D76

[Jesper]

Most any developer that you learn to use for different situations and films will be a good one when you know exactly how it will behave and how to get what you want from it.
Personally I use Rodinal with three different films and have been doing so for many years, but it could just as well have been D76.
The point is, know your tools and they will provide good results. Don't go chasing silver bullets (too often).

 

[Photo Engineer]

If I remember I believe Mr. Troop in The Darkroom Cookbook stated that the Original formulation for D-76 that the ph of the Metol component began to rise during storage and that Kodak had to do re-formulations over the years to counter act this problem. He also stated that is why ID-11 is in two parts,one part is the Metol alone and the other packet contains the other ingredients. If I am wrong, someone in the know please correct me. I don't have my copy of this book and I am just going from memory.

Doug

Doug;

The buffering capacity of the original D-76 was adjusted in later formulas. For the chemistry involved with the ingredient that changed the pH (HQ, not Metol) see Haist. However, the reason for 1 or 2 packages is explained in my earlier post. Kodak has a method which allows the mixing of two ingredients that would otherwise have to be packed in two packages. In fact, the original D-76 and several later generations were packed in two packages until the method was invented which allowed them both to be placed in one pakage.

Bill Troop also has the explanation for the pH change in his book.

PE

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

It is the best. Along with Rodinal, HC-110 and Pyrocat-HD which are the best too.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

It is the best. Along with Rodinal, HC-110 and Pyrocat-HD which are the best too.

pretty much. Rodinal is the best for my needs, and mostly because I know it the best...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I like dragon spit mixed with the extract of human gall bladders. It makes both the best developer AND color in the entire universe.
Just don't forget to use the phenidone version. It is much superior.

 

[Rick A]

D-76 has been and always be my fall back developer. I use a couple of other developers for specific results, but D-76 remains my go-to for general purpose and reliability. Years ago I thought Microdol-x was great, but never was able to tweak my work in it, so it was back to D-76. There is no "one best", only one that fits the most criteria close enough to be the "one most used".


Oh ya--puce is it for me!

 

[yeknom02]

I've never bought D76 because the hipster gene in me decided it was too "mainstream." I started with HC-110 instead. I've tried a lot of different developers since then, and right now I'm enjoying the mix of Rodinal and Xtol that I first discovered on Unblinking Eye. (I just got done shooting the last of my HP5 stockpile and am now looking at this developer combination with Tri-X, which I'll probably stick with for quite a while.)

My approach of "I'll try everything out just to try it" is probably frowned upon by everyone here, but I enjoy the process of developing and trying new things in the darkroom almost more than shooting photos. I will eventually slow down and do some "serious" tests to dial in my own personal developing times and film speeds, but I'm in no hurry.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Hence my earlier comment re mixing the original published formula versus using the current packaged version.

Regarding the pH issue in particular though, if it is true the working properties of D76H were indistinguishable from D76, why didn't Kodak go with it? It's an elegant, single-agent formula, basically a more active version of D23. Why did Kodak continue with MQ D76?

The current D76 as mixed by Kodak, and the published formula are virtually identical except for the surfactant and the encapsulating ingredient, the latter of which protects the ingredients from coming in contact and reacting during storage. In addition, D76 and all other EK chemistry is packed under an inert atmosphere.

D76H, formulated by Grant Haist, is a variant that Kodak did not introduce due to a variety of reasons, among which includes the fact that they would be competing with themselves in a sense. Also, since the "real" D76 is the reference for all releases by EK, then it was almost assured that they could not change formulas.

BTW, the sequestering agent has changed over the years from Calgon to Quadrofos to whatever, and the encapsulating chemical and method are trade secrets.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Michael;

Do it and find out! Don't just keep us in suspense!!!!

 

[Paul Howell]

Interesting.

I still wonder though, if one developed test films identically (same time, agitation, temp etc) in packaged ID11, packaged D76, and the published D76 formula, would the results be identical in every aspect? ...

