Reichner's Divided film developer

[JW PHOTO]

I was over on Jack's Photographic and Chemistry Site http://www.jackspcs.com/dd76v.htm just to check out the divided developer formulas since I have been playing with Thornton's 2-bath. I noticed something rather strange on the Divided D-76 Film Developer (Variations) page. It lists Reichner's Divided Developer as "code name" XAP and then at the bottom of the page is a list of times for development. The times for Reichner's is 24 min. in bath A and 24 min. in bath B. I thought this might be a typo, but the times for AP, which is Reichner's without the metol, is bath A 22 min. and bath B 24min. This seems very long to me? I then check the Darkroom Cookbook and it list the times for Reichner's as 3 min. in each bath for conventional emulsion and 4 min. for T-grain. Who's right here???? John W

 

[Athiril]

I was over on Jack's Photographic and Chemistry Site http://www.jackspcs.com/dd76v.htm just to check out the divided developer formulas since I have been playing with Thornton's 2-bath. I noticed something rather strange on the Divided D-76 Film Developer (Variations) page. It lists Reichner's Divided Developer as "code name" XAP and then at the bottom of the page is a list of times for development. The times for Reichner's is 24 min. in bath A and 24 min. in bath B. I thought this might be a typo, but the times for AP, which is Reichner's without the metol, is bath A 22 min. and bath B 24min. This seems very long to me? I then check the Darkroom Cookbook and it list the times for Reichner's as 3 min. in each bath for conventional emulsion and 4 min. for T-grain. Who's right here???? John W

That looks excessive and incorrect, especially given the developer power wouldn't be that different by that much of a factor. I would go with the dark room cook book on the first test in this case.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I think it is a misprint. What was probably intended was the expression "2-4" min rather "24" min. Somehow the dash got left out. The Darkroom Cookbook value of 3 min supports this conclusion.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I think it is a misprint. What was probably intended was the expression "2-4" min rather "24" min. Somehow the dash got left out. The Darkroom Cookbook value of 3 min supports this conclusion.

Gerald,
I thought the same thing, but in the "AP formula" it list the times as 22 min. for "A" and 24 min. for "B". The times for bath "A" , if it was a misprint without the -, would be correct at 2-2min. then. That doesn't make sense either? If you go to the site I included you'll see what I mean. Not a big deal as I was just curious as to whether anyone else had seen those times. I'm sure you're right with the misprint theory. John W

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Gerald,
I thought the same thing, but in the "AP formula" it list the times as 22 min. for "A" and 24 min. for "B". The times for bath "A" , if it was a misprint without the -, would be correct at 2-2min. then. That doesn't make sense either? If you go to the site I included you'll see what I mean. Not a big deal as I was just curious as to whether anyone else had seen those times. I'm sure you're right with the misprint theory. John W

I saw the same thing but no other explanation seemed to fit. A bit of a stretch but perhaps the AP times was also fat-fingered. I do wish that things were doubly checked before posting to web sites.

 

[baachitraka]

22 mins, I may need direct sunlight to print those negatives ;-)

 

[JW PHOTO]

I saw the same thing but no other explanation seemed to fit. A bit of a stretch but perhaps the AP times was also fat-fingered. I do wish that things were doubly checked before posting to web sites.

Yes Gerald, I think all those were suppose to read 2-4 minutes just like you suspected. I agree on the "double checking" thing. It's one thing to make a slight mistake in a post on a forum like this and most people rather expect it, but to post mistakes on a website in another. Must be nobody uses this recipe or we would have heard about this mistake long ago. John W