Is someone happily reusing D-76 stock without replenishment?

[Juan Valdenebro]

This is not about saving cents: D-76 is the cheapest developer I buy. I like D-76 very much for traditional grain in the box speed range, and it’s also the developer I use for testing a lot of things. In general I use 240ml for each 35mm roll, adding 120ml of water, and 240ml for 120 too, adding 360ml of water.

I don’t develop enough film for replenishment. Sometimes I don’t use D-76 for months, and after mixing it with distilled water, my stock D-76 is stored in amber glass bottles to the brim, so it’s fine after more than a year: I have never seen it produce different levels of contrast.

I’d like to find a way (increasing development time) to develop four 120 rolls reusing a litre of stock D-76. I don’t want to discard 2.5 litres after that, just because sometimes I can’t buy D-76 here, so I’d like to try Kodak’s recommendation of four rolls in a litre, instead of wasting more developer than it’s necessary.

I often find myself with most of a 120 roll exposed with real photographs (so I want the roll perfectly developed) but with a few frames left so I could use them for different tests… That’s why I am asking this, mostly for portraiture in 120. I like 1+0.5 and 1+1.5 for other situations/films.

Has someone checked if adding 10% time for every next roll is a precise way?

I wouldn’t do it through a very long period of time for every litre: all four rolls within a few days.

Thanks.

 

[Don_ih]

250ml of d76 is easily enough to develop one roll of 120. If you used it one-shot at stock dilution, that would be 4 rolls per litre.

I have reused stock d76 but ultimately had some bad results. I don't think it's predictable enough so I don't think it's worth it. It's far better to use it 1:1 and dump it.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

This is not about saving cents: D-76 is the cheapest developer I buy. I like D-76 very much for traditional grain in the box speed range, and it’s also the developer I use for testing a lot of things. In general I use 240ml for each 35mm roll, adding 120ml of water, and 240ml for 120 too, adding 360ml of water.
I mix D76my self from bulk,then use it 1 one-shot for consistency,Alternatively D23 also works great; is easy to mix and very consistent.
I don’t develop enough film for replenishment. Sometimes I don’t use D-76 for months, and after mixing it with distilled water, my stock D-76 is stored in amber glass bottles to the brim, so it’s fine after more than a year: I have never seen it produce different levels of contrast.

I’d like to find a way (increasing development time) to develop four 120 rolls reusing a litre of stock D-76. I don’t want to discard 2.5 litres after that, just because sometimes I can’t buy D-76 here, so I’d like to try Kodak’s recommendation of four rolls in a litre, instead of wasting more developer than it’s necessary.

I often find myself with most of a 120 roll exposed with real photographs (so I want the roll perfectly developed) but with a few frames left so I could use them for different tests… That’s why I am asking this, mostly for portraiture in 120. I like 1+0.5 and 1+1.5 for other situations/films.

Has someone checked if adding 10% time for every next roll is a precise way?

I wouldn’t do it through a very long period of time for every litre: all four rolls within a few days.

Thanks.

 

[cjbecker]

Per the tech sheet. For every 4 rolls of 136-36 or 120, add 15% more time.

 

[Paul Howell]

+1 this is what I do when using D76 stock, with 120 and 4X5 I usually use D76 1:1 or 1:2 and discard.

 

[bernard_L]

Per the tech sheet. For every 4 rolls of 136-36 or 120, add 15% more time.

Per the tech sheet, increase time by 15% for every 4 rolls per gallon. Which amounts to (roughly) +15%/roll/liter. YMMV. Do your own testing.
https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j78.pdf
Page 5.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I asked about this last year too...
There were some good answers from members doing it years ago.
In general it works very well, they said (adding 10%, 20%, 30%...) and even for ten rolls, not just for four.
But some members said, that can't be totally accurate because TMax films and classic grain films require different amounts of time increase.
I didn't do the whole tests through 4 120 rolls.
Lots of people say there's no need to change time for the first rolls... I remember Bill Burk said he found that wrong. That's the only thing I did test back then: a second roll after the first one, in one litre, no time change... Bill was right. The second film was so clearly underdeveloped!
Well, it seems I'll have to test both for classic grain and for TMax to get my answer.
I just won't waste 8 120 rolls. I'll set a scene indoors, and photograph it in all my 120 rolls for some time. I guess with the 10% more system, at least the real photographs from those rolls will be good enough for wet printing.
Thanks everyone.

