Kodak D96 B&W film developer

[DonW]

Anyone have any experience with this stuff? I realize you can't get it from Kodak anymore but there are other sources. I watched a youtube where a chap was extolling its virtues.

Anyone got the make-at-home formula for it?

Don

 

[bernard_L]

Google is your friend
https://project-double-x.com/developer-formulas/ (scroll down one screen or so)
This said, take any developer and you will find a web page or youtube video extolling its virtues.

 

[Donald Qualls]

D-96 is a low contrast developer compared to D-76. It was originally for developing cine negatives, where lower contrast is desired to increase control in printing to a film positive (it's harder to make a print with less contrast than the negative, vs. one with more contrast). The relationship is roughly similar to that between C-41 (higher contrast) and ECN-2 (lower contrast, for cine negatives).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Anyone have any experience with this stuff? I realize you can't get it from Kodak anymore but there are other sources. I watched a youtube where a chap was extolling its virtues.

Anyone got the make-at-home formula for it?

Don

I tried it several years ago with HP5, straight and 1+1. Nice, clean negatives.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

This said, take any developer and you will find a web page or youtube video extolling its virtues.

Ditto, with Oak Clusters.

I have a mystical attitude to Plus-X in D-76 1:1. Why? I took some really good pictures using the combination when in University. Would the pictures have been just as good with most any other reasonable combination - yes, of course.

It's not the developer, it's not the film, it's not the agitation - it's your innate talent that makes the photo worth framing and hanging on the wall.

 

[Alan9940]

I use it to process Ferrania P30 and have always been pleased with the results.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

It's a metol-hydroquinone developer that uses borax for the alkali, so you're really in the same ballpark as D-76.

Official formula from Kodak here:
https://www.kodak.com/content/produ...sing-KODAK-Motion-Picture-Films-Module-15.pdf

Don't confuse D-96 with D-97. D-97 is a high-contrast developer, a bit like Dektol (D-72). Works great for making slides on fine grain positive release film, but too harsh for in-camera negatives!

I have used both D-76 (store bought) and D-96 (mixed from scratch) on Kodak Double-X film. The results are very close, but D-96 gives slightly better contrast on this particular film. Discussion here, with some photos:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/some-quick-thoughts-on-double-x-5222-v-tri-x.178166/

In my opinion, you could use D-96 on pretty much any other film, and it would still work. I'm sure its exact proportions were tailored for the demands of continuous cine film processors, but this is a general-purpose developer.

 

[cmacd123]

Actually D-76 was originally formulated as a fine grain developer for Movie Film. (back in the 1930s) so you can think of D-96 as the updated version. I did a side by side comparison of the ingredients and only the proportions are different.

 

[Terrence Brennan]

Ditto, with Oak Clusters.

I have a mystical attitude to Plus-X in D-76 1:1. Why? I took some really good pictures using the combination when in University. Would the pictures have been just as good with most any other reasonable combination - yes, of course.

It's not the developer, it's not the film, it's not the agitation - it's your innate talent that makes the photo worth framing and hanging on the wall.

That sounds like what our Materials and Processes class (a.k.a. Sensitometry) instructor told us, when I was a freshman student at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute (now Toronto Metropolitan University), in 1974. He was himself a graduate of the Rochester Institute of Technology, and he told our class (in paraphrase), that, "...it doesn't matter what camera, what lens, what film, what developer you use. What matters is how you use light!"

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I know the formula for the D-96 developer and the replenisher, but I have no idea of the dev times for popular films or how much replenisher to add for each 135-36 or 120 film. It would be nice to know just out of curiosity, even though probably wouldn't use it.

I just stick with D-76 1+1 one-shot because I've used it for years and it gives results I like.

 

[Saganich]

I've been using D96 replenished for past few months with double-x at 200 8 minutes 20c. I didn't find it to have less contrast compared to D23 or D76. It was more stable through replenishment thein either, meaning pH didn't change and curve was very consistent during replenishment; from first to last film. I ran about 20 rolls through a 1 liter stock at 50ml per role replenishment, so 100% replenishment by the last role. I think contrast rolled off a bit by the end when I look back. Definitely grainer then D23 or D76. Little compensation in highlights, like D76. I'm on the fence about what I like more with Double-X, D23 or D76, leaning towards D23 i think.

 

[gkardmw]

I use 20 ml per roll for the replenisher. Very consistent results.