Over the years I have used Kodak, Ilford, ANSCO, GAF (which is also ANSCO) and Forma versions of D 76, I dont know if they are identical in every way, but the developing times and results seem to match Kodak. When I last check there were differnaces in the forumlas between the differnt brands, does not seem to make a difference in the results. ANSCO is like ID 11 came in 2 parts, but the GAF version was a single mix.

 

[Chris Douglas]

FWIW

Great information everyone! When I started mixing my own D76 I used the "original" formula and experienced the variable activity problem. Now I mix D76d, and it is rock stable for months and months. I have always used 1:1 one shot FWIW.

 

[cliveh]

Great information everyone! When I started mixing my own D76 I used the "original" formula and experienced the variable activity problem. Now I mix D76d, and it is rock stable for months and months. I have always used 1:1 one shot FWIW.

I can't understand why anyone would want to mix their own D76 when the original is available ready formulated. Should I try and make my own Leica?

 

[spoolman]

Thanks for correcting me on this. For some reason, a little voice inside me said That Dr. Haist was the person that discovered this anomily. I just found my copy of the Darkroom Cookbook and I felt stupid when I re-read the article in it on D-76.

Doug

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I can't understand why anyone would want to mix their own D76 when the original is available ready formulated. Should I try and make my own Leica?

Perhaps because they think it's fun.
Different strokes for different folks.

And maybe because you can! Be hard to make your own Leica, though.

I'm like you, though, and buy my chemicals pre-packaged and ready to mix.

 

[Roger Cole]

I can't understand why anyone would want to mix their own D76 when the original is available ready formulated. Should I try and make my own Leica?

Because you can mix only as much as you need, fresh each time. Because maybe you don't use it that often but the ingredients are commonly used in other formulas and you can have it on hand when you do need it without stocking another powder, and then not have to mix so much of it.

I've never done it, but I can see some reasons.

 

[PhotoJim]

I can't understand why anyone would want to mix their own D76 when the original is available ready formulated. Should I try and make my own Leica?

A few reasons:

1. It's very inexpensive to mix your own, once you have an accurate scale (which is only a few tens of dollars) and the raw ingredients (hydroquinone, metol, sodium sulfite and borax, if I remember correctly). Particularly for those who prefer to mix small amounts at one time (two litres and under), the cost savings will be significant.
2. You can mix precisely the quantity you want. You are not limited to one litre or one US gallon (an awkward measurement for we metric workers) or five litres. Mix whatever amount you want.
3. The raw ingredients keep for years - nearly indefinitely - if properly stored, and proper storage is not onerous.
4. If you have a stock of raw chemicals, you are no longer at the mercy of your local shop's stock levels or the delays of mail order. (Even if you normally use packaged chemicals, this is a good reason to have raw chemicals.)
5. You can tweak the formula if you wish.
6. You can use the same ingredients (less hydroquinone and borax) to make D-23, which is an interesting developer unto itself. If you buy a small number of other chemicals, you can make many more developers including print developers.
7. There is a slight geeky coolness to being able to do it.

And to extend to why you might, in general, use bulk chemicals (perhaps a new thread is in order if people want to talk about this):

8. Photographic chemical companies come and go. If you have the formula for a chemical, you can make it yourself and are no longer dependent on that company's existence to procure the packaged chemical. (Ansco 130 is a great example of this - it's my favourite print developer but it hasn't been sold on the marketplace, aside from Photographer's Formulary's small kits, in decades.) I imagine D-76 will be the last developer standing if the market really contracts, but there are plenty of other developers (and other photochemicals) that will be gone that will still be viable through home chemistry.

I wouldn't build my own Leica - but a good analogy might be why I might make my own coffee or tea at home when I can go to a shop and they can make it for me. If you don't want the hassle, don't do it, but it has definite advantages.

We're talking easy stuff - measure, measure, measure, measure, add to warm water, stir, done. It's not that much harder than mixing up a package of D-76 from Kodak.

