D76 Minimum Volume ....... Again?

haziz · Feb 21, 2017

Kodak recommends 250 ml (actually 237 ml, but close enough) of stock D76 for full development of a 35 mm roll/8x10 sheet equivalent. Ilford recommends 100 ml for ID11, which is supposed to be the same or very similar developer. Other sources side with Ilford on this.

Is Kodak being overly conservative?

Most of my rolls will be average density. I am using a SS tank and cannot meet Kodak's minimum volumes per roll when using D76 1:1 and using the tank's full reel capacity. Life is also too short, and the accumulated films to develop too many, to use the tank at less than it's full capacity for reels. I usually use 4 reels of 35 mm film in my Kindermann 1 L SS tank, and generally use D76 1:1, giving me 125 ml of stock D76 per roll.

Thanks.

bdial · Feb 21, 2017

The data sheet discusses running two rolls in 1:1 in a 16 oz tank, and recommends increasing the development time by 10%, this would be the same as 4 rolls in your 1 L tank.
http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/j78.pdf

My experience has been that 2 rolls in a SS tank with 1:1 with some time adjustment work just fine.

haziz · Feb 21, 2017

bdial said:
The data sheet discusses running two rolls in 1:1 in a 16 oz tank, and recommends increasing the development time by 10%, this would be the same as 4 rolls in your 1 L tank.
http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/j78.pdf

My experience has been that 2 rolls in a SS tank with 1:1 with some time adjustment work just fine.

My fear is that if in fact Kodak is being overly conservative and if in fact 125 ml is sufficient for full development, then I would be overcooking the highlights a bit by extending development.

David Lyga · Feb 21, 2017

In my opinion, vastly conservative. Proof? Ilford has recommendations for its identical ID II with dilutions up to 1 + 3. If THEY don't understand chemistry, who does?

I would not hesitate using D-76 as high as 1 + 4, even for a 36 exposure roll in a 240mL tank. - David Lyga

bdial · Feb 21, 2017

I think both Kodak and Ilford understand chemistry. For either, the recommended times are presented as starting points.

I've always used slightly longer times than Kodak published when using D-76 1:1, not because of what was in the data sheet, but because it got me the result I liked. If you're concerned with with problems with your highlights, then don't add the extra 10%, it's not a very big difference. I've processed 100's of rolls using D-76 1:1 in two-reel SS tanks.

FWIW, Ilford's recommended time for Tri-X in ID-11 (1:1) is 11 minutes, Kodak's time for D-76 is 9 3/4 minutes. Ilford's time is a bit more than Kodak's +10% recommendation for small tanks.

flavio81 · Feb 21, 2017

haziz said:
Kodak recommends 250 ml (actually 237 ml, but close enough) of stock D76 for full development of a 35 mm roll/8x10 sheet equivalent. Ilford recommends 100 ml for ID11, which is supposed to be the same or very similar developer. Other sources side with Ilford on this.

I wonder what tank do you use that is able to really use 250mL for a single roll of 35mm film. Mine requires like 350mL to be sure you cover the spool with developer.

haziz · Feb 21, 2017

flavio81 said:
I wonder what tank do you use that is able to really use 250mL for a single roll of 35mm film. Mine requires like 350mL to be sure you cover the spool with developer.

Are you using a Paterson plastic tank?

I am using Kindermann stainless steel tanks, with Hewes stainless steel reels, which gives me room for 4 reels in the 1 L tank. Pretty standard for stainless steel tanks actually. I think it will actually accommodate 5 reels of the more lightweight Kindermann reels, but the more robust Hewes reels are a little bulkier because of the heavier gauge wire and robust skeleton. I love the Hewes reels! Perfect, and effortless, loading each time! 4 Hewes reels will fit in that tank with some slop in the vertical direction.

Bill Burk · Feb 21, 2017

As already pointed out by @bdial, the datasheet for D-76 tells you that if you plan to use D-76 1:1 and you "want to extend the useful capacity" that you should extend the development time by 10%.

It's OK to use less than the recommended amount of stock solution, but you should develop longer to compensate for the fact that you are using less.

It's not that the given recommendations are conservative... it's that the times published were determined following the recommendation exactly.

If you are going to change something, then you should adjust to make up for it.

Sal Santamaura · Feb 21, 2017

haziz said:
Kodak recommends 250 ml (actually 237 ml, but close enough) of stock D76 for full development of a 35 mm roll/8x10 sheet equivalent. Ilford recommends 100 ml for ID11, which is supposed to be the same or very similar developer. Other sources side with Ilford on this.

Is Kodak being overly conservative?...

Again, as in all other threads discussing the same issue, it's a matter of 'control' vs. 'crap shoot.'

