Need Help with D-76

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Acros shot at EI 50 in D76 straight for 6m30s @ 20*C is a really nice combination. Prints like a dream. I tried 1:1 and didn't really see any difference. It just took longer.
Capacity wise I use ten rolls per gallon concentrate. If you need 500ml per roll you'd get about 8 rolls at 1:1. Same difference, so I don't even see an economic advantage to diluting it.

Others may have other experiences.

Click to expand...

If I develop two rolls to a tank, that's 1,000 mls of D-76 needed if done undiluted.
If I develop two rolls to a tank, that's 500 mls of D-76 needed if diluted 1:1.

3.8 L of D-76 will develop 7 rolls of 120 film undiluted.
3.8 L of D-76 will develop 14 rolls of 120 film diluted 1:1.

How is a 50% reduction in developer needed not an economic advantage?

palewin said:

If you read Kodak's data sheet for D-76, it says right in the first paragraph, "for greater sharpness, but with a slight increase in graininess, you can use a 1:1 dilution of this developer."

I personally trust Kodak's own knowledge of their product best. I've also used D-76 1:1 on 35mm film for at least 30 years, having decided I preferred it to Microdol or HC-110 for that format. For larger formats I prefer PMK or Pyrocat HD.

Click to expand...

Very good point. Kodak has/had some very smart people working for them.

But the only important thing is: Do you actually see this in your prints yourself? And if you do, will it make a significant contribution to the overall success of the photograph? The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

RattyMouse said:

If I develop two rolls to a tank, that's 1,000 mls of D-76 needed if done undiluted.
If I develop two rolls to a tank, that's 500 mls of D-76 needed if diluted 1:1.

3.8 L of D-76 will develop 7 rolls of 120 film undiluted.
3.8 L of D-76 will develop 14 rolls of 120 film diluted 1:1.

How is a 50% reduction in developer needed not an economic advantage?

Click to expand...

You reuse the concentrated stock developer.

For me the math is slightly different. I reuse a gallon for ten rolls (135-36 / 120).
For 1:1 I need roughly 500ml for a roll of 120, and and 250-300ml for a roll of 135.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

You reuse the concentrated stock developer.

For me the math is slightly different. I reuse a gallon for ten rolls (135-36 / 120).
For 1:1 I need roughly 500ml for a roll of 120, and and 250-300ml for a roll of 135.

Click to expand...

OK, I missed that. I'm a 1 shot developer so in that case it makes economic sense to dilute. Since D-76 is so cheap, I'm not really thinking about diluting to save money, only for any possible benefits to negative quality.

RattyMouse said:

OK, I missed that. I'm a 1 shot developer so in that case it makes economic sense to dilute. Since D-76 is so cheap, I'm not really thinking about diluting to save money, only for any possible benefits to negative quality.

Click to expand...

Agreed. D76 is not expensive, and the economy of diluted developer is not really important here, at least compared to the cost of film, and the opportunity cost of lousy negatives. Gotta be happy with the results, of course.

Maybe you should do a couple of test rolls? Try one at 1:1 and another using stock. See what you like best? At 1:1 you are more likely to see tonality changes in the shadows and highlights due to the changed properties. The longer developing time will bump the shadows slightly, and give slight compensation in the highlights for a potentially less total contrast. The slope of the mid-tones may change slightly too.

Kodak says you need 237mL of stock solution per film (80 square inches). So if you use 1+1, you need 500mL of working solution each 35mm/120 film.

LikeAPolaroid said:

Now - I see differences with HP5 and TriX which are the only fast films I use. Prints have a different "impact", more defined especially in the microcontrast.
On slower speed films the difference is less visible.

Click to expand...

I use Tri-X and Tmax-400, and D76. More often, Tri-X. I am of an opinion that if I can't see a difference, it doesn't matter to me, so I won't bother pursuing differences I cannot see. After making a straight print and choosing the correct contrast, I do the usual manipulations. The end result I am satisfied with, is the criteria. To view, I see at first, from a foot or two distance, then I stand back at normal viewing distance.

With that, I honestly don't see a difference. If I know which one is which, and know what to expect, maybe I see a small difference. If I mix up the print, I can not tell them apart.

I usually approach the "punch" with contrast and manipulations (dodge/burn/etc), as my straight print is usually just a starting point.

How much difference do you see? Obvious? Subtle?

ericdan said:

I have half a bottle of HC-110 and don't know what to do with it. I think I like D-76 1:1 better.

Click to expand...

I like both better. I often kid around about how bad HC-110 used to be. I think they must have changed the formula right around the time I had developed about 30-40 rolls with it. Because then it started looking really good.

In a way all general purpose commerically available developers are good for all available film in any given format.

RattyMouse said:

Hi All,

I have to develop a lot of film in the coming days and the developer I'm going to use for much of it is D-76. I've only used this developer once before so I need some advice from those with more experience.

The film that I am going to develop is mostly Neopan Acros. It is not clear to me how to decide whether or not I should use D-76 straight or dilute 1:1. Cost is of no concern to me so I'm not trying to stretch out my developer at all like that. I don't care for the longer development times of the 1:1 dilution so my preference is to not dilute. However, I do not know how dilution affects grain, contrast, sharpness, tonality, etc.

Can someone give me guidance on the differences of diluting D-76 with regards to properties such as these?

Finally, I have a LOT of DD-X in the house and was planning on developing my TMAX 400 using this developer. If you had your choice would you use DD-X or D-76?

Thank you very much!

Click to expand...

maybe i missed it, but why switch to d76 now? You should use the same developer you always use and are familiar with.

The best way to get good photographs is to eliminate variables as much as possible so you only have a few to control, which increases yur creative control. I like to say that Mary Ellen Mark used Tri-X her whole career because she knew it and could get the best out of it. I don't know what developer she uses, but i bet it's the same one all the time again.

Grain is important, but one of the things that will distinguish your work is a consistent look. Find that and stick to it.

tkamiya said:

I use Tri-X and Tmax-400, and D76. More often, Tri-X. I am of an opinion that if I can't see a difference, it doesn't matter to me, so I won't bother pursuing differences I cannot see. After making a straight print and choosing the correct contrast, I do the usual manipulations. The end result I am satisfied with, is the criteria. To view, I see at first, from a foot or two distance, then I stand back at normal viewing distance.

With that, I honestly don't see a difference. If I know which one is which, and know what to expect, maybe I see a small difference. If I mix up the print, I can not tell them apart.

I usually approach the "punch" with contrast and manipulations (dodge/burn/etc), as my straight print is usually just a starting point.

How much difference do you see? Obvious? Subtle?

Click to expand...

The difference is obviously subtle

RattyMouse said:

I usually use HC-110 to develop my film but have run out and do not want to buy a new bottle. I think D-76 is the natural developer to move to and should not radically change how the film looks. I'm just not sure of how to dilute D-76.

From other responders it sounds like 1:1 is the way to go.

Click to expand...

I always use it 1:1 for various reasons as mentioned by others. However, one good reason is to allow you to quickly hit the solution temperature you want and as you also mention not being sure of how to dilute D-76, here we go:-

Let’s say you need 300ml of D76 at 1:1 and at 68°F. You pour 150ml of stock D76 into a graduated cylinder and place in a thermometer. Let’s say it says 58°F. Then in separate graduated cylinder you place the thermometer and pour in hot and cold tap water (don’t worry about the quantity) until the temperature is 78°F. Then pour out the excess water to leave 150ml and add to the other cylinder containing stock solution. Hey presto 300ml of D76 at 1:1 and 68°F ready to pour in the tank.

LikeAPolaroid said:

The difference is obviously subtle

Click to expand...

haha....

Although I have never used Acros, which the OP asked about, D76 and ID11 (virtually the same) have been my main developers for many years.
I used to use D76 at 1:1 but when I went to 1:3 I noticed a real difference. Slightly more grain and a noticable increase in sharpness. On a 10x8 print the increase in grain was hard to spot. More a crisping-up of the grain, which I found good rather than bad, especially in sky areas. But the increase in sharpness was quite noticable from a normal viewing distance. Other benefits of 1:3 were control of highlight densities and a compensating effect that didn't compress the mid-tones. I do like to take photographs when the sun is out so contrast control is important. HP5 or TRI X, rated at 200. and developed for 15 minutes in D76 1:3 have yielded lots of easily printed negatives for me.
Eventually, in order to cut down the development time, I tried a 1:2 dilution of D76. Results were identical to the 1:3 dilution, but dev. time came down to 12 minutes. This is what I have used since 2006, for 35mm and 120 Trix and HP5.
I have experimented with other developers. DDX I found too grainy. D76, despite what some people say, is actually a fine grain developer and I see hardly any grain on 9.5 x 12inch prints from 35mm HP5. But I did with DDX.
In direct comparisons with other developers I have found D76 at 1:2 to be sharper than Rodinal, and much finer-grained. XTOL I found slightly finer-grained than D76, but I didn't like the tonality so much, and found Trix and HP5 negatives developed in XTOL harder to print than those developed in D76.

