How much developer for 35mm film?

[gedra]

I generally shoot 120, but occasionally 35mm as well. Preferred developers are D-76 1:1 and Rodinal 1:50. Obviously the 120 goes into a 500 ml. tank, which could hold two reels of 35mm. When I read Steve Anchell's darkroom book, he suggests that diluted D-76 is best used in a 500ml tank with only one roll of 35mm film to be certain that enough developer is present. I have done it both ways, and haven't seen a real difference, but wonder if others have experiences or thoughts on the issue. Thanks.

 

[snapguy]

answered

I think you have answered your own question. If it works either way, then you can do it either way. I have not read the book but am puzzled where he got the notion of the single roll of film in a double-size tank. Did he mean if you use two rolls, the developer may not cover the top of the roll on top, or the developer won't be effective for two whole rolls of film? A lot of people do have trouble not "topping" off the tank and so the top of the roll, or the top of the top roll, does not get covered with developer.

 

[gedra]

His contention is that 500 ml per roll is the minimum amount of developing agent to prevent oxidation and underdevelopment.

 

[pentaxuser]

His contention is that 500 ml per roll is the minimum amount of developing agent to prevent oxidation and underdevelopment.

You appear to have proved him wrong

pentaxuser

 

[Prof_Pixel]

It seems to me that I remember that the area of a 120 roll of film is about the same as a 36 exposure roll of 135 film.

 

[Rick A]

Hmm... so, 50 years of developing a single roll of 135 in a small tank and 8oz of D-76 1+1 is "wrong"? The only time I have ever had a roll under developed is when it was MY fault for not reading the correct time chart for the roll of film I shot.

 

[Pioneer]

I don't think that advice is necessarily entirely wrong. I have noticed that my most consistent negatives come from my little one reel 35mm tank that uses 300ml of solution. I suspect that unless you do some testing with your film and developer you may not notice whether or not you are fully developing your negatives.

 

[pentaxuser]

What does Kodak say, as a matter of interest? Mr Anchell appears to be saying that 250ml of stock D76 is needed per 135 film based on the OP's statement so in most small 135 tanks such as the Durst and Jobo, development of 135 film can only be successful at stock solution?

I can't help feel that something isn't adding up here. I have certainly successfully developed 135 films in Kodak's equivalent (ID11) at 1+1 in a Jobo tank holding 250mls only

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Kodak's recommendation for the capacity of D-76 1+1 is two 135-36 rolls per litre - or 500 ml per roll.

See page seven of J-78: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.pdf

No doubt that includes a very conservative margin for error. So if you want to have the advantage of that margin for error, just follow the manufacturer's recommendations .

 

[Chris Douglas]

yup

My results would seem to agree with Anchel. I tried developing plus x and tri x in 8 oz. of D-76 1:1 but I had to add about 10% more time to get the density up for good prints. It seemed like false economy so I use 16 oz. per roll and published developing times work fine.

 

[pentaxuser]

There's no arguing with actual experience but I just skim-read all of the posts on the "Good Old D76 and HP5"(21 pages) thread and not once did anybody caution against using less the 250ml stock. Quite a few mentioned D76's efficacy at 1+3 which means that 1L of liquid is then needed. I'd have expected those mentioning 1+3 to, at least in passing, warn that a very big tank is needed. Maybe most things are just bigger in the U.S. so it's accepted as a given.

I had a look at the ID11 instructions and while 1+3 is given for almost all films, nowhere could I find a reference to a minimum quantity of stock.

Unless most of those praising D76 are using massive tanks then if Kodak is to be believed they may not getting the ultimate out of their films.

Maybe the big difference or the only difference between D76 and ID11 lies in the extra economy with the latter. Actually that's no small difference over many films and a lifetime of processing.

pentaxuser

 

[Gerald C Koch]

While chemically there is more than enough developing agents in 250 ml of D-76 1+1 to develop 80 in2 (one 135 size roll of film) this fact may be reflected in the development time. If one chooses not to follow Kodak's recommendation then they must do their own tests.

 

[pentaxuser]

It is a strange one, Gerald. I have just checked times for Tmax 400 in both ID11 and D76. I was going to use the Thomas Bertillson combo of HP5+ and D76 but Kodak in its D76 publication doesn't seem to give times for anything other than Kodak films

Anyway for Tmax400 the ID11 times for Stock; 1+1 and 1+3 are 7,10 and 15.
The Tmax 400 times for D76 are on the same dilutions quantities 8,12.5(MDC 9.5) and 15(MDC only as Kodak doesn't seem to give 1+3 times)

So ID11 despite using less chemicals than the comparable D76 doesn't seem to need longer development times to compensate

Of course Ilford may come along and state that you need 250mls of stock per 135 film as well and admit that not stating this has been an omission on its part.

We shall have to wait

pentaxuser

 

[removed account4]

in a hand tank its enough dev to cover the film
rotary process, its a different beast ...

 

[Gerald C Koch]

So ID11 despite using less chemicals than the comparable D76 doesn't seem to need longer development times to compensate

??? Except for some minor differences which do not effect development, ID-11 and D-76 are the same developer.

 

[mauro35]

Kodak technical data sheet reads so regarding 1+1 dilution: "If you process one 135-36 roll in a 237 mL (8-ounce) tank or two 135-36 rolls in a 473 mL (16-ounce) tank, increase the development time by 10 percent". So it is possible to develop one roll in the smaller volume, just by increasing the developing time. There is no statement about ill effect of doing so.

 

[Axle]

500mL, so I'm going to assume you're using a Patterson Tank. I usually put in 300mL of chemistry for developing a single roll of 35mm, 500mL for 2.

 

[pentaxuser]

??? Except for some minor differences which do not effect development, ID-11 and D-76 are the same developer.

Yes but the point I was trying to make was that if Ilford makes no mention of needing at least 250ml then if its times are almost or exactly the same as D76 how does it manage it?

I thought, perhaps wrongly, that your point was that you might get away with less than the Kodak amounts but have to pay the penalty of longer development times. I was simply pointing out that this doesn't seem to be the case with ID11( the same developer I agree) which leaves me wondering, somewhat tongue-in-cheek I admit, that the big difference between the two developers is that the Ilford one may be more economical.

As I said it might be that Ilford will come along and say: Sorry we too should have made it clear that a minimum of 250mls of stock ID11 is needed per 135 film but I somehow doubt it.

However if it does then it should in my opinion also make clear that a 500ml tank is needed for one 135 at 1+1 and a 1L tank for 1+3 for which Ilford also gives times but Kodak doesn't.

I wonder where you find 1L tank? They don't seem to be common items in the U.K.

pentaxuser

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Yes but the point I was trying to make was that if Ilford makes no mention of needing at least 250ml then if its times are almost or exactly the same as D76 how does it manage it?

I thought, perhaps wrongly, that your point was that you might get away with less than the Kodak amounts but have to pay the penalty of longer development times.

Sorry I misinterpreted your post to mean that there was something different with ID-11 when what you meant was that the directions were different.

No, you are right that was my point that when you dilute developer you pay a price in longer developing times. This is what is going on when people use stand development with very dilute solutions and necessitating long development times.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply, Gerald. As I said my point about ID11 being more economical than D76 was made tongue in cheek but I am still left wondering how we reconcile what Kodak says about 250mls being the minimum quantity of stock solution and Ilford's 1+3 times for what I presume to be the small tank process when the tank has to hold a litre

Could we be misinterpreting the Kodak statement or does it just mean that Kodak builds in a massive and possibly unnecessary safety margin that Ilford does not and each of us has to decide whether the Kodak quantities are really necessary for negs in D76 that are the ID11 equivalent?

pentaxuser

 

[Gerald C Koch]

It has long been my understanding that Kodak is VERY conservative in their estimates. Whether it be capacity, or shelf life, etc. For example they stopped recommending any dilution of Xtol greater than 1+1 when some users experienced unpredictable results with higher dilutions. Yet there are those on APUG that will attest to using 1+2 and even 1+3 without problems.