Read the Ilford data sheet, pages 7 and 8, concerning "REUSING DEVELOPER WITHOUT REPLENISHMENT" here:

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427133131459.pdf

There are a whole lot of weasel words taking HARMAN off the hook in those paragraphs. If one wishes to obtain repeatable, not-dependent-on-scene-content results, with either D-76 or ID-11, use a minimum of 250ml stock solution (regardless of dilution) per 80 square inches of film, and use it one-shot.

OK, everyone can now return to their "it works fine" comments and continue to ignore/ridicule best practices.

flavio81 · Feb 21, 2017

Sal Santamaura said:
OK, everyone can now return to their "it works fine" comments and continue to ignore/ridicule best practices.

But it works fine! Stupid "best practices"! LOL

Actually i agree with you. Why not stick with the manufacturer's recommendation? Developer is very cheap, to be honest.

haziz · Feb 21, 2017

Sal Santamaura said:
Again, as in all other threads discussing the same issue, it's a matter of 'control' vs. 'crap shoot.'

Read the Ilford data sheet, pages 7 and 8, concerning "REUSING DEVELOPER WITHOUT REPLENISHMENT" here:

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427133131459.pdf

There are a whole lot of weasel words taking HARMAN off the hook in those paragraphs. If one wishes to obtain repeatable, not-dependent-on-scene-content results, with either D-76 or ID-11, use a minimum of 250ml stock solution (regardless of dilution) per 80 square inches of film, and use it one-shot.

OK, everyone can now return to their "it works fine" comments and continue to ignore/ridicule best practices.

I am using D76 1:1 one shot, then discarding. I believe the referenced section discusses reuse of stock ID11 with or without replenishment.

Wallendo · Feb 21, 2017

Just use ID-11. It's a little more expansive, but still cheap. This way you can use 125ml per film and still be in-line with the manufacturers recommendations or "best practices".

If no one is looking, you could also just use Ilford's ID-11 times for D76.

haziz · Feb 21, 2017

flavio81 said:
But it works fine! Stupid "best practices"! LOL

Actually i agree with you. Why not stick with the manufacturer's recommendation? Developer is very cheap, to be honest.

Developer IS cheap. My time is NOT. I want to get 4 rolls out of each time I develop. Or 8 rolls if I use my humongous stainless steel tank. I prefer to use D76 as 1:1 for the small increase in accutance, at the cost of marginally bigger grain. I am using D76 1:1, one shot. I am not reusing the developer. I have way too many rolls of film to develop to try to use the tank at less than maximum capacity.

flavio81 · Feb 21, 2017

Wallendo said:
If no one is looking, you could also just use Ilford's ID-11 times for D76.

I saw what you did there! Naughty boy!

flavio81 · Feb 21, 2017

haziz said:
Developer IS cheap. My time is NOT. I want to get 4 rolls out of each time I develop. Or 8 rolls if I use my humongous stainless steel tank. I prefer to use D76 as 1:1 for the small increase in accutance, at the cost of marginally bigger grain. I am using D76 1:1, one shot. I am not reusing the developer. I have way too many rolls of film to develop to try to use the tank at less than maximum capacity.

If your time is expensive, why do you use D76 1:1? You could use D76 straight for radically shorter development times...

bdial · Feb 21, 2017

You can process 4 rolls in a 1 liter tank at 1:1 and still be consistent with what's stated in Kodak's data sheet, though it does slightly violate their minimum quantity recommendation. The only caveat is that they recommend adding 10% to the development times shown in their chart. That would be my recommendation too, as I stated earlier, I came to that by being unhappy with the contrast I was getting over many rolls processed at the times shown in their charts.

The contrast difference is corrected easily enough in printing, if you need to.

Sal Santamaura · Feb 21, 2017

haziz said:
...Developr IS cheap. My time is NOT. I want to get 4 rolls out of each time I develop...

Get another tank and develop two batches simultaneously?

haziz said:
...I prefer to use D76 as 1:1 for the small increase in accutance, at the cost of marginally bigger grain...

If you used XTOL, only 100ml of stock would do as much developing as 250ml of D-76/ID-11 stock; you'd get finer grain and higher acutance too. These advantages hold at any comparable dilution. Please don't reply that XTOL is unreliable -- many APUG threads exist where proper mixing and storing procedures are detailed to enable keeping XTOL stock for a year or more with no deterioration.

haziz said:
...I have way too many rolls of film to develop to try to use the tank at less than maximum capacity.