 

[cjbecker]

I did do this with with d23 before. Using a half gallon glass bottle. For every 2 rolls developed, i added 10% time. I did it up too 10 rolls and dumped it. The negatives printed just fine. I then switched too xtol replenished. Xtol is easier, but i liked the prints from the d23 better.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Oh, don't say that here in the church! The little Kodak's graph for toddlers could even be posted!
Just kidding. I've used the sacred elixir too.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you're mixing D-23, you only need a couple more chemicals to make DK-25R to replenish it -- get the prints you prefer with the economy and consistency of a replenished system. Unlike Xtol, there's a limit to how long you should continue replenishing, but it comes to around 45 rolls in a liter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You need to adjust the developing time for the films developed or replenish. One way or the other account for the films developed or you will get flat underdeveloped film.

 

[mshchem]

When I was a child, my father, a very frugal fellow, he would mix up a 1 quart can of Microdol-X, he would make a pencil mark on the label for each roll processed. I'm sure he used the time addition method.

 

[Bill Burk]

I found that if I miss my aim by 30% I still can use the negatives.

Three runs 4x5 7 sheets (a Grafmatic and a sensitometry sheet) in same 16 ounces of D-76 1:1 developer cost me 15%, then 30% contrast from the first run (which met the aim 0.62 CI). I did not change developing time.

All the negatives were usable but I didn’t feel good doing it, so don’t think I would do it again.

But you won’t get into trouble, if you change developing time you will get usable, probably even good negatives.

 

[Donald Qualls]

"What's that knock on the darkroom door?"

"Egad! It's the negative police! Quick, into the saferoom!"

 

[Sirius Glass]

I found that if I miss my aim by 30% I still can use the negatives.

Stand closer.

 

[takilmaboxer]

For many years I have re-used a gallon of D-76 for up to six months or 8 rolls, without time compensation and not had problems with cubic films. Not so with T Max films, there is a noticeable change in developer activity both with time and with use.
Nowadays I use primarily D-23 one shot.
I used to use FG-7 one shot but it went extinct. Rodinol is too grainy (but otherwise a beautiful developer). F76 is too short lived.
If you are a careful worker one shot is the way to go. If I'm developing shots of the family dog I don't care. If I travel far away to shoot, it absolutely will be one shot or fresh D-76.

 

[Sirius Glass]

For many years I have re-used a gallon of D-76 for up to six months or 8 rolls, without time compensation and not had problems with cubic films. Not so with T Max films, there is a noticeable change in developer activity both with time and with use.
Nowadays I use primarily D-23 one shot.
I used to use FG-7 one shot but it went extinct. Rodinol is too grainy (but otherwise a beautiful developer). F76 is too short lived.
If you are a careful worker one shot is the way to go. If I'm developing shots of the family dog I don't care. If I travel far away to shoot, it absolutely will be one shot or fresh D-76.

Consider getting XTOL in a 5 liter package, mixing Stock solution and store it in 1 liter StopLeakBagsTM. www.StopLeakBags.com I have kept mixed XTOL for over 2 years in those bags.

 

[peter k.]

and store it in 1 liter StopLeakBagsTM. www.StopLeakBags.com

Ah Sirius, did you mean: ...
https://www.stoplossbags.com/

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ah Sirius, did you mean: ...
https://www.stoplossbags.com/

Yes that one.

 

[Agulliver]

A few years into my experiments in film developing in the 1980s, I realised that ID-11 stock (which is effectively the same as D-76) lasts at least 6 months as 1 litre of stock solution in a concertina bottle. I tend to use the suggested times for the first 10 films, and add a minute or so for 11-16 and stop at 16. I put a sticky label on the cap saying developer type, date I made up the solution and the numbers 1-16 which I mark off by crossing each one out as I process a film.

Never faffed with replenishment and I find the stock solution produces excellent results to my liking at box speed and pushing up to 2 1/2 stops.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

When I did a second development (35mm 36 Exp. roll) with stock D-76 (1 litre) without extending development time, the frame at 400 was visibly underdeveloped, and the same frame at + half a stop was perfect (contact print). Of course the underdeveloped frame could be printed too, but it was clear a single roll takes a good bite of the litre.
I've read many times the system starts producing inferior tonality after several rolls, so I'll try and see if four rolls are fine... If not, I'll use 1+0,5 one shot as with my last rolls.
For Perceptol stock (1 litre reuse) only four rolls are recommended, not ten.

 

[Bill Burk]

Lots of people say there's no need to change time for the first rolls... I remember Bill Burk said he found that wrong. That's the only thing I did test back then: a second roll after the first one, in one litre, no time change... Bill was right. The second film was so clearly underdeveloped!.

That was one experience. I still don't remember why I didn't bother to change the developer. Or why I included a sensitometry strip in each run. But that sure made for a good story to tell.