 72.5 ml stock and 217.5 ml of water. At 1+1 I would be using 145 ml each of stock and water.

 

[fschifano]

Like Mike said, you don't save anything because you do need a minimum amount of stock solution to properly develop a roll of film. I think Kodak's recommended minimum is about 250 ml. / 80 sq. in. of film. That might be overly conservative, but not by much. I use 200 ml. / 80 sq. in. and that works out well for me, but wouldn't go any lower than that without compensating for exhaustion by adding a little more development time. It's all very well documented in Kodak's J-78 tech pub.

I do like the comensating effect you get with the 1+3 dilution. Works very well for contrasty films like PanF+. For most everything else, I find the higher dilution to be of little practical use. You don't really save anything, development times can run very long, and practically all grain amelioration goes out the window. Sharpness? Well, that's debatable. Can you see the difference from a normal viewing distance? No. If you want to examine the negatives directly with a high powered magnifier, you might; but who cares about that?

 

[brucemuir]

Well with the paterson that takes 20 oz I will go 10 oz of D76 and 10 oz water without issue with 2 roll of 135...

If I do straight, I'll 20 oz of D76 stock for 2 films so I'm only using half as much when going 1:1 and I'm not seeing a huge difference.

I always rate my film generously to ensure good shadows but I don't get thin negs with the 10 oz of stock for 2 135 rolls.

 

[madNbad]

I decided to revive this old thread instead of starting a new one. Having developed Tri-X in Rodinal for the last year, I wanted to try a different developer. I tried Ilfotec HC, didn't like it and gave the bottle away. I've been waiting for Adox XT-3 to become available in the U.S. but that won't be until the end of October. I ordered a couple of one liter packages of the Film Photography Project's D76 clone. I had been reading about how dilution changes the characteristics of D76 and wanted something that would give good sharpness like Rodinal but buffer the grain a bit. I did two rolls yesterday and was impressed with the results. The negatives are easy to scan and offer good tonal range. The grain is apparent, sharpness is better than I expected. Any opinions on this dilution?

 

[pentaxuser]

They look fine to me

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

These look great. Get a little Ohaus mechanical balance and make your own. I think Freestyle Legacy, L-76, I think that's what it's called, probably the most used developer ever formulated.

 

[MattKing]

The biggest concern with more dilute versions of D76 is that you need to use enough of it in your developing tank to avoid un-intended developer exhaustion.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

I have used Ilford Perceptol at 1:3 @ 200 asa with good results.
35mm negs enlarge to 16 x 20 with no problem.
I am considering trying D76 at 1:2 to see if the image quality is improved?

TB

 

[madNbad]

The biggest concern with more dilute versions of D76 is that you need to use enough of it in your developing tank to avoid un-intended developer exhaustion.

Made a one shot batch, 500ml. 125ml of stock developer to 375ml of water. 20 minutes at 20C, agitations every minute. Two 36 exposure rolls in the tank. At this rate, it should be good for 16 rolls per liter. This way, I can use up a liter of stock before making up the next batch. I don't use it fast enough to keep a gallon around but can finish off a liter well before it expires.

 

[MattKing]

Made a one shot batch, 500ml. 125ml of stock developer to 375ml of water. 20 minutes at 20C, agitations every minute. Two 36 exposure rolls in the tank. At this rate, it should be good for 16 rolls per liter. This way, I can use up a liter of stock before making up the next batch. I don't use it fast enough to keep a gallon around but can finish off a liter well before it expires.

125ml of stock developer is less than 1/2 of the stock developer that Kodak recommends for two 135-36 rolls - even with a 10% increase in time. You are likely incorporating some localized developer exhaustion for some of your rolls.

 

[madNbad]

Thanks, Matt. I've been reading through the Kodak data sheets and doing a lot of searching on the web. I never planned to use it full strength and 1+1 was going to be my starting point but when it came time to do the first rolls, I decided to give the 1+3 a try. Here are a few crummy iPhone photos of the negatives. I should have used my wife's 14, it has macro:







My task is to use the stock before it becomes exhausted. Kodak is generous with the storage times but I aiming for three months to finish the liter. I may do the next batch in 1+1 and see how they look. I appreciate your knowledge about Kodak products, thanks again for pointing it out.

 

[MattKing]

Just put a single roll in that 500 ml tank of 1+3 D76 and you will be fine - provided you add 10% to the recommended times.

