- Joined
- Sep 11, 2015
- Messages
- 654
- Format
- 35mm
That was my understanding. The Darkroom Cookbook recommends it as an improved version of D-76.
Isn't that what is said to be a Metol only variant of D76, credited to G. Haist? D76H or something like that?
Isn't that what is said to be a Metol only variant of D76, credited to G. Haist? D76H or something like that?
That was my understanding. The Darkroom Cookbook recommends it as an improved version of D-76.
There is some confusion about D-76H and H-76. These are two different developers. D-76H is a Kodak formula and it does have Hydroquinone, whereas H-76 does not. If you wish to avoid Hydroquinone, then you want the H-76 recipe.
Grant Haist (Metol-only, no hydroquinone) version (H-76):
- Metol: 2–2.5 g
- Sodium sulfite (anhydrous): 100 g
- Borax (sodium tetraborate): ~2–2.5 g
- Water: to 1 L
- Notes: Estimated to require ~30–40% longer development than D‑76; sharper edge effects; lacks hydroquinone, so lower contrast.
@kiemchacsu
Can I offer a different perspective in the form of a question?
Does it HAVE to be D-76?
There are other developers, both off-the-shelf and DIY, that are in the form of long-lived highly concentrated liquid solutions that are trivially easy to portion to give to all of your friends. Could one of those be a better option for you?
The ones I am familiar with are Rodinal, HC-110, and Clayton F76+. My understanding is that the latter is supposed to have a look quite similar to D-76.
Could it be that the solution you're looking for is to just buy Clayton F76+ or similar?
No, it has NOT to be D-76 but in POWDER form is much prefered, as you know it's much better for shipping than the one in liquid form (weight is obvious much lighter). And among those developers in powder form, D-76 is an easy choice.
but what exactly ARE you trying to do?
Well, that didn't really pan out:I promise I won't judge.
When someone argued you shouldn't be shooting half frame, we didn't go around saying your requirements were strange, were we? The same applies here.those are some pretty strange requirements.
following your link to the post here, i decided to give the two-packages a try, as someone said:
- A: sodium sulfite and borax
- B: developing agents which are metol and hidroquinone
I will give feedback few days later, when observing the mixed ingredients.
I can confirm that for long term (>1yr) storage. But maybe sending to a friend to be prepared within... one week? one month? might be OK.Mixing the dry components yourself without the sequestering agent will result in degradation of the chemistry. I
In part he addressed this in #64 and #69.
Well, that didn't really pan out:
When someone argued you shouldn't be shooting half frame, we didn't go around saying your requirements were strange, were we? The same applies here.
Btw, they don't sound all that strange to me. Sounds like he's setting up a system where he can easily grab one "dose" of developer as he needs it and can mix those doses in advance to save some time. And he seems to want to be able to share this convenience with some other people by mailing them such sachets. And yes, mailing sachets of powder is a whole lot easier and cheaper than liquids, especially if it's small quantities of powder which can go in regular mail.
@dcy : you missed my post earlier actually,
I did this solution based on an advice above.
edit: i could answer all of your questions but no need any more as @koraks has stated all. Thank you.
No, it has NOT to be D-76 but in POWDER form is much prefered, as you know it's much better for shipping than the one in liquid form (weight is obvious much lighter). And among those developers in powder form, D-76 is an easy choice.
Have you considered making D-23 chemistry packets to share with your friends? It’s simpler to package, as it’s only two ingredients, and for many applications, it’s as good as D-76.
I did not miss that post. I understood that you had selected an approach. I was (and still am) still quite curious as to where your requirements originate.
Koraks said that my message to you was judgmental. If that is how you felt, please accept my sincerest apologies. I genuinely wanted (still want) to understand where your set of requirements originate. I have not previously come across someone wanting to ship small quantities of homemade developer and I apologize if the way I expressed that made you feel judged.
Most people on this website (and elsewhere, too) do things that seem odd to a large part of the population.Am I really that far off in thinking that that sounds odd?
One single person responded critically (although with the best of intentions) along those lines in this thread. Two others, one of whom was me, pointed out that it's just a personal decision that the rest of us will just have to accept for what it is. It's the same here. You may find the requirements odd, but they are what they are, and to other people, they may not be all that outrageous.I think perhaps you've noticed that I've received a lot of flack over that.
Does anyone here makes a home made D76 mixing raw chemistry?
How's the life span of the chemistry powders? I'm asking this because I found a lab that only sells high qty of the chemicals: 500g or 1kg. I'm planning to buy those and mixing at home the needed qty to make 1L.
I prefer mixing my own, using a RCBS 505 gunpowder scale, even though it's a pain measuring the large s.s. portion.
A three beam scale capable of .10 of a GRAIN, repeating accurate work flow, it's critical to me.
A homemade, magnetically spining beer mixer takes the labor out of the process and the results are very rewarding.
Since I'll stockpile film for developing, it doesn't have longevity problems and it was the main product I wanted to be able to mix myself when I started compounding my darkroom chemistry.
Most people on this website (and elsewhere, too) do things that seem odd to a large part of the population.
As you can tell from further responses, inquiring after motives behind requirements can sometimes be tricky. It can be useful, too, but sometimes people can take it a bit seriously if you question their motives. It's only human to respond in this way.
I offered the parallel of your half frame decision to get you to recognize what it's like to be on the receiving end of the same approach.
No, nevermind. Don't take it seriously eventhough I still dont know why you asked me those questions which are totally NOT relevant to the topic we are talking here. Cheers!
Have you considered making D-23 chemistry packets to share with your friends? It’s simpler to package, as it’s only two ingredients, and for many applications, it’s as good as D-76.
I know D-23 but by judging the photos online; I found them a bit *dull* which is understandable due to lacking of hydroquinone
and, once mixing it doesnot keep well as long as D-76.
Thats why, I think I will stick to D-76 now.
The dissimilarities when using D-76 and D-23 are indeed very minor. But it depends on how small the negative is, and how large you intend to blow it up. Tiny 35mm negatives will show the sharpness/contrast benefits of D-76 when you are making large prints from them.I can attest that I've had excellent experience with D-23 and I've tested it side-by-side with D-76. The results were (to my eyes) identical.
Not only is it simpler to package, it also is safer as it removes the most toxic ingredient in D-76.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?