Diluted Development

[bobwysiwyg]

I've been shooting 35mm for a number of years, and tended to go by the book, so to speak, using developers in undiluted form. Having started into LF with 4x5 I'm considering trying D-76 1:1. Aside from the obvious increase in development time and effectively doubling developer volume, are there any other trade-offs I should be aware of? Assuming all specs followed, time, temp, etc., will the results be the same?

 

[df cardwell]

D-76 1:1 is pretty much by the book, isn't it ?

If it were 1968, I'd say you'd gain speed, sharpness, and useful tonality at a small sacrifice of fine grain.

Since Kodak and Ilford (and Fuji) are so much improved since those days, I'd say there is NO reason to use D-76 straight. Depending on what you're doing, you might even prefer using D-76 1+2. Like shooting snaps at the Ark, or something like that.

 

[bobwysiwyg]

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm not doing anything extraordinary, just sticking with TMax 100/400 for the moment.

 

[fschifano]

With TMax 100 and 400, I see no real advantage to using straight D-76. Grain with both these films is very fine, and any diminution of apparent grain to be gained by using the developer straight up should be invisible unless you are viewing big enlargements at very close range. Even under those circumstances, you'll probably need to be looking for it in order to see it.

As for other tradeoffs, you might want to consult these two documents: F4016 for TMax 100 and F4043 for TMax 400.

 

[bobwysiwyg]

I don't think is has anything to do with diluted developer, but thought I would post it here since I did use it on this shot.

The weather here has been less than decent for outdoor shooting so I entertained myself by trying my hand at a fairly close, still-life. I was shooting T-Max 100, Symmar-S 5.6, 150mm. I shot it at f45 and because of the lighting and circumstances, the exposure was pretty long. It was developed using D-76, 1:1 per the specs for the temp.

My thoughts are this is not all that sharp. Now, being a scan and compressed to post it here has little to do with that as the orig. is less than I would expect.

I have noticed one thing, I use a Fresnel lens and though it does brighten the image, I sense it does cause me some issues while focusing, particularly with t small loupe I use. I don't think it is a high quality Fresnel and introduces a certain coarseness to the image when focusing. I'm wondering if this is causing me problems. I don't have, or seem to notice this at all on longer shots, but then a lot of them are near or at infinity. Anyone else have focusing issues with Fresnel screens?

 

[Ian Grant]

Since Kodak and Ilford (and Fuji) are so much improved since those days, I'd say there is NO reason to use D-76 straight. Depending on what you're doing, you might even prefer using D-76 1+2. Like shooting snaps at the Ark, or something like that.

If you want to dilute D76/ID-11 then 1+2 is an excellent suggestion and gives great negatives.

I have to agree there is no point in using D76/ID-11 or even Xtol undiluted unless you are going to use a replenishment system, which once ripened gives tye highest qualities you'll get from these developers, in my experience 1+2 is close.

Ian

 

[Larry.Manuel]

Focusing issues with Fresnel screens?

Yes, definitely. I bought a 30 dollar plastic screen for my Rollei, and decided to return it. It was much brighter, but made fine focusing [for me] almost impossible. It was very coarse, as you mentioned. The orginal 1930s ground glass was more efficient - things snap into focus [dimly, though].

Aside: my "improved" screen had a split image area, and that was worse than useless for me; it didn't help with fine focusing and intruded into the rest of the screen's area.

In my Rolleicord Vb, I have a 170 dollar Maxwell screen. It is the cat's meow; very bright and super sharp. Highly recommended.

 

[bobwysiwyg]

Thanks, Larry. I think I will pop the Fresnel out and try that.