 

[madNbad]

Just put a single roll in that 500 ml tank of 1+3 D76 and you will be fine - provided you add 10% to the recommended times.

Will do! I really like the results.

 

[pentaxuser]

Will do! I really like the results.

It appears from what I see that your negs and prints are fine with 125ml stock for 2 films. Were you just lucky and had the scenes and negatives demanded more stock as might be the case on another occasion depending on the scene and lighting would your luck have ran out? Well I cannot swear that it would not but I am wondering about whether any other scene and light conditions would have tipped the balance into producing a secondbest outcome that would have produced negatives that did not meet your requirements

As will be clear from the above I do wonder how much of a serious risk you run in the future having used 125ml with success

We are back to the old argument about the nature of minimum levels of stock and I have been in the same situation as you . In my case it was Ilford's Perceptol. Some say that as Ilford states that 1L of Perceptol does 4 film this means that Ilford recommends a minimum of 250ml of stock per film

I used 62.5 mls for a 1+3 dilution for a 250ml tank and the negs and prints( in my case darkroom prints) looked fine to me and others who viewed the prints.

As a result of mentioning this in a discussion I was told that I was "dicing with death" in terms of satisfactory negative outcome. I then decided to write to Ilford and they replied that 62.5 ml was on the limit and they suggested that 70ml would be better What they did not do was point me to their Perceptol does 4 films per litre of stock and politely or otherwise ask what I thought I was doing as well you might if someone was attempting to climb Mount Everest in trainers and pullover

I throw this in for your consideration

pentaxuser

 

[madNbad]

It appears from what I see that your negs and prints are fine with 125ml stock for 2 films. Were you just lucky and had the scenes and negatives demanded more stock as might be the case on another occasion depending on the scene and lighting would your luck have ran out? Well I cannot swear that it would not but I am wondering about whether any other scene and light conditions would have tipped the balance into producing a secondbest outcome that would have produced negatives that did not meet your requirements

As will be clear from the above I do wonder how much of a serious risk you run in the future having used 125ml with success

We are back to the old argument about the nature of minimum levels of stock and I have been in the same situation as you . In my case it was Ilford's Perceptol. Some say that as Ilford states that 1L of Perceptol does 4 film this means that Ilford recommends a minimum of 250ml of stock per film

I used 62.5 mls for a 1+3 dilution for a 250ml tank and the negs and prints( in my case darkroom prints) looked fine to me and others who viewed the prints.

As a result of mentioning this in a discussion I was told that I was "dicing with death" in terms of satisfactory negative outcome. I then decided to write to Ilford and they replied that 62.5 ml was on the limit and they suggested that 70ml would be better What they did not do was point me to their Perceptol does 4 films per litre of stock and politely or otherwise ask what I thought I was doing as well you might if someone was attempting to climb Mount Everest in trainers and pullover

I throw this in for your consideration

pentaxuser

Following Matt's advice, I went back and read Kodak's data sheet for D76 paying careful attention to the quantities of films each dilution has the ability to develop and life expectancy of stock developer. According to the data sheet, it's safe to do two rolls of 135-36 in 480ml tank using the 1+1 dilution and adding ten percent to the time. Next two rolls, I'll follow the recommendation and hopefully stay with it.

 

[MattKing]

It appears from what I see that your negs and prints are fine with 125ml stock for 2 films.

To me, these look like the result of partially exhausted developer:

 

[john_s]

Maybe for scanning the density range is good.

I've always wondered what the difference is between controlling contrast by limiting time and controlling it by allowing the whole tank of developer to become exhausted. I'm not referring to local exhaustion due to less agitation.

 

[MattKing]

Maybe for scanning the density range is good.

I've always wondered what the difference is between controlling contrast by limiting time and controlling it by allowing the whole tank of developer to become exhausted. I'm not referring to local exhaustion due to less agitation.

Exhaustion effects tend toward the uneven and "local".
I would say that the negatives I linked to may be easier to "rescue" if you are scanning, but that if you had more density and contrast, you are likely to get better scans.

 

[retina_restoration]

As others have stated, when diluted 1:3, D-76 becomes more of an acutance developer than a solvent developer, so sharpness improves, but grain gets more apparent.
It would be worth your time to look at Borut Peterlin's experiments where he developed clips of the same film, same image in D-76 at various dilutions and then printed the negs and summarized the results. This will tell you pretty much everything you need to know.