Home brew D-76

John;

Just FYI, we had our (ir)regular lunch at George Eastman House today, and one of the items discussed was how much argumentation takes place on the internet over questions such as this. Especially since in most cases, the people in question are not chemists and have little experience in photographic chemistry in particular. We actually were laughing over the issue you mention and a few others as we discussed APUG. We found APUG to be a fine forum but with a lot of self proclaimed experts on certain subjects who are not. Some "experts" when pressed for examples of this or that work simply vanish or refuse to show their work. This is what we see.

And, it points up why they (my friends and associates) don't take part here, and why they think I am foolish "tilting at windmills" as I will never convince anyone really! They urged me to give up and seriously not consider trying to help a hopeless cause and let you guys believe whatever you wish. So John, your comment is a two edged sword of Damocles if you will (to emphasize the situation dramatically). It is hard for my actual experiences to be dismissed here for trying and then have your friends say "We told you so! You should give up!"

There is a thread here on cold fusion. I know enough to follow the action there, but I also know enough to keep my mouth shut and not try to post to the thread! Maybe this type of wisdom can seep into the heads of some of these self proclaimed "experts".

Sorry for the rant. It seems that I got it from both sides today. I thiink I deserved to vent a tiny bit.

PE

PE,

Please keep going.

Tom.

Tom Kershaw said:

PE,

Please keep going.

Tom.

Click to expand...

*******
Regarding PE's "rant:" I understand his reasons for venting because of an analogous experience I have in a totally different venue. When prior, I referred to hoped-for help from the real chemists, I meant that totally without irony and I take his advice. I still use my saved AC water for mixing my developers--but because of his admonishment about the potential for molds and mildews growing therein, I actually boil it for at least five minutes before filtering it and using it.
So, please, P.E. hang in here. I need you.

Photo Engineer said:

And, it points up why they (my friends and associates) don't take part here, and why they think I am foolish "tilting at windmills" as I will never convince anyone really! They urged me to give up and seriously not consider trying to help a hopeless cause and let you guys believe whatever you wish.

Click to expand...

My take on this is twofold:

• Your perception of "tilting at windmills" isn't entirely accurate because you repeatedly get into debates on certain topics with certain individuals. What you don't see is feedback from all the lurkers who quietly read your posts without posting back. You're probably having more of an effect than you know. It's like writing a book or a magazine article -- you might hear from a handful of readers, but you'll probably have many more readers from whom you never hear, but who benefit from your writing.
• The Internet isn't just a bunch of people yammering away in a basement; APUG, like many Web sites, gets archived in various ways. Thus, errors or bad procedures described here can get perpetuated, potentially for years. Contributing improved information here is therefore more important than it might at first seem.

There is a thread here on cold fusion. I know enough to follow the action there, but I also know enough to keep my mouth shut and not try to post to the thread! Maybe this type of wisdom can seep into the heads of some of these self proclaimed "experts".

Click to expand...

Don't count on it. People have been providing bogus information for a very long time. (Just check out all the ridiculous things that have been written about witchcraft, unicorns, the shape of the world, or what have you.) The best you can do is to correct the errors, preferably politely and perhaps with some form of documentation -- lots of people post incorrect information because they believe it's correct, and there's no point in antagonizing them. For the most part you do this well, PE.

Hahaha, I antagonize people well? That is one possible interpretation of the sentence, no offence intended.

But, my last post was meant more to explain why you see little contribution by many of my friends. They are put off. I still tilt away!

As for the boiled dehumidifier water, I learned about that from a Vet actually when he suggested we give it to a pet with a kidney problem. He said that DH water grew mold and mildew and was not safe. I then went to work and talked to friends about it and learned thereby!

This is a difficult path to tread. The posting is difficult and I have to keep from offending which I fail to do sometimes. Sorry about that. So, don't worry about me, but just consider that this is why there are no more doing what I do even though most of them are better qualified. If Grant Haist was on here, he would blow most of these people away with his in-depth knowledge. I know others who could do this as well.

My best wishes to you all. No offence intended.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Especially since in most cases, the people in question are not chemists and have little experience in photographic chemistry in particular. [...] We found APUG to be a fine forum but with a lot of self proclaimed experts on certain subjects who are not. Some "experts" when pressed for examples of this or that work simply vanish or refuse to show their work.

Click to expand...

The interweb is the great equalizer.

It wasn't that way in the past. Back then, you had to have money to self-publish, or you had to convince an editor that you knew what you were writing about to get published. (Or that you at least knew more than the editor did.) Now anyone with an IP address can post whatever information, disinformation, or non-information they want to their hearts content.

It's just the price we have to pay to have in order to have this (usually) great exchange.