 

[removed account4]

I can't understand why anyone would want to mix their own D76 when the original is available ready formulated. Should I try and make my own Leica?

hi clive

its like coating one's own paper,
or making a box camera, or using coffee beans instead of instant ...


maybe because it is fun ?

i have never used d76 so i don't even know why one uses it

 

[Roger Cole]

hi clive

its like coating one's own paper,
or making a box camera, or using coffee beans instead of instant ...


maybe because it is fun ?

i have never used d76 so i don't even know why one uses it

It's simple and effective, has no bad habits, and there's reliable development data readily available for every black and white film on the planet. (Yeah, you can find all kinds of data for anything on the Massive Development Chart, but it's all over the place, as befits reports of personal experience. All manufacturers test with D76 under controlled conditions. Of course you should do your own fine tuning, but you can pretty much put any film into D76 for manufacturer's time and get usable results, at least. An exception might be old Agfa but that was because they used a CI for their data much higher than most people want.)

 

[Dan Williams]

Green is blue with yellow added.

No it isn't. It is yellow with blue added.

 

[Photo Engineer]

It would be an interesting experiment. But you of all people know how difficult it would be to come to meaningful conclusions unless the differences were relatively big. It was hard enough for me to analyze my test results for XTOL vs D76 vs etc. Trying to compare three developers that are purportedly the same would be that much harder.

Actually as a general rule, developers which give the same H&D curves at the same dilution, development time and temperature will generally be virtually identical for grain and sharpness. So, an H&D curve will work in this case where the developers are intended to be identical (even if they are not because an anomaly will show up in the H&D curve after all).

You know the old saying, "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....".

However, if the H&D curves are at variance (> 0.05 log E in speed or say 1% in mid scale contrast or toe or dhoulder) then there is a problem.

PE

 

[PhotoJim]

No it isn't. It is yellow with blue added.

Addition is transitive.

 

[Zathras]

No it isn't. It is yellow with blue added.

No way,

It is WHITE with red and blue SUBTRACTED!!!

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'm kind of surprised by this statement. Or maybe not. Not sure.

I'll have to emphasize a phrase in that last post of mine a bit. I was not clear and you have taken this out of context.

I did say "for developers that are intended to have the same formula" so the example here would be the published vs the pre-packed versions of D76. Obviously Xtol and HC110 can give the same H&D curve as D76, but they would not be at the same times or dilutions. And, the grain and sharpness would be different, but then they have radically different formulas from D76.

PE

 

[Bill Burk]

i have never used d76 so i don't even know why one uses it

I've never* used anything else so I don't even know why not.

*Really, I have used other developers, but I can count the times...

-T-Max. Once. Still have 3/4 bottle.
-Microdol-X. At least I thought about using it. I still have a bag.
-Technidol with Technical Pan. I don't know though... the box still has three bottles.
-XR-1. Or maybe I just brought home the data sheet for it.
-Pint-sized Reversal kits to make B&W slides from Panatomic-X. This was about the same time I switched from Paterson tanks to steel tanks because 16 ounces doesn't cover two 35mm rolls.
-E-6 a few times.
-This doesn't count Rapid Access developers during years of graphic arts prepress work - that would throw off the statistics unfairly.

p.s. I work for Kodak but the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I did use D-76, honestly, it was just ok, not that great one, comparing it to Ilfosol 3 and TMAX for some films i developed i don't make that D-76 as top choice, don't get me wrong, it is a good developer but i don't get impressed with the results out of D-76 as i do with TMAX and Ilfosol 3, and i started to use HC-110, i will use it later for normal exposure i mean no pull/push and see how will be the results.

Bottom line, D-76 is an easy developer as it is a standard one, and it will give great results for sure, but i don't state that it is the best one so far, i used 1G and 1L of D-76 and i got results with few films but only 1 or 2 was decent great, with TMAX i got all films decent amazing, with Ilfosol 3 i've got about 98$ decent results as i want.