How many ML of D-76 powder do I mix with how many ML of water.

[ajuk]

I have a bag of D-76 raw powder, it says there are 415 grams to make 3.8 liters of the stuff. SO I think that means if I just want to mix up 700ML of stock solution I need 76 grams (how appropriate!) however I don't have any really accurate scales, does anybody if I can use a liquid measure tube to measure the amount of powder rather than weighing it, and how many ML of powder I need?

 

[payral]

You need to dissolve the complete package or you will get variable results as it's impossible to get the same proportion of different components

 

[ben-s]

You can't really part mix powdered chemicals, as you'll end up with the wrong proportion of each component in the solution.
The powder is a mixture of chemicals, and you can't guarantee you'll end up with the right amount of each unless you mix the whole lot.
The stock solution should keep pretty well: I use ID-11 in 5L batches, which is practically the same thing as D76, and that lasts a good few months.
I've never had it go bad on me, even when I've had it sitting unused for a long time.
If I were you, I'd save myself the hassle of getting wrongly mixed dev, and make the whole batch up to stock strength.

EDIT: Payral seems to have beaten me to it

 

[Dennis S]

There is a difference between a USA gallon and Imperial gallon so I mix my D-76 in 3.75 L water. It seems to wrk for me

 

[bnstein]

maybe Ive been lucky but after a vigourous shaking Ive done just as the OP suggests without problems as a one shot developer as a quick and dirty. I cant see you doing this volumetrically with any precision (although there is at least one recipe on APUG that is volumetric IIRC: fixer I think?)
The main problem with this sort of approach is if you are trying to standardize your methods, times etc when the small differences between each 'batch' will add up

 

[ajuk]

Maybe it was a mistake to buy this stuff then, I don't have room for a gallon of chem nor am I likely to use it in 6 months.

 

[skahde]

Just put it into several smaller glass-bottles, filled to the top. As long as not changing colour, building any kind of precipiate, grey matter on the bottom, mold, slime aso. it will do pretty fine for much longer than 6 month. If you have to pour it away, don't be too sorry.

best

Stefan

 

[kodachrome64]

All you need is a gallon container to mix it, and what I then do is take water bottles and fill them to the top where there is no air. You can use 8 .5L bottles and you can store that anywhere. That will keep for many months. I even use 8 oz bottles to allow me to keep it longer because I don't use a whole lot of D76. If you won't use much developer, I suggest you try HC-110; it is cheap and will keep forever, and you can mix directly from the concentrate for one shot developing.

 

[Bob F.]

I mix 5l of ID-11 at a time and put the excess in 2-litre fizzy drink bottles (not to mention any brand names...) full to the brim. They have lasted happily for well in excess of a year in a dark cupboard at room temperatures like that. I expect D-76 will do the same.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I don't have room for a gallon of chem nor am I likely to use it in 6 months.

Send it to me.

 

[gainer]

I tested this formula for an article in Petersen's Photographic in 1973, along with variations of + and - 1/4 teaspoon. It is very close to D-76, is robust, as they say, to errors in measurement of ingredients, and takes little time to mix.

1/2 tsp Metol.
4 tbs sodium sulfite.
1 1/2 tsp hydroquinone.
3/4 tsp 20 Mule team borax.
1 qt or 1 liter water.
No heating is necessary.

The solution will last as long as Kodak D-76 and may be treated as D-76 in every way.

 

[2F/2F]

I had perfectly predictable results mixing a partial batch from premixed D-19 last week. Mixed up 16 oz. of stock from a gallon package. Results matched my previous development tests with the developer. Just cuz it ain't ideal don't mean it will ruin your stuff and cause a disaster. After this experience, IMO, it is not even worth fretting unless you have done lots of testing and need (or want) very precise results. Avoid it if possible, but it won't kill your pictures, and they will likely be fine.

 

[gainer]

And if you always call heads in an unbiased coin flip you will have a 50% chance of being right on each flip, but it takes more than one flip to determine if the coin is actually unbiased. Just something to think about.

 

[fschifano]

There is another problem with mixing up partial batches of commercial D-76 that no one has mentioned yet. What to do with the leftover powder. This has to be kept sealed up with a minimum of air too, else it will go bad. Dry metol and hydriquinone will oxidize in air. It takes longer in a dry environment than a damp one, but it will happen just the same.

 

[michaelbsc]

maybe Ive been lucky but after a vigourous shaking Ive done just as the OP suggests without problems as a one shot developer as a quick and dirty. I cant see you doing this volumetrically with any precision (although there is at least one recipe on APUG that is volumetric IIRC: fixer I think?)
The main problem with this sort of approach is if you are trying to standardize your methods, times etc when the small differences between each 'batch' will add up

Way back in chemistry classes, before my hair was gray, there was a standard way to "mix" dry chemicals to take samples that were statically likely to contain the proper proportions of everything in the mix.

I don't recall exactly how it's done, but if involves a lot of mixing and turning, then dividing into quarters taking two quarters from opposite sides, remixing and turning, etc.

It was a royal PITA, but it did seem to practically guarantee the sample would contain correct proportions of everything in the mix. However, I can't imagine doing it with a 1 gallon package of developer. It seems like it would be cheaper to throw away any developer you didn't use than spend an hour fastidiously mixing powder with a spatula.

 

[wilsonneal]

I wonder if you mix up a gallon, pour it into ice cube trays, and freeze it, and then store the frozen cubes in a zip lock bag, you could then defrost only the number of cubes needed to make a tank of 1:1 developer. Not something I need to do, but it may have applications for some. Best to label those cubes clearly
Neal

 

[PhotoJim]

I wonder if you mix up a gallon, pour it into ice cube trays, and freeze it, and then store the frozen cubes in a zip lock bag, you could then defrost only the number of cubes needed to make a tank of 1:1 developer. Not something I need to do, but it may have applications for some. Best to label those cubes clearly

No, you can't do this. Some of the chemicals will precipitate out.

To the original poster: you may prefer to buy one-litre packages of Ilford ID-11 developer. It's functionally almost identical to D-76 (in fact it's closer to the original D-76 recipe than Kodak's is) and you'll have much more modest amounts of developer to use up.

Another option is to save your film up and do it in batches so that you use up that larger amount of chemistry more quickly. With 1:1 dilution (which is what I use), 3.8 litres of D-76 will do about 25 rolls of 35mm film and about 15 rolls of 120 film (or some combination of both). As long as you do that volume of film in a 6-month window (the approximate life of the developer if stored in full bottles - divide it into several smaller bottles to keep this the case), you will get your money's worth out of the developer.

Truthfully even if you threw half of it away you'd save money versus buying one-litre batches, but it is a little hard on the environment.

You can make D-76 from raw ingredients too. They keep a very long time (years) and you can make small or large batches of D-76 as you wish. You'll need to buy an accurate scale though. I got my scale for about $60.

 

[gainer]

You do not need an accurate balance or scale to make D-76. Even Kodak, in one of their manuals, wrote that a resolution of + or - 0.1 grams is sufficient. If you visit a sporting goods shop you will likely find a powder balance with that resolution for around 35$. A digital scale may have better apparent resolution, but most recipes are rounded (or should be) to the tenth, and once the slider is set, a deviation of less than a tenth gram shows as off balance. Further, if the weights are accurate and the slider is linear, you know that the weight you are measuring is accurately weighed, whereas the digital scale may have non-linearities that do not show with the test weights.

The teaspoon formula I posted above, as I said, can tolerate at least 1/8 teaspoon give or take in the Metol and Hydroquinone. Furthermore, the volumetric measurements are consistent from batch to batch as long as the consistency of the powders remains the same.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

You need to dissolve the complete package or you will get variable results as it's impossible to get the same proportion of different components

This is one of those "Once a month" topics. Maybe the moderator should do a sticky on it......

Maybe my reasoning powers are deficient, but I can not believe that the little 1 gallon packet of dry chemicals didn't come from some huge cement mixer filled with the proper ingredients, stirred and stirred, and then MEASURED by volume into each and every little yellow foil packet. They did not drop in 8 grams of Metol, 40 grams of hydroquinone, etc.

When one takes a measured volume from the packet, he or she is doing the exact same thing Kodak did. I have made up developers dry, mixed by food processor, and then divvied up later by the tsp. Worked fine, just like my brain predicted.

Some folks here say don't freeze chemicals. Somehow, it works fine for me; must allow a day for all the powders to re-dissolve. Freezing also works fine for complex proteins and carbohydrates, you know. Developer isn't even on the radar of difficulty.

 

[srs5694]

Maybe my reasoning powers are deficient, but I can not believe that the little 1 gallon packet of dry chemicals didn't come from some huge cement mixer filled with the proper ingredients, stirred and stirred, and then MEASURED by volume into each and every little yellow foil packet. They did not drop in 8 grams of Metol, 40 grams of hydroquinone, etc.

Why not? That's how they make lots of things -- a conveyor belt rolls along and, at various points along the way, things are added or something is done to the product. All they'd need to do is put an unsealed bag on a conveyor, dump in 8g of metol at one station, 40g of hydroquinone at the next, and so on, then seal it up. This isn't conceptually any different from how they make other products, ranging from Twinkies to automobiles.

 

[gainer]

It wouldn't have been hard for Rube Goldberg to design an automatic system to weight out X grams to the nearest .1 gram. I think I could do it. Think of a see-saw with a fixed weight on one side of a pivot that is bistable. If the pivot is below the center of gravity when the system is in balance, the slightest additional weight will tip the whole thing. It then dumps whatever was poured onto the other side and the fixed weight returns the balance to a stop. You should be able to imagine the rest.

 

[gainer]

Besides, even if Kodak could guarantee uniformity of what is in the cement mixer, there still is the problem of measuring out 545 grams into each 5 liter package as it went by on the conveyor. There are other ways than my R. G. to measure large and small amounts of liquids and powders into containers on a conveyor. Tell me. It has been a long time since I mixed any Kodak or Ilford developers from powders. Is there not an admonition on the package to use the entire contents?

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Is there not an admonition on the package to use the entire contents?

CYA or more appropriately, CKA.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Why not? That's how they make lots of things -- a conveyor belt rolls along and, at various points along the way, things are added or something is done to the product. All they'd need to do is put an unsealed bag on a conveyor, dump in 8g of metol at one station, 40g of hydroquinone at the next, and so on, then seal it up. This isn't conceptually any different from how they make other products, ranging from Twinkies to automobiles.

Wow, let's make an easy thing really complicated and subject to many more possible errors.

Dump it all into a mixer, mix, apportion by volume. Simple.

I've never noticed the different chemicals in packaged developers, or lumps, or strata.

 

[gainer]

Wow, let's make an easy thing really complicated and subject to many more possible errors.

Dump it all into a mixer, mix, apportion by volume. Simple.

I've never noticed the different chemicals in packaged developers, or lumps, or strata.

You could ask someone at Kodak how they do it. It shouldn't be proprietary information. I'll bet the only time they do it your way is with liquid developers like HC110. Mixing dry ingredients in large quantities is probably more expensive and more likely to damage the ingredients by frictional heating, as well as being more likely to result in inconsistent product quality. But suppose that you have periodic tests of samples from the packaging line and you find a defective sample. The contents of your cement mixer must be assumed defective after the last good sample. The first half of your cement mixer's contents may have contained 90% of the Metol without showing any defective samples. Now you have a problem. Do you add more Metol, or throw away the rest of the mix? The major cost of D-76 is in the sulfite. More than that, the ability to determine that the problem is in the Metol depends on a quantitative analysis. You will be stopping production as well as increasing the cost of production more by testing than any other part.

Let us not forget that you had to weigh out the ingredients you put into the blender. A chef with the same type of problem would use volumetric measurements of each ingredient that gos into the blender.

Enough.