"New" 2019 D76 vs Traditional D76?

[NB23]

Each year and you are fine ,,
I wish you good health and lasting happiness ..
In fact, I am very tired. Sanitary has become a very long time and I feel a lot of boredom and frustration.
I don’t know what to do ,,?
I am looking to buy an expired films (or similar) package or any other measurements in order to meet the increasing demands of Egyptian photography enthusiasts and I don’t know what to do, n
I do not find any large quantities at an encouraging price, the whole world is full of greedy merchants, kind people have become scarce.
- I am very, very tired and very bored.
I'm so sad ....

You don’t know what to do? Go in the darkroom and print! This is the best time in humanity to finally finish printing what life was preventing you.

 

[Ian Grant]

If you read that link I gave earlier, you'll find that you were essentially given a modified form of an Ilford suggestion (your informant seems to have modified the amount of sodium sulfite for reasons that make no sense when you are loading up the developer with silver solvent anyway) to produce potentially finer grain with 1950's emulsions. Note Ron's comments on the effect of that much NH4Cl on a developer. If you cannot get superb results out of D-76, it's not the formula that's the problem.

My understanding was the issues with Dichroic fogging were predominantly with Kodak films particularly those made in the US, this lead to Kodak dropping Kodatol/DK-20 and introducing Microdol and later Microdol-X. Here in the UK Kodak continued with Microdol for longer before finally switching to Microdol-X.

Dropping the Sulphite level from 100g to 35g will most likely increase the Dichroic fogging caused by the Ammonium Chloride. Back in the 1970's/80's we increased the Sulphite in a developer to overcome occasional Dichroic fog issues but this was in a dilute developer where the level was relatively low anyway.

Ian

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've noticed where there is a new "2019" D76 available. How is this "new" developer different than the previous, pre 2019, D76 developer? I hope it's not different in activity?

I did all my calibrations last year using the traditional D76 (pre-2019); I would hate to have to do them again. Is someone familiar with these changes?

I'm not familiar with any changes but this is a good reason to make Your own, as I do for decades.

 

[mohmad khatab]

For developing paper negatives, you can use a sufficiently diluted paper developer including your Agfa Neutol WA. There are plenty of other possibilities - caffenol for example. On this forum and on largeformatphotography forum there is a lot of useful information on developing paper negatives. Just search and read.

Agfa Neutol WA
I have this -
Well thank you - may God bless you

 

[mohmad khatab]

My understanding was the issues with Dichroic fogging were predominantly with Kodak films particularly those made in the US, this lead to Kodak dropping Kodatol/DK-20 and introducing Microdol and later Microdol-X. Here in the UK Kodak continued with Microdol for longer before finally switching to Microdol-X.

Dropping the Sulphite level from 100g to 35g will most likely increase the Dichroic fogging caused by the Ammonium Chloride. Back in the 1970's/80's we increased the Sulphite in a developer to overcome occasional Dichroic fog issues but this was in a dilute developer where the level was relatively low anyway.

Ian

You ignored the presence of half a gram of potassium bromide, and it fights fog, you know.
Yes, the sulfur content decreased to 35 grams. But there is compensation for this decrease by adding half a gram of bromide, and in the meantime, you can get good effects from ammonium chloride. I don’t know what those effects or benefits are, but there is definitely some benefit or effects of what the Russians wanted in their films, I don’t try the recipe and I won’t try it ,, I hate (D76) in general ,, but I just wanted to participate in the discussion.
You can try the Russian recipe and do not rush to judge it.
Sometimes practical reality is relatively different from theoretical reality.

 

[Ian Grant]

I didn't ignore th half gram of bromide, actually taht was in som of the alternative formulae to D76 from Fuji, Agafa (&Agfa Ansco), Fotokemia, Konica etc. Actaully the Bromide is there as a "Starter" as these developers were all designed for replenishment.

