Just bought a new package of D76 from my local camera store, past few years have been using clones, the price was nice, better than Freestyle or Ultrafine, no shipping, but boy it is a big sack, 3 times larger than needed, I hope they used nitrogen other wise will oxidize much sooner. They hypo clearing also seems to be in over size package.
New packaging for D76
-
A
- Thread starter Paul Howell
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Free Mini Radio triggers: Light pix lab Flash Q
- Started by RoboRepublic
-
Want to Buy Kodak Polytoner
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale PLAUBEL MAKINA 67 GRIP
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Paul, My lab North Coast Photo in California uses a D76 substitute. Clayton F76+. It's suppose to be a substitute for D76.
Clayton like HC110 is designed to give the same working chartiricts as D76, balance between speed, grain and contrast. As I recall Clayton was used by the Navy for use on ships as it was low vapor and less toxic in close spaces. . I used 76+ for many years, the store I use to shop at had a contact with several school districts and I got the same price the schools paid. At the time I was shooting a lot of film, but F76+ will not last more than a few months once opened. Past 4 years I've used a 76 clone from Ultrafine and primarily CM 100, but at $48 a gallon I want to move on to less expensive option. To complicate matters I've also moved from Ultrafine 100 and 400 back to Foma 200 and 400. I bought some Formadon, LQR, thinking it was a standard developer, not so, a high contrast line developer, so long story rather than order LQN back to D76. But might if I shoot more 4X5 might get a bottle or 2 of Clayton. I had good luck with F76, their version of Tmax developer, rapid fix, and stop bath.
@Paul Howell I can't believe you've done that. 
I found Ultrafine-76 to be slightly smoother (more pleasant grain) than ID-11 and it is absolutely magical with Ultrafine 100/400 films! Foma is just so much.... different. If Xtol disappears, I am going back to Ultrafine-76 or "d76u" as it's called in my EXIF data.
I found Ultrafine-76 to be slightly smoother (more pleasant grain) than ID-11 and it is absolutely magical with Ultrafine 100/400 films! Foma is just so much.... different. If Xtol disappears, I am going back to Ultrafine-76 or "d76u" as it's called in my EXIF data.
If Xtol disappears, I'll find out pretty darn quick whether Mytol replenishes itself -- and if not, I'll use it one-shot.
I've never been a big fan of D-76; in truth, I'd rather mix my own D-72 and use that for film (appropriately diluted, using Dektol times). Despite having the same sulfite level, Xtol seems to give less "mushy grain" than D-76 -- at least to my eye.
I've never been a big fan of D-76; in truth, I'd rather mix my own D-72 and use that for film (appropriately diluted, using Dektol times). Despite having the same sulfite level, Xtol seems to give less "mushy grain" than D-76 -- at least to my eye.
Agreed, Xtol is hard to beat and I envy your ability and willingness to mix your own. But try Ultrafine's 76 developer, the Delta 400 rolls developed in it were smoother vs ID-11, DD-X or F76+. And that's for 35mm film, I bet that in medium format you'll be happy with its grain. Full disclaimer: I never ran any scientific tests, I just went through two bags of it and the rolls I developed in it produced more keepers than average.
I have used Ultrafine version of D76 and believe it's a powder version of Clayton F76 and I think their Tmax developer is a version of Clayton F60. I thought I had a bag of Ultrafine D76 on hand, but must have used it, did not want to wait to order so I bought the bag of D76. Next time I order from Freestyle will get a bottle of F36+ and keep for developing 4X5. I use D76 and it's clones at 1:1 or 1:2, results are not as soft as stock.
You know how everyone went nuts buying toilet paper. I did that with XTOL when I heard that Tetenal was restructuring.
Paul, is it possible you're confusing Ultrafine and Freestyle? I often do. In this case, Arista Premium from Freestyle is a powder version of F76+. But Ultrafine D76-Type developer (the one I like a lot) is made by NACCO.
But if you're talking about Ultrafine Liquid developer, that one I have no experience with, could be Clayton.
Why would one do so? If filled with air, as you indicated, it only creates unneccessary shipping/storing volume.
Probably because buying one size of bag stock (before printing) saves money over a bunch of specialized sizes. They sell Dektol in 5 gal packages, so they save (a penny a bag, maybe) if they package all their other dry chemical mixtures in the same size bag that fits a 5 gal Dektol.
Could be wrong, might be some other reason, but money is usually it.
Could be wrong, might be some other reason, but money is usually it.
Bags are made from a hose that is printed on in apt format, and cut and sealed only at the filling machine.
Thus there should not be too big bags.
Unlesss the printing was designed too big and the filling machine encloses air/inert gas. Oŕ if the bag was designed for very flat packing but instead was filled compact with included air/gas.
Thus there should not be too big bags.
Unlesss the printing was designed too big and the filling machine encloses air/inert gas. Oŕ if the bag was designed for very flat packing but instead was filled compact with included air/gas.
Last edited:
Ok, makes sense, I pretty sure their liquid developer is made by Clayton so guessed that the powered version as well.
Hazmat/SDS notification requirements, which change every few years (changed in 2016, IIRC) and apply to any newly designed packaging. They have to have a hazmat panel with text of a certain size, including ingredients above a certain percentage and hazard level. The panel has to fit on the final consumer package.
If one needs a certain size of printing, one still can fill the bag in two ways, without adding air or inert gas, as I explained above.
The OP though indicated that uneccessary part of the volume is just air/gas.
(What he considers a problem to him.)
The OP though indicated that uneccessary part of the volume is just air/gas.
(What he considers a problem to him.)
I have some metol (the most oxidation-prone component of D-76) that's been in an opened jar for at least twenty years, and the only change has been that it's straw colored instead of bright white like a newer sample I have. Even if there's humidity trapped in the bag, there won't be enough water there to cause clumping or accelerate oxidation with the tiny amount of trapped oxygen.
The bags have to be filled in a vertical, open-upward position, so they can't readily be "flat packed" as you describe. Attempting to do so would cost more, and unless there was a specific reason to need to exclude air, there's no reason to spend that money.
The bags have to be filled in a vertical, open-upward position, so they can't readily be "flat packed" as you describe. Attempting to do so would cost more, and unless there was a specific reason to need to exclude air, there's no reason to spend that money.
Some time today I take a picture of the bag to show how large it is.
MattKing
Moderator
That sounds like something Lomography should try
.More seriously, I wonder what affect that would have on manufacturing costs and, what I expect would end up being more significant, shipping costs both to the retailer and from the retailer to the customer.
Not sure why but the new hypo clearing agent is in jumbo bags too. Maybe this size is on sale
Mfg. Date November of 2019. Could be the reason for delays is improved packaging. Using same bag as XTOL.
MattKing
Moderator
What we are seeing here might be the result of them having to quite quickly get someone new to make and print all the chemical bags. With Tetenal going under (for a while), I expect there was a whole bunch of scrambling around to replace supply chains that had up to then been relatively problem free.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,307
- Format
- 35mm
Coke hasn’t been indecent (yet) to sell their soda into small bags. I don’t see why Kodak couldn’t sell its powdered chemicals in similar cans. It could also be a big marketing hit.
That sounds like something Lomography should try
More seriously, I wonder what affect that would have on manufacturing costs and, what I expect would end up being more significant, shipping costs both to the retailer and from the retailer to the customer.
Everything in oversize bags. Like I said, they bought one bag size (big enough for a 5 gal Dektol) and packaged and labeled everything in that size, at least for a moment.
If it's in date and still airtight, I wouldn't worry about it. Probably aren't any of these past date yet.
If it's in date and still airtight, I wouldn't worry about it. Probably aren't any of these past date yet.
Not sure why but the new hypo clearing agent is in jumbo bags too. Maybe this size is on sale
View attachment 251085
That the size of the D76 bag I bought, assuming that it is nitrogen filled should be ok.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |