New D76

[xkaes]

Just like film speed, developer specifics (time, temp, dilution, etc.) are mere guidelines. For optimum results with the individual, idiosyncratic camera and developing gear & methods that we each have requires some tests. These can be amazingly simple or as complex as you want, but I don't know anyone who has not made adjustments as a result of their tests.

 

[Dali]

Just like film speed, developer specifics (time, temp, dilution, etc.) are mere guidelines. For optimum results with the individual, idiosyncratic camera and developing gear & methods that we each have requires some tests. These can be amazingly simple or as complex as you want, but I don't know anyone who has not made adjustments as a result of their tests.

Pretty obvious but it is true having a developer changing of behavior without changing of name is somewhat confusing.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Just like film speed, developer specifics (time, temp, dilution, etc.) are mere guidelines. For optimum results with the individual, idiosyncratic camera and developing gear & methods that we each have requires some tests. These can be amazingly simple or as complex as you want, but I don't know anyone who has not made adjustments as a result of their tests.

True, but I've got to start somewhere, right? I would rather start with the manufacturer's recommendations based on controlled conditions rather than the recommendation of some unknown person who is working under unknown conditions, then posting results to Digital Truth's MDC.

For the past couple of years I have been trying out various films, trying to find one or two that I plan to stick with. So far, I have been shooting only a a couple of rolls of each film, following the manufacturer's recommendations without attempting to optimise my results. After I pick my favorite film(s), then I will do more testing to determine what adjustments I prefer.

So far, I have developed about 40 rolls of b&w negative film, following the manufacturers recommendations whenever possible. Out of those, only two rolls were unacceptable to me. One I believe was due to a bad batch of Kodak Xtol, from a lot number that was later recalled. And for the second one, neither the chemistry manufacturer nor the film manufacturer provided a recommended time & temp for that combination, so I followed advice posted on The Massive Development Chart and ended up with severely underdeveoped negatives.

But now, I am intertested in doing some testing to fine tune my processing. Can you point me to a source that outlines the process, perferably one at the more "amazingly simple" end of the scale? I am not interested in any process that requires a densiometer.

 

[xkaes]

But now, I am intertested in doing some testing to fine tune my processing. Can you point me to a source that outlines the process, perferably one at the more "amazingly simple" end of the scale? I am not interested in any process that requires a densiometer.

Of course you should start out with the manufacturer's recommendation. Where to go from there can be as simple as taking a few shots of a gray card (or similar subject) at slightly different exposures and see which comes out "better". There's no need for a densitometer -- unless you want to go that route -- but if you are doing your own darkroom work, you have all you need. Your eyeball works as a pretty good densitometer. It can tell you if you are getting maximum black and maximum white -- but if you have a hand-held meter or enlarging meter you can get more refined.

The important thing is that exposure and development have both got to be adjusted, so you need to take some shots at different ISO settings, and develop them at different times. That's still not a big deal, and not a lot of film. How much you adjust the ISO or the development time is up to you -- until you get the results you want.

 

[Milpool]

I thought boric anhydride would become boric acid once dissolved. I assume that it's there as part of the borax/boric acid buffer system.

In some older SDSs boric anhydride was often listed as <1%, which probably had mostly to do with stabilizing the single package (boric anhydride is one of the compounds discussed in the various patents Kodak had related to combined packaging of dry ingredients). The most recent Photo Systems SDS lists it at 1-3% which hints to it likely playing an additional role - buffering for example.

 

[mshchem]

Kodak hasn't looked at these times this millennium

 

[Milpool]

Expose the film at its ISO speed, develop based on manufacturer recommendations. Then adjust if you find you are consistently having problems editing/printing due to insufficient contrast, too much contrast and/or insufficient/excessive density.

True, but I've got to start somewhere, right? I would rather start with the manufacturer's recommendations based on controlled conditions rather than the recommendation of some unknown person who is working under unknown conditions, then posting results to Digital Truth's MDC.

For the past couple of years I have been trying out various films, trying to find one or two that I plan to stick with. So far, I have been shooting only a a couple of rolls of each film, following the manufacturer's recommendations without attempting to optimise my results. After I pick my favorite film(s), then I will do more testing to determine what adjustments I prefer.

So far, I have developed about 40 rolls of b&w negative film, following the manufacturers recommendations whenever possible. Out of those, only two rolls were unacceptable to me. One I believe was due to a bad batch of Kodak Xtol, from a lot number that was later recalled. And for the second one, neither the chemistry manufacturer nor the film manufacturer provided a recommended time & temp for that combination, so I followed advice posted on The Massive Development Chart and ended up with severely underdeveoped negatives.

But now, I am intertested in doing some testing to fine tune my processing. Can you point me to a source that outlines the process, perferably one at the more "amazingly simple" end of the scale? I am not interested in any process that requires a densiometer.

 

[Steven Lee]

In my mind, abdicating control of recommended times and temperatures to a third-party, black-box database like The Massive Development Chart shows how far Kodak has fallen.

While I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't understand why you and many other people keep referring to a brand as if it was a company. The fact is that Kodak hasn't fallen. It died. It no longer exists, just like the original AT&T or Rollei. Bits and pieces of Eastman Kodak survived as independent smaller companies, and the most successful one (NYSE:EMN) has nothing to do with photography, but Kodak-branded chemistry had nothing to do with Kodak for a very very long time.

In other words, Kodak doesn't make or distribute any chemistry so it cannot "fall". And when we look at Kodak-branded chemistry, I would argue that today it's in a far better shape than it has ever been. So practically speaking, it has risen, not fallen.

 

[dokko]

In other words, Kodak doesn't make or distribute any chemistry so it cannot "fall". And when we look at Kodak-branded chemistry, I would argue that today it's in a far better shape than it has ever been. So practically speaking, it has risen, not fallen.

I'm probably not old enough to make definite statements about this, but for all I know Kodak once *did* make and distribute chemistry in their in house factory, and it used to be at the top of the game at this.

I had a first hand encounter with "brown" (to put it mildly) Dektol a few years back, and some XTOL that looked like a snow storm, so personally I'm very disappointed about the lack of quality control, and I'm reluctant to trust Kodak branded chemistry anymore, since they clearly don't seem to care what is sold under their brand name (or are incompetent, which is just as bad).

whether you'd like to call this "died" or "fallen" feels not really important to me.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

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.

Agree on everything with Tom R55. I think it is a different beast than D-76. Have used a couple of times and yes, excellent results on the films I use. I normally prefer my developers in dry form, but F76+ is an exception.

I dont think comparing D-76 (in any incarnation) to F-76+ is a good thing to do, since they produce different result.

Marcelo

 

[MattKing]

While I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't understand why you and many other people keep referring to a brand as if it was a company. The fact is that Kodak hasn't fallen. It died. It no longer exists, just like the original AT&T or Rollei. Bits and pieces of Eastman Kodak survived as independent smaller companies, and the most successful one (NYSE:EMN) has nothing to do with photography, but Kodak-branded chemistry had nothing to do with Kodak for a very very long time.

In other words, Kodak doesn't make or distribute any chemistry so it cannot "fall". And when we look at Kodak-branded chemistry, I would argue that today it's in a far better shape than it has ever been. So practically speaking, it has risen, not fallen.

Eastman Kodak still does make some chemicals - they are targeted to commercial motion picture film processors.
And they still make Control strips for the film processing industry.
And of course, they still make almost all of the world's ECN-2 motion picture film, much of the world's black and white motion picture film, most of the world's C41 colour still film, plus substantial amounts of black and white still film and possibly all of the currently manufactured E6 colour still and motion picture film.
As an example, here is their page listing chemicals for ECN process: https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/ecn-2-kit-chemicals/

 

[Ian Grant]

I thought boric anhydride would become boric acid once dissolved. I assume that it's there as part of the borax/boric acid buffer system.

Without researching it thoroughly, my first comment is Boron Oxide, is better described as di-Boron tri-Oxide, B2O3, one way of manufacture is heating Boric Acid to 300ºC, fusing Boric Acid

H3BO3 → HBO2 + H2O
HBO2 → B2O3 + H2O

So you've lost the hydroxyl radicals, but it forms bonds with itself and other borated, so will have quite different properties as in a buffer.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

Kodak hasn't looked at these times this millennium

Not quite, but certainly since the bankruptcy the only revisions were to replace them with Kodak Alaris badging.
But the film manufacturing people and the distribution people still did communicate about quality issues, at least until Sino Promise went under.
And Eastman Kodak were the entity that re-licensed the brand to Photosys.
I expect that the Photosys/Cinestill partnership simply made the decision to make use of the MDC, because that is where the majority of new users are looking anyways now. That decision may, of course, be temporary. Photosys has lots of experience over the years using the more traditional information systems.

 

[Dali]

But now, I am intertested in doing some testing to fine tune my processing. Can you point me to a source that outlines the process, perferably one at the more "amazingly simple" end of the scale? I am not interested in any process that requires a densiometer.

Start with recommended ISO and development time. Negatives too light = Not enough light. Decrease the ISO for the next roll. Negative too contrasty = Development too long. Decrease (-20%) the development time for the next roll. Of course, if the negs are too dark or flat, do the opposite. After 3-4 rolls, you should be close to optimum.

 

[Steven Lee]

whether you'd like to call this "died" or "fallen" feels not really important to me.

Well... my point was that now we finally got a real chemistry company (Photosys) in charge of reviving the Kodak-branded chemicals and they could use some encouragement and support from the community. It is kind of similar to the ADOX rising from the ashes in Germany. Calling their line of products "fallen" or "dead" doesn't really help. If we want their business to succeed, the least we can do is to spread misinformation about declining quality.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Expose the film at its ISO speed, develop based on manufacturer recommendations. Then adjust if you find you are consistently having problems editing/printing due to insufficient contrast, too much contrast and/or insufficient/excessive density.

Start with recommended ISO and development time. Negatives too light = Not enough light. Decrease the ISO for the next roll. Negative too contrasty = Development too long. Decrease (-20%) the development time for the next roll. Of course, if the negs are too dark or flat, do the opposite. After 3-4 rolls, you should be close to optimum.

Thank you both. I am already doing this to some degree. After every roll is developed, I look at the negatives closely for shadow detail, and if not adequate, I make a note to increase exposure for the next roll.

I also try to evaluate the negatives for density, but that is more subjective for me. Presently, I do not have access to a darkroom so I am not able to judge density and contrast according to how well the negatives print. I now have enough negatives available for comparison, so I can judge if a roll is denser than average or thinner than average, but it's "my" average, so it's possible my baseline is skewed. I am reminded of an amateur winemaker I once knew who drank only his own wine. He thought it tasted OK, but I thought it tasted weird, compared to commercial wines.

 

[MattKing]

also try to evaluate the negatives for density, but that is more subjective for me. Presently, I do not have access to a darkroom so I am not able to judge density and contrast according to how well the negatives print. I now have enough negatives available for comparison, so I can judge if a roll is denser than average or thinner than average, but it's "my" average, so it's possible my baseline is skewed. I am reminded of an amateur winemaker I once knew who drank only his own wine. He thought it tasted OK, but I thought it tasted weird, compared to commercial wines.

FWIW, this may help:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682
this too:
https://www.aregeebee.net/negs/eneg.htm

 

[runswithsizzers]

Well... my point was that now we finally got a real chemistry company (Photosys) in charge of reviving the Kodak-branded chemicals and they could use some encouragement and support from the community. It is kind of similar to the ADOX rising from the ashes in Germany. Calling their line of products "fallen" or "dead" doesn't really help. If we want their business to succeed, the least we can do is to spread misinformation about declining quality.

I regret that my comment about the Kodak brand triggered such a defensive response, and for that I apologize. I was in no way suggesting the Kodak products being made by Photosys are in any way inferior or declining in quality. Like you, I have confidence that Photosys can, and will, do a good job of manufacturing chemistry under the Kodak brand.

My comment was as a consumer who was once provided with very complete data sheets from Kodak, now being told by Photosys to look up development times for their Kodak brand chemistry on a third party online database of questionable reliability over which Photosys has no control.

On their "About Us" webpage, Photo Systems Inc. says this:
"The entire line of photochemical solutions has been tested and certified for commercialization by Kodak’s Quality Assurance within their rigorous tolerances. After all, KODAK means Quality." <https://kodak.photosys.com/pages/about-psi>

It seems like part of any quality assurance program would include testing to determine how the chemistry works with some actual film. And if so, couldn't whoever did the testing summarize those test results in a Data Sheet type document and make it available to us consumers? I don't need the kind of exhaustive Data Sheets that the-company-formerly-known-as-Kodak once provided, but it would be nice to have a chart of recommended times for some of the more popular films, mixing and storage instructions, shelf life, etc. all on one document for quick reference. Does that sound like a reasonable expectation?

I expect that the Photosys/Cinestill partnership simply made the decision to make use of the MDC, because that is where the majority of new users are looking anyways now. That decision may, of course, be temporary. Photosys has lots of experience over the years using the more traditional information systems.

"temporary" -- I hope so!

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Just like film speed, developer specifics (time, temp, dilution, etc.) are mere guidelines. For optimum results with the individual, idiosyncratic camera and developing gear & methods that we each have requires some tests. These can be amazingly simple or as complex as you want, but I don't know anyone who has not made adjustments as a result of their tests.

The trouble with giving recommended times is that the paper and darkroom equipment being used matter a lot. Until you have chosen your enlarger and lens, times are merely suggestions.

 

[mshchem]

I've got XTOL in stock, I shoot Kodak and Ilford films, I use the times from the old Kodak tech sheets. I have no real concerns about Photosys. I am pretty sure I tried Unicolor print from slides 50 years ago. Kodak and Ciba was better.
So lucky to have so many choices

 

[MattKing]

"temporary" -- I hope so!

Actually, I think it more likely that you will start seeing MDC times that are identified as being sourced from the manufacturer.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

After that hassle about production and quality issues, I switched definitively to ADOX for film developers such as XT-3 and D-76 (and Bellini for raw chemicals (I brew my own paper developer) and toners).

These are all European manufacturers...

 

[runswithsizzers]

Actually, I think it more likely that you will start seeing MDC times that are identified as being sourced from the manufacturer.

In August of 2022 I had an email discussion with Jon Mided, the Managing Director of Digitaltruth. I learned a little more about how their data is curated, and I made several suggestions about how the database could be made more useful to users. 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?

 

[Agulliver]

Just another little data point....in lieu of ID-11 and Microphen I had been using "D76" as sold by Nik and Trick...probably made for them by the good folk at Bellini. I found it was certainly adequate.

Even that was out of stock when I went to buy some last month so I got the latest Kodak D76. I dissolved in warm/hot water as directed using a laboratory thermometer to both check the temperature and dissolve the powder. I used it the next day on one roll of Exeter-Pan 400 pushed to 1600 (widely believed to be Ilford P4 surveillance film) and it did a fine job. I think the negatives were slightly more dense than I would have got with ID-11 or N&T D76.

 

[xkaes]

The trouble with giving recommended times is that the paper and darkroom equipment being used matter a lot. Until you have chosen your enlarger and lens, times are merely suggestions.

Exactly my point -- although I made not have made it exactly.