Ian

 

[mmerig]

Well, if it is like the old and new Dektols, it might not look the same but be the same. The new Dektol is brownish when fresh -- some chemical that does not affect the properties of the developer. Perhaps there is a very quick and easy test to do to see if the new matches the old. Good Luck!

Dektol is not the same as D76, but close to D72 -- maybe that is what you mean? I use Dektol, and when fresh it's almost clear (very slight brown). The same goes for Ilford ID-11 (similar to D76.) They both oxidize over some weeks, especially when in a partially-filled bottle, and become browner. I have not noticed any difference in development. The last batch of Dektol I mixed may not be the newest stuff, though.

 

[Lachlan Young]

My understanding was the issues with Dichroic fogging were predominantly with Kodak films particularly those made in the US, this lead to Kodak dropping Kodatol/DK-20 and introducing Microdol and later Microdol-X. Here in the UK Kodak continued with Microdol for longer before finally switching to Microdol-X.

Dropping the Sulphite level from 100g to 35g will most likely increase the Dichroic fogging caused by the Ammonium Chloride. Back in the 1970's/80's we increased the Sulphite in a developer to overcome occasional Dichroic fog issues but this was in a dilute developer where the level was relatively low anyway.

Ian

Couple of pull-quotes from Henn's patent on chlororesorcinol as an anti-dichroic stain agent, "The silver stain or scum, usually referred to herein simply as stain, is more likely to be produced in used photographic developers than in fresh photographic developers and becomes increasingly pronounced with extended developing times. Further, aged silver halide negative photographic films have a greater tendency to produce silver stain than the corresponding fresh silver halide negative photographic films." and "The formation of the stain is believed to be due to the deposition of dissolved silver halide around nucleating centers present in the emulsion."

The two specific developers he uses as examples in his patent are D-25 and DK-20. On the basis of documentary evidence, DK-20, D-23, D-25 and Microdol all seem to have appeared/ been disclosed within a few years of each other in the mid-1940's. It's particularly notable that nothing is disclosed about the formulation of either Microdol or Microdol-X in the patent.

 

[Ian Grant]

Lachlan, I seem to remember Henn and I think Crabtree research in the mid to late 1930s where they tried Ammonium Chloride and Sodium Thiocyanate, and they went with Thiocyanate for the Utra Finne Grain Developer Kodatol (DK-20). The formulae for D23 and D25 were published late in WWII.

Eastman Kodak had a lot of issues with Gelatin after WWII and problems with emulsions, it was finally realised is was due to their Atmospheric Nuclear tests. I was reading part of Robert Misrach's book Bravo 20 earlier this evening and US troops were 7,000 yards from the blasts. Misrach's earlier Desert Canto's show the deaths of vast numbers of cattle grazing in fall out areas, Ron (PE) indicated that Eastman Kodak had to clean the Gelatin. The term is deactivated Gelatin all Sulphur is stripped out, I think it was some years before Eastman Kodak eventually got in control of the issues but that lead to the consistently high quality we have with today's films.

When I first used Tri-X (late 1960's) Kodak's commercial developers gave different Development times and recommended ISO's for Tri X made in the US, Canada, and the UK, this was due yo Gelatin differences.

The year of the Patent you refer too is at the height of Atmospheric Nuclear testing in the US and increasing issue with Dichroic fog.

Ian

 

[Lachlan Young]

Lachlan, I seem to remember Henn and I think Crabtree research in the mid to late 1930s where they tried Ammonium Chloride and Sodium Thiocyanate, and they went with Thiocyanate for the Utra Finne Grain Developer Kodatol (DK-20). The formulae for D23 and D25 were published late in WWII.

Eastman Kodak had a lot of issues with Gelatin after WWII and problems with emulsions, it was finally realised is was due to their Atmospheric Nuclear tests. I was reading part of Robert Misrach's book Bravo 20 earlier this evening and US troops were 7,000 yards from the blasts. Misrach's earlier Desert Canto's show the deaths of vast numbers of cattle grazing in fall out areas, Ron (PE) indicated that Eastman Kodak had to clean the Gelatin. The term is deactivated Gelatin all Sulphur is stripped out, I think it was some years before Eastman Kodak eventually got in control of the issues but that lead to the consistently high quality we have with today's films.

When I first used Tri-X (late 1960's) Kodak's commercial developers gave different Development times and recommended ISO's for Tri X made in the US, Canada, and the UK, this was due yo Gelatin differences.

The year of the Patent you refer too is at the height of Atmospheric Nuclear testing in the US and increasing issue with Dichroic fog.

Ian

There was previous experience at Kodak with the on-land nuclear testing too - I recall reading about Kodak having a huge fight with the US Government in the late 1940's over stray alpha particles from fallout getting into the water supply of one of their paper mills making pulp for the boxes & consequently causing fogging - and that they eventually managed to persuade the US Govt to tell them before testing if their plants were potentially under a fallout cloud - and it took several decades before dairy farmers in the same area were informed.

The question of when all photo grade gelatins used were fully non-active is interesting, Bob Shanebrook suggests it took until the 1980s for all gelatins used at Kodak to move over to being fully inactivated & subsequently re-sensitised. Obviously somewhere between the 30s-50s, gelatins used became more and more inert & were subsequently sensitised by sulphur/ gold etc, but it's interesting that they continued to be a slightly awkward variable for a while after that.

 

[Vaughn]

Dektol is not the same as D76, but close to D72 -- maybe that is what you mean? I use Dektol, and when fresh it's almost clear (very slight brown). The same goes for Ilford ID-11 (similar to D76.) They both oxidize over some weeks, especially when in a partially-filled bottle, and become browner. I have not noticed any difference in development. The last batch of Dektol I mixed may not be the newest stuff, though.

No -- just commenting that there are issues with other new Kodak chemicals. While I have used Dektol for film development, I switched to Ilford Universal PQ Developer. I find the liquid easy to use and to adjust dilutions on the fly. I mostly use it at 1:9 (paper strength), but occasionally down towards the 'normal' 1:19. Sheet film for direct contacting in alt processes, so grain is not an issue. I also use pyro developers and occasionally HC-110.

 

[Paul Howell]

I assume that the D76 and Dektol clones are still being manufactured using an older formula?

 

[KenS]

I've noticed where there is a new "2019" D76 available. How is this "new" developer different than the previous, pre 2019, D76 developer? I hope it's not different in activity?

I did all my calibrations last year using the traditional D76 (pre-2019); I would hate to have to do them again. Is someone familiar with these changes?

I 'gave up' on Kodak's D76 a number of years ago. After a new 'batch was made I divide that gallon into separate
smaller 'clean' brown glass containers (filled to the 'brim) in my attempt to 'reduce' the oxidation in a partially filled bottle sometimes successful. I then 'woke up'... I changed over to Pyrocat HD which I now mix up from 'scratch'
and I now believe I'm getting 'better negatives (a bit more 'work.. but worth the effort and time.

Ken

 

[AgX]

BTW some people have had success cutting a photo paper into the size of 120 film and rolling it to be used in medium format cameras. See https://www.facebook.com/groups/AlternativePhotographicProcesses/permalink/10157268944832749/

At ISO 20 or lower it's not ideal for hand-held photography, but is still a cheap way to produce paper negatives (which can be scanned or contact printed) and paper positives (by reversal processing). Better than having no film any day. Reach out to James R Kyle on Facebook for more details.

In Europe during and after WWII film emulsions were coated on paper base by lack of film base. After the war there was a dedicatd enlarger working on reflected light.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

In Europe during and after WWII film emulsions were coated on paper base by lack of film base. After the war there was a dedicatd enlarger working on reflected light.

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing. On Facebook there's one person who has built an enlarger for paper negatives that uses reflected light. His prints look good.