My first reaction to that is, unless you're a professional photographer or photo lab, shoot less film more discriminately. Seriously, though, consider XTOL. It'll solve all your capacity challenges and provide better results than D-76 or ID-11. I've performed the comparison trials with a variety of films and not found once case where the older general purpose developers were better.

haziz · Feb 21, 2017

Sal Santamaura said:
Get another tank and develop two batches simultaneously? If you used XTOL, only 100ml of stock would do as much developing as 250ml of D-76/ID-11 stock; you'd get finer grain and higher acutance too. These advantages hold at any comparable dilution. Please don't reply that XTOL is unreliable -- many APUG threads exist where proper mixing and storing procedures are detailed to enable keeping XTOL stock for a year or more with no deterioration.My first reaction to that is, unless you're a professional photographer or photo lab, shoot less film more discriminately. Seriously, though, consider XTOL. It'll solve all your capacity challenges and provide better results than D-76 or ID-11. I've performed the comparison trials with a variety of films and not found once case where the older general purpose developers were better.

I do also use Xtol for some films, also as 1:1 one shot.

I did try to run two tanks simultaneously, a few times, particularly the Combi tanks for 4x5 but got fairly flustered easily with running and timing both. It was no longer fun.

MattKing · Feb 21, 2017

These discussions about developer capacity are always interesting.
Of course, any analysis of capacity depends a lot on assumptions and statistics.
Capacity is affected by subject choice. Strictly speaking, a given quantity of developer will have much less capacity (in terms of numbers of rolls) for a photographer who shoots a bunch of high key portraits of Caucasian people dressed in white than for a photographer who loves dark and moody scenes with hints of detail in the inky shadows.
So all of the manufacturers make assumptions and do statistical analysis of what the "average" roll is like, and then build in a safety factor.
It could be that Ilford's assumptions are based on winters in Scotland. Of course, if Kodak's assumptions were based on winters in Rochester, one would expect similar results . But in any event, the assumptions are likely at least slightly different.
By the way, just because ID-11 and D-76 may be chemically similar, it doesn't mean that they are necessarily mixed to the same strength when stock solutions are prepared. So if they are mixed differently, one would expect different capacity, and different developing times.

Mick Fagan · Feb 21, 2017

flavio81 said:
I wonder what tank do you use that is able to really use 250mL for a single roll of 35mm film. Mine requires like 350mL to be sure you cover the spool with developer.

The Jobo 1510 tank requires 140ml for rotary processing on a Jobo machine. If you wish to use hand inversion in your sink, then you need 240ml of solution; I use 250ml myself, it is an easier for me amount to mix up.

Mick.

Harry Stevens · Feb 22, 2017

Never got my steel tank for the amount of developer it uses but 300ml does two 35mm films or one 120.
My trouble with the D76 or ID II is the fact I need save up my rolls of exposed film to use it economically.

RedSun · Jan 31, 2020

Kodak says the capacity for one roll of 135/120 is 250ml. Some say that the absolute minimum is 100ml. It is quite a big difference. I'd go with a safer volume like 200 to 250ml. So we know the developer is safe.

Jobo 1520 has 240ml/485 and 2520 has 270/560. Good if you do D-76 1:1.

pentaxuser · Jan 31, 2020

flavio81 said:
I wonder what tank do you use that is able to really use 250mL for a single roll of 35mm film.

Jobo 1510 tanks and Durst tanks. So it would seem that if the OP has stated the Kodak instructions correctly then neither of the two tanks aforementioned are fit for anything except stock solutions? This would exclude Paterson tanks as well as they are only 300ml. So for D76 at 1+1 you need a 500 ml tank ?

Just seem a little strange to me that for 2 developers that on other threads nearly all are agreed are identical developers that the instructions should diverge the way they do. I find it difficult to reconcile the identical developer consensus with the divergence on minimum quantities and then being able to conclude that both Kodak and Ilford have got it right. Could we be reading wrongly what one or the other (Ilford/Kodak) say?

pentaxuser

Sal Santamaura · Jan 31, 2020

RedSun said:
Kodak says the capacity for one roll of 135/120 is 250ml. Some say that the absolute minimum is 100ml...

Aw, come on, why believe the manufacturer when "some" tell you different?

D-76, Perceptol, D-23, etc.: 250ml of stock per 80 square inches of film. Confidence or crap shoot, the choice is yours.

RedSun · Jan 31, 2020

Sal Santamaura said:
Aw, come on, why believe the manufacturer when "some" tell you different?

D-76, Perceptol, D-23, etc.: 250ml of stock per 80 square inches of film. Confidence or crap shoot, the choice is yours.

Yes, but Kodak somehow and somewhere stated the minimum of 100ml. So it makes some people excited to same half a dollar.

D76 Minimum Volume ....... Again?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency