New D76

[Alan Edward Klein]

I believe that F76+ is a PQ (Phenidone in place of Metol) developer. I use Clayton F76+ as my daily developer. I also home-brewed and used D76 (and variants) for thirty years or so until a few years ago when I opted for Claytons F76+. I think that Clayton’s gives excellent results (excellent tonality, fine-grain and open-shadow areas) with traditional as well as T-grained films. I find it easier to vary dilutions if I really have a roll that needs more or less contrast (rare). I also find it convenient (as it’s a liquid) and it lasts about three months if stored in tightly sealed containers in a dark, cool place.

I asked because one of the outside pro labs I use, North Coast Photo Service NCPS in Carlsbad,California, uses Clayton D76+.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I asked because one of the outside pro labs I use, North Coast Photo Service NCPS in Carlsbad,California, uses Clayton D76+.

Just another note. When I asked them what developer they normally used and they said Clayton D76+, they claimed to get similar results as Kodak's D76. I have no way to prove their claims nor have I made any comparisons.

 

[retina_restoration]

Just another note. When I asked them what developer they normally used and they said Clayton D76+, they claimed to get similar results as Kodak's D76. I have no way to prove their claims nor have I made any comparisons.

As far as I know there is no "Clayton D76+" - I suspect you mean Clayton F76+

That said, when a commercial lab says they get "similar results as Kodak's D76", that's fairly meaningless. You could easily choose any one of a dozen developers, use them in a lab setting and make that claim. The performance differences between the majority of middle-of-the-road developers is so subtle, and the only meaningful differences will be obtained by adjusting how the developer is used.

 

[MattKing]

One recommendation was some kind of rating or grading system to indicate how reliable the data is -- including a notation to identify "official" times provided by manufacturers. Do you have reason to believe something like that might actually happen?

It will be much more likely to happen if the manufacturers want it to happen. Photosys' decision to reference the MDC for times for Kodak branded developers indicates a change in attitude from an experienced manufacturer with $$$$ invested in a brand. It is that sort of attitude change that will be most likely to cause Digitaltruth to change.
I can see the downside for them - unless more manufacturers come on board.

 

[Milpool]

Just another note. When I asked them what developer they normally used and they said Clayton D76+, they claimed to get similar results as Kodak's D76. I have no way to prove their claims nor have I made any comparisons.

It's difficult to say. In the end most general purpose PQ/MQ developers give similar enough results that you can say pretty much anything. From a formulation perspective (including alkalinity) the Clayton developer superficially appears to be more along the lines of developers like HC-110 etc. (as it would have to be in many respects since it is a liquid concentrate), but it's not like HC-110 is worlds different than D-76 when it comes to working characteristics.

 

[David Lingham]

As a postscript to my original post, in the last couple of weeks I’ve had the opportunity to test and compare the latest reincarnation of Kodak D76, Adox D76 and Ilford ID11 along side each other.

I must first say thank you to Mirko at Fotoimpex for sending me both the Adox D76 and the ID11 that enabled me to do this.

As Kodak D76 is supposed to identical to ID11, and marketed as such, I used 35mm FP4 and the Ilford data of 11mins @ 1+1 for all three developers. On inspection both the Adox D76 and ID11 negatives were visually the same, while the D76 negatives appeared slightly underdeveloped. A second test with Kodak D76 extending the development times by 25% produced negatives closer in appearance to the results from the other two developers.

The current Kodak D76 would appear to be marginally weaker than previous versions and I would say a 20-25% increase in development times is needed.

 

[dokko]

As a postscript to my original post, in the last couple of weeks I’ve had the opportunity to test and compare the latest reincarnation of Kodak D76, Adox D76 and Ilford ID11 along side each other.

Very interesting, thanks for the report.
Did you do the comparison by photographing the same subject and with fixed camera settings?
It would be interesting to also compare the grain structure and sharpness of the different developers. If you want, you could send me the negatives and I‘ll do a scan at 14‘000 or 20‘000ppi to see if there are any differences.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

The current Kodak D76 would appear to be marginally weaker than previous versions and I would say a 20-25% increase in development times is needed.

I will be using the Adox product for the foreseeable future.

Thanks David.

 

[Daniela]

As Kodak D76 is supposed to identical to ID11, and marketed as such, I used 35mm FP4 and the Ilford data of 11mins @ 1+1 for all three developers. On inspection both the Adox D76 and ID11 negatives were visually the same, while the D76 negatives appeared slightly underdeveloped. A second test with Kodak D76 extending the development times by 25% produced negatives closer in appearance to the results from the other two developers.

The current Kodak D76 would appear to be marginally weaker than previous versions and I would say a 20-25% increase in development times is needed.

Thank you for sharing this!

 

[David Lingham]

Very interesting, thanks for the report.
Did you do the comparison by photographing the same subject and with fixed camera settings?
It would be interesting to also compare the grain structure and sharpness of the different developers. If you want, you could send me the negatives and I‘ll do a scan at 14‘000 or 20‘000ppi to see if there are any differences.

To produce the test film I choose an area of my garden that gave a full range of tones. In soft lighting, using my Nikon F2 mounted on a tripod and a 50mm lens, cable release and mirror lock up, I shot a complete roll of 36exp FP4. Exposing a series of five exposures, -2,-1, N, +1,+2, then a blank. To keep the lighting the same and the results even the whole film was shot in less than 3mins. In the darkroom the film was cut into three equal lengths, with each piece then loaded onto a spiral for processing one at a time.

 

[dokko]

To produce the test film I choose an area of my garden that gave a full range of tones. In soft lighting, using my Nikon F2 mounted on a tripod and a 50mm lens, cable release and mirror lock up, I shot a complete roll of 36exp FP4. Exposing a series of five exposures, -2,-1, N, +1,+2, then a blank. To keep the lighting the same and the results even the whole film was shot in less than 3mins. In the darkroom the film was cut into three equal lengths, with each piece then loaded onto a spiral for processing one at a time.

Sounds like a very good test indeed!

I‘m traveling at the moment, but if you‘d like to show the differences between the developers on a very high resolution scan, send me a PM and we can arrange it when I‘m back next month.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

To produce the test film I choose an area of my garden that gave a full range of tones. In soft lighting, using my Nikon F2 mounted on a tripod and a 50mm lens, cable release and mirror lock up, I shot a complete roll of 36exp FP4. Exposing a series of five exposures, -2,-1, N, +1,+2, then a blank. To keep the lighting the same and the results even the whole film was shot in less than 3mins. In the darkroom the film was cut into three equal lengths, with each piece then loaded onto a spiral for processing one at a time.

Do you have a densitometer?