Home made D76 with raw chemistry?

[bluechromis]

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.

 

[bluechromis]

In the latest edition of The Darkroom Cookbook, Steve Anchell says that he prefers to mix developer from dry ingredients whenever possible. This involves measuring the dry ingredients to create a working solution, and then discarding the solution after use. The advantage is that it avoids the entire issue of stock solutions and the space they occupy, as well as the concern associated with their shelf life. Mixing chemicals each time might seem like a hassle, but it isn't hard once one is used to it.

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

 

[bluechromis]

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.

This contrasts with what Steve Anchell says in the latest edition of TDC. He says that it was he that gave the Haist version the name D-76 H. Haist was a lead scientist for Kodak. Whether or not Kodak officially promulgated Haist's formula, since he was working for Kodak, isn't it still a Kodak invention in some sense?

 

[dcy]

@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?

 

[kiemchacsu]

@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.

 

[dcy]

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.

You... need to... SHIP... small quantities of homemade D-76... but it has to be all mixed together in a single bag?

Ok. Forgive for prying, but what exactly ARE you trying to do? I promise I won't judge. But I think it would be easier for everyone in this thread if we knew what your actual plans are. That way we wouldn't go into apparently unhelpful tangents like I did.

(1) Why does it need to be D-76? What's wrong with every other developer?
(2) Why does it need to be shipped?
(3) Why does it need to be mixed in a single bag?
(4) Why does it need to be homemade as opposed to actual D-76?

You gotta admit, those are some pretty strange requirements.

 

[koraks]

but what exactly ARE you trying to do?

In part he addressed this in #64 and #69.

I promise I won't judge.

Well, that didn't really pan out:

those are some pretty strange requirements.

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.

There are also good reasons why commercial d76 is out; for instance, it's well understood that there are issues with consistency (due to potential lack of homogeneity) if you try and part out a bag of d76. It may also not be available in all regions, let alone at attractive prices, while the constituents may be obtainable.

 

[kiemchacsu]

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.

@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.

 

[bernard_L]

Mixing the dry components yourself without the sequestering agent will result in degradation of the chemistry. I

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.

 

[dcy]

In part he addressed this in #64 and #69.

I read those. What I meant was that I'm asking for an explanation of what the end goal is.

Well, that didn't really pan out:

If what I wrote sounded judgmental I sincerely apologize to @kiemchacsu. It was really not my intention and I am surprised it was received that way. Even looking back, I am not sure how I could have rephrased my message. When I said the mix of requirements were strange, I did not men that in any negative sense. To me it does sound uncommon that someone would want to ship small quantities of a homemade developer and it has to be D-76 and has to be in a single bag. ---- Am I really that far off in thinking that that sounds odd? I felt that if I (we) understood why it's important to ship it, and why it's important that it'd be D-76, and so on, it'd be easier to give useful suggestions.

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.

Perhaps you didn't, but I think perhaps you've noticed that I've received a lot of flack over that. Even after explaining and defending my choice, I get regular reminders that my prints are going to be crap because I chose the cheaper of only two currently produced 35mm film cameras. Recently someone was really trying to convince me to go buy another camera and was emphatic about how much I'd regret it if I don't.


But be that as it may, whether I received flack for shooting half-frame would not at all justify me making OP judged or uncomfortable or dismissed or unwelcome. I did not think that saying it was "strange" was judgmental. In my mind it wasn't. I am sorry it came out that way.

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.

That last part I understood. ---- That mailing powder is easier than liquids.

 

[dcy]

@dcy : you missed my post earlier actually,
I did this solution based on an advice above.

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.

edit: i could answer all of your questions but no need any more as @koraks has stated all. Thank you.

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.

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

 

[kiemchacsu]

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.

 

[kiemchacsu]

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.

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!

 

[koraks]

Am I really that far off in thinking that that sounds odd?

Most people on this website (and elsewhere, too) do things that seem odd to a large part of the population.

I think perhaps you've noticed that I've received a lot of flack over that.

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.

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.

 

[eli griggs]

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

If this is a direct response to the OP then she unfortunately was only with us for 2 months from early Sept 2009 to late Oct 2009

pentaxuser

 

[dcy]

Most people on this website (and elsewhere, too) do things that seem odd to a large part of the population.

Yes. Perhaps we can agree that something being strange or odd is not inherently a good thing or a bad thing. The idea of shooting film in 2025 is very odd, and that is an oddity we all share.

My point is that, in saying that the requirements are odd or strange, is not inherently an attack. Of course, context matters and we can come up with examples where it can be a positive comment or a negative comment. In this exchange, my intentions were to give more helpful suggestions.

Case in point: You pointed to comments #64 and #69 where k partially explains some of the goals. Notice that neither of those two comments specifies that shipping is a goal. Because that was not clear to me, I gave useless advice when I suggested trying liquid concentrates. Had the goals been clearer, I would not have wasted everyone's time.

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.

Certainly is. Someone can inquire about motives with the best of intentions and it is entirely human for the recipient to feel singled out and criticized. If I could go back in time and write my request for information more carefully, I would.

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.

You offered the example of my half frame to say that I was *not* treated this way. I do not agree. I think that the push back I have received extends beyond that one thread. There is also the fact that, beyond the shared oddity of shooting film in 2025, I suspect that number of people who shoot half-frame is probably larger than the number of people who mix their own B&W chemistry at home, and among those, wanting to ship the end product in small quantities is probably very uncommon. At a minimum, there is an obvious inefficiency in shipping anything in small quantities.

 

[dcy]

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!

Thank you.

Of course you don't have to tell me what your goals are. But I would like to know why I asked: My first message to you contained useless advice because I did not understand your goals. I suggested liquid developers because I did not know that you wanted to ship the products. Had I understood your goals, I would not have recommended liquid developers.

This is why I wanted to know your goals. Not because I don't respect them, but because it's just easier to give useful ideas if one knows what the objective is. I wasn't trying to pry just to be invasive. I had good intentions and the questions were really connected to a legitimate desire to give more helpful comments.

 

[dcy]

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 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.

 

[dcy]

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.

Was that a comparison between D-23 and D-76 or where they shots taken by different people and/or of different scenes?

I have been systematically comparing films and developers. Here is a post I made where I shot identical scenes with the same film and developed it in D-76 1+1 and D-23 1+1:

Testing AristaPan 100 (aka Woflen NP100) vs a few B&W Developers

A while ago I took 5 rolls of film and shot a few scenes over and over so I could cut the rolls into pieces and run tests. This is the first roll. I chose AristaPan 100 because it's very cheap. I figure this is where I'll make the most mistakes, so I picked a film that doesn't hurt the wallet...

www.photrio.com

Setting aside the fact that I am an awful photographer, do you think that in these shots, the D-23 ones look dull compared to D-76?

 

[Dali]

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

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.

Not only is it simpler to package, it also is safer as it removes the most toxic ingredient in D-76.

"Safer" is relative. Hydroquinone isn't exactly "toxic" just because it has been identified as being potentially carcinogenic: "The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies it as Group 3—not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans, due to insufficient evidence." Hydroquinone is still a key ingredient in skin lightening creams like Tri-Luma. Its toxicity depends on the dose, route of exposure, and duration of exposure.

That said, it's not a bad idea to limit the use of developers with Hydroquinone if you have reason to be concerned about it getting into water bodies, as it can be toxic to aquatic life. But there seems to be an exaggerated concern about the potential harmful effects of Hydroquinone exposure - it's not exactly a Poison with a capital P, as it seems to be thought of in some circles.

 

[dcy]

@retina_restoration Thanks for the clarification. I really did think that hydroquinone was a hazard. So you're saying that in D-76 it is only toxic in the sense of environmental concerns?