Alan

I don't use Acros.

But I use a lot of TMX100, if there is any similarity.

I use D76 1:1 unless I am pushing, then I use stock.

summicron1 said:

maybe i missed it, but why switch to d76 now? You should use the same developer you always use and are familiar with.

Click to expand...

See post #24.

Me too.
Been using D76 my whole career... I agree with not dropping below 5 min.

tkamiya said:

I've done both (stock and 1:1) and quite frankly, there weren't appreciable (or even noticeable) difference.

I usually use stock as long as development time is greater than 5 minutes. If not, I dilute but for the sole purpose of process uniformity.

Click to expand...

LikeAPolaroid said:

Kodak says you need 237mL of stock solution per film (80 square inches). So if you use 1+1, you need 500mL of working solution each 35mm/120 film.

Click to expand...

Or increase time as per what the Kodak spec sheet says

Yes. But Kodak says to increase time of *about* 10%. You need to figure out the right amount by testing.
To me, better err on the side of caution and use the minimum quantity advised. Home development is all about quality not economy to the last penny.

LikeAPolaroid said:

Kodak says you need 237mL of stock solution per film (80 square inches). So if you use 1+1, you need 500mL of working solution each 35mm/120 film.

Click to expand...

This is a misinterpretation of what Kodak say. An understandable one, as Kodak's data sheet isn't really clear on this.
My interpretation is that Kodak is saying you need 237mls of stock solution to use the stock solution time given in their table. If you use a 1:1 solution you can still develop for the stock solution time as long as you add an equal amount of water to the 237mls , and,of course, use a bigger tank. But if you use a small tank and use only half the 237mls of stock solution, (diluted with an equal amount of water), you should increase dev. times by about 10 percent. They then refer you to the table for these times.

Alan

Below is what Kodak says. For me it's pretty clear. Stock or 1:1 you need anyway 237mL of stock per roll. If you don't do that and use less than that quantity then you need to alter the development time (about 10%)

"You can develop one 135-3 roll (80 square inches)
in 473 mL (16 ounces) or two rolls together in 946 mL
(one quart) of diluted developer. 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 (see the following tables)."

Like I said, Kodak are not very clear about this. But they are definitely not saying that you need a minimum of 237ml of stock solution to develop a roll of 35mm film.

Alan

LikeAPolaroid said:

Yes. But Kodak says to increase time of *about* 10%. You need to figure out the right amount by testing.
To me, better err on the side of caution and use the minimum quantity advised. Home development is all about quality not economy to the last penny.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. I never purchase a film developer based on its price, it's always based on performance. It's also nice not to have to send the film out to have it processed. But there are those that shoot incredible amounts of film, and are very consistent with what they do, and to them it might be beneficial to send their film to somebody like Bob Carnie above to have it processed, since he will likely be doing the printing too. But that's based on long time relationships; you probably don't get that from a lab where thousands of others send their film too.

I've never used more than150mlstocksolution/filmfilm ofD76 1+1

RalphLambrecht said:

I've never used more than150mlstocksolution/filmfilm ofD76 1+1

Click to expand...

Likewise. I often develop 2 rolls of 35mm film in a 16 ounce tank.

Which is half the stock solution recommended.

I develop until my graphs show the Contrast Index that I aimed for, I don't rely on published charts.

My time is typically 13 minutes, 30 seconds to reach Contrast Index 0.62

(TMAX 400 in D-76 1:1 small tank 68-degrees F with half the recommended stock solution).

I encourage everyone to develop to Contrast appropriate for how they print once they get past the basics.