I'm just glad that even one of you Kodak guys care enough that we have correct information to spend your time here. Think what having two of you guys here would be like!

My best wishes to you all. No offence intended.

PE[/QUOTE]

******
No offense taken. Now, about bringing back Verichrome Pan................

Anscojohn said:

You can use D23 straight; 1;1; or 1:3--just like 76.
However, D23 has less tendency to block up the highlights
if you are giving extra film development to boost your
shadows and other lower tones.

Click to expand...

I like it at 1:7. Good for 16 rolls; 500ml solution volume,
one-shot. Delivers full speed with great compensation.
For more normal contrast results agitate more.
Very flexible. Dan

Photo Engineer said:

srs5694 said:

The best you can do is to correct the errors, preferably politely and perhaps with some form of documentation -- lots of people post incorrect information because they believe it's correct, and there's no point in antagonizing them. For the most part you do this well, PE.

Click to expand...

Hahaha, I antagonize people well? That is one possible interpretation of the sentence, no offence intended.

Click to expand...

Oops. Bad phrasing on my part -- perhaps ironically, given the point I was trying to make about posting accurate information! To be clear: PE, you generally correct peoples' errors in a civil way without antagonizing them. For that matter, APUG as a whole is a pretty civilized place. Most APUGgers seem to know how to disagree without being disagreeable.

SRS;

I agree about most APUG members, but sometimes I fail to keep my cool.

I also make my share of errors and need (and accept) correction.

PE

Anscojohn said:

Next step is for you to descover the wonderment of the best-kept secret in all film developing lore. Eastman D-23. Just mix 7.5 grams of metol in the same amount of sodium sulfite you are currently using for D-76. You can use D23 straight; 1;1; or 1:3--just like 76. However, D23 has less tendency to block up the highlights if you are giving extra film development to boost your shadows and other lower tones. And D23 is a film developer you cannot buy over the counter.
Moreover, if you can get access to some sodium metaborate (or fabricate some with borax and sodium carbonate) you can make up Eastman Dk-25R replenisher. This will allow you to process 20 to 25 rolls of film per liter of D23 before you have to dump it.

Click to expand...

Hi Anscojohn - for my benefit as a less experienced home brewing rat, will you be kind to post the full, ahem, recipe for D-23 - or is it literally just metol, sodium sulfite and water?

Oh - and: Thanks for the good advice, sounds like D-23 is a viable contender!

Thanks
S.

yes. d-23 is as simple as that. The sulfite alone fulfills many roles in this developer: the preservative, the alkalie, and the restrianer.

Bob Schwallberg - former US Popular Photo writer rhapsodised that it was a proof of God that one chemical could do so many things at once.

Alessandro Serrao said:

Plus, if you use d23 and a borax afterbath (eventually cycling them) you'd get fantastic compensating characteristics. Truly mind-blowing!

Click to expand...

I did that for a while many years ago until I got (or I should say "made") my first densitometer. Then I compared D-23 full strength vs. D-23 with borax afterbath and found no significant difference in curve shape. Films were different, but I would think those thicker emulsions would have shown more change with 2-bath development than now.

Speaking of borax, why the strenuous objection to making a saturated solution at a lower temperature than room so as to overcome some possibility, acknowledged by the producers of 20 Mule Team products, that borax decahydrate may become the pentahydrate, and vice versa, upon exposure to different atmospheric conditions? The concentration of a saturated solution is well known in terms of the decahydrate, and it makes no difference whether the decahydrate or the penthydrate or a mixture was used in making the saturated solution. A solution saturated at, say, 15 C contains 379 grams of borax decahydrate, and when the clear liquor is separated from the precipitate, will contain that same weight at any usable higher temperature. If you weigh given volume of the saturate at the temperature at which it was saturated, you can calculate the weight of borax as a percentage of weight of solution, and that will be the same at all temperatures above the saturation temperature. No matter what grade of borax one starts with, there is some possibility of change of water of crystallization which may make the grade a moot point when considering the actual amount of borax in the weighed sample.

It's getting late in this part of the Appallachian's. I left out "per liter" after "379 grams". Reminds me of the newspaper errata report: "Officer Jones was described as a defective in the police force. He is actually a detective in the police farce."

Kvistgaard said:

Hi Anscojohn - for my benefit as a less experienced home brewing rat, will you be kind to post the full, ahem, recipe for D-23 - or is it literally just metol, sodium sulfite and water?

Oh - and: Thanks for the good advice, sounds like D-23 is a viable contender!

Thanks
S.

Click to expand...