 

[dokko]

I know the formula for the D-96 developer and the replenisher, but I have no idea of the dev times for popular films or how much replenisher to add for each 135-36 or 120 film. It would be nice to know just out of curiosity, even though probably wouldn't use it.

the Kodak pdf has info about this on page 18:

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Processing-KODAK-Motion-Picture-Films-Module-15.pdf

i.e 1200ml per 100ft of 35mm film, so about 60ml per roll of 36 exposures.
obviously it depends on your subjects and exposure - a roll shot in the snow under sunlight will use much more developer than some roll shot at nights in dark streets.

 

[MattKing]

the Kodak pdf has info about this on page 18:

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Processing-KODAK-Motion-Picture-Films-Module-15.pdf

i.e 1200ml per 100ft of 35mm film, so about 60ml per roll of 36 exposures.
obviously it depends on your subjects and exposure - a roll shot in the snow under sunlight will use much more developer than some roll shot at nights in dark streets.

When considering this, it is most likely important to remember that that information is oriented to using D96 with motion picture film, which is designed to be developed to a lower contrast than the target contrast for still film. If you are developing to the usually higher still film contrast, you should consider more replenishment, as each roll should exhaust the developer a bit more.

 

[dokko]

When considering this, it is most likely important to remember that that information is oriented to using D96 with motion picture film, which is designed to be developed to a lower contrast than the target contrast for still film.

hmm, the data sheets for 5222 Double-X state a gamma of 0.65 for normal processing, and the density curves look rather similar to something like Tri-X 400 in D-76, so I'm not sure why this would make a significant difference:

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/DOUBLEX-Technical-Data-EN.pdf

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/resources/f4017_TriX.pdf

I'd still expect the overall subject brightness having a far bigger impact on developer exhaustion (like easily a factor of 2 times more for very bright or 4 times less for very dark scenes).

 

[MattKing]

Note that one datasheet - Tri-X - reuses contrast index while the other - Double-X - uses gamma, so there is that complexity.

 

[dokko]

Note that one datasheet - Tri-X - reuses contrast index while the other - Double-X - uses gamma, so there is that complexity.

well, looking at the Sensiometric Curves curve, they seem very similar to me.
the Tri-X one is labeled with Diffuse Visual and the Double-X with "Status M (Blue)". Would be great if somebody with better understanding of these terms might clarify, but my Basic understanding would be that "Status M (Blue)" is the Diffuse Visual density under the Blue Illuminant of the Status M method, so probably very similar

would be an interesting test to see how large the differences are in reality, but too many projects, too little time

 

[Radost]

I've been using D96 replenished for past few months with double-x at 200 8 minutes 20c. I didn't find it to have less contrast compared to D23 or D76. It was more stable through replenishment thein either, meaning pH didn't change and curve was very consistent during replenishment; from first to last film. I ran about 20 rolls through a 1 liter stock at 50ml per role replenishment, so 100% replenishment by the last role. I think contrast rolled off a bit by the end when I look back. Definitely grainer then D23 or D76. Little compensation in highlights, like D76. I'm on the fence about what I like more with Double-X, D23 or D76, leaning towards D23 i think.

Have you tried Xtol?

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

i.e 1200ml per 100ft of 35mm film, so about 60ml per roll of 36 exposures.
obviously it depends on your subjects and exposure - a roll shot in the snow under sunlight will use much more developer than some roll shot at nights in dark streets.

Thanks, I will stick with D-76. 1+1.
For replenishment, I would lean towards Xtol or XT3.

 

[Radost]

Thanks, I will stick with D-76. 1+1.
For replenishment, I would lean towards Xtol or XT3.

1:1 is tough in Jobo

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

1:1 is tough in Jobo

I used to use a Jobo CPA2 with the lift and never had a problem with D-76 1+1.

I didn't pre-rinse but only because I read that it could lead to uneven processing.

These days I just use Paterson tanks with intermittent agitation.

 

[Saganich]

Have you tried Xtol?

No, LOL I still have 2 bags from when I meant to try it like 20 years ago. Exp 2/2020. At the time I didn't have a 5 gal container so I started making small D23 batches with replenishment instead. The xtol seems like it works well with replenishment when kept in full stoppered bottle. I suppose I could shoot my usual 50 rolls/year with the same 10 gallons...hmmm.

 

[MattKing]

No, LOL I still have 2 bags from when I meant to try it like 20 years ago. Exp 2/2020. At the time I didn't have a 5 gal container so I started making small D23 batches with replenishment instead. The xtol seems like it works well with replenishment when kept in full stoppered bottle. I suppose I could shoot my usual 50 rolls/year with the same 10 gallons...hmmm.

Ah, it probably makes 5 litres, not 5 gallons.
That might have a slight affect on your calculations