*****
Yup. 7.5 gms metol; 100 gms sodium sulfite (anydrous or dessicated) in 1000 ml water.Replenisher DK-25R is 10 gms metol; 100 gms sodium sulfite; and 20 gms Kodalk Balanced Alkali (or sodium metaborate).
If you choose to use stock D23 as a diluted one shot developer, don't use the stock any other way. in other words, once you start a batch replenishing it, then you cannot use it any other way. Properly replenished, a liter of D23 processes 25 rolls of 120 film or equivalent. To keep it simple, I just mix up one half the amount of replenisher as I do D23 stock; when I am out of Dk25R I throw out the D23 which is pretty dark looking, but still works fine.
For what it's worth, I have, at present time, four photographs that have pleased me enough to mat and frame for display in my house. Three were souped in D23--on (outdated) Verichrome Pan; TXP220 (also outdated); and Orwo NP-15. The fourth was Orwo NP 22 in HC110. All are fairly easy to print. I think D23 is the most "forgiving" film developer I have ever used to give me the "gutsy" negs which print easily for me on a Nr. 2 graded paper with a diffusion light source.

Excuse me for coming back so late on the initial question. The earliest printing of the formula for d-76 that I have seen was in "The Principles of Optics" by Hardy and Perrin. Their instructions depart slightly, but I think importantly, from the order of listing of ingredients. The Metol is to be dissolved in a small amount of water at about 125 F and dumped into the container. Then, 1/4 of the sulfite and the hydroquinone are to be dissolved in water at 160 F in a separate container. You see that the order of solution is the order of listing, but there are so far two containers. The logic here is that adding sulfite to metol does not preserve it. The pH of a Metol solution in water is about 5, which is a better preserver than the sulfite solution which, as in D=23, brings pH up to the point of activity. The second solution contains the hydroquinone and enough sulfite to insure replenishment of oxidized Metol. After that has been added, the rest of the sulfite and the borax are added and the solution brought to final volume with cold water. Whether you notice any difference by this method of mixing, I do not know, but I do know that the logic is there. Metol is not replenished by sulfite, but its oxidized form is made inactive. It is not superadditive with hydroquinone without the presence of sulfite.

Anscojohn said:

*****
Yup. 7.5 gms metol; 100 gms sodium sulfite (anydrous or dessicated) in 1000 ml water.Replenisher DK-25R is 10 gms metol; 100 gms sodium sulfite; and 20 gms Kodalk Balanced Alkali (or sodium metaborate). .

Click to expand...

Hi Anscojohn - just wanted to thank you for pointing me in the direction of D23. I finally got round to developing a couple of rolls (35mm TRI-X shot at box speed), and was quite amazed by the results - very easy to print negatives, nice contrast. Grain seems very fine as well - I was fearing this would be the one area where D23 would do worse than, say, D76, but apparently for no reason. I see no particular reason to mix the D76 that I original planned on. Thanks!

Kvistgaard said:

Hi Anscojohn - just wanted to thank you for pointing me in the direction of D23. I finally got round to developing a couple of rolls (35mm TRI-X shot at box speed), and was quite amazed by the results - very easy to print negatives, nice contrast. Grain seems very fine as well - I was fearing this would be the one area where D23 would do worse than, say, D76, but apparently for no reason. I see no particular reason to mix the D76 that I original planned on. Thanks!

Click to expand...

********
Ahhh, I hope another convert to the best-kept secret in the film developing world.

Mr. Gainer

Can you please tell me, on which page in this book you find the recipe for D76?

Thanks in advance.

Kvistgaard said:

I finally got round to developing a couple of rolls
(35mm TRI-X shot at box speed), and was quite
amazed by the results - very easy to print
negatives, nice contrast. Grain seems
very fine as well -

Click to expand...

I'm a minimalist myself so was attracted to D-23
many years ago. My formula D-23, 8 - 80 grams
metol - sulfite. For a fresh film developer I mix
it 1 - 10, good for two rolls of 120. See my
post 33 this thread for use at 1:7. Dan

RalphLambrecht said:

Mr. Gainer

Can you please tell me, on which page in this book you find the recipe for D76?

Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

On page 236 of the first edition, 3rd impression, dated 1932.

I made good use of this book during my carreer at NASA. I was a specialist at being a jack-of-all-trades. My first position description said I did mathematical analyses of flight test measurements of wing loads, and my last one said I was an internationally known expert in non-linear mathematical modelling of the human operator.

You're welcome.

BTW, it wasn't identified as D-76, but as a developer recommended by Kodak for reducing graininess.

gainer said:

On page 236 of the first edition, 3rd impression, dated 1932.

I made good use of this book during my carreer at NASA. I was a specialist at being a jack-of-all-trades. My first position description said I did mathematical analyses of flight test measurements of wing loads, and my last one said I was an internationally known expert in non-linear mathematical modelling of the human operator.

You're welcome.

Click to expand...

Thanks Patrick

I've found it!