Replenishing D-76

Alan9940

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
2,432
Location
Arizona
Format
Multi Format
After a bit of poking around on this site and the interwebs, it's my understanding that the current version of D-76 uses something other than metol. If I wanted to replenish, can I use a published version of D-76R which does use metol? Has anyone simply reused the stock solution for TMax films without replenishing?

Thanks for your help.

P.S. Yes, I'm aware that Xtol doesn't require all the "ins and outs" to run replenished but I never really got along with this developer.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
288
Location
Kentucky
Format
Multi Format
I have been considering running D76 replenished, but have held off because I like the look of 1:1 too much.

In any case, though, as I'm typing this I have a bag bought from my local camera store last week. It's marked with a production date of 1/2/2024, and an expiration date of 1/2027.

The "Hazard Information" lists it as containing hydroquinone, sodium sulfite, boric anhydride, and sodium hydroxide. None of those are a surprise. It also lists Bis(4-hydroxy-N-methynilium) sulfate with a given CAS of 55-55-0. Sigma-Aldrich returns this for that CAS, and gives both the familiar chemical name to me for Metol in the search results and lists Metol as a synonym.


And this site lists Kodak's given name on the packet



The 2019 revision of the SDS from K-A agrees on this(and adds a few more, again none of which should be surprising to anyone who's blended or looked at the formula for D76)


Just to be sure, I looked at the 2024 revision of the SDS from PSI, and at least as the major components go it is not appreciably different


I had seen this same information about now using a metol derivative, and had been skeptical of using home-brewed D76R with Kodak commercial D76, but based on the information from the product I have on hand and availalbe information I don't see any reason why not. Commercial still seems to be an MQ blend with a boatload of sulfite and some borax or borax-adjacent compounds, so I suspect it will be fine.

SDSs are deliberately vague to give as much information as needed for people handling the product without revealing trade secrets, but I'd consider it a major issue for them to claim the presence of something that's a known allergen/irritant(IDed by a systematic name and CAS) when they are instead using a different but related compound.

Knowing this, I may mix up D76R and see what happens, as I have a mixed but not yet used
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,716
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
it's my understanding that the current version of D-76 uses something other than metol

Are you sure you're not referring to the different buffer system that @ADOX Fotoimpex has implemented in their new D76 version? The original uses borates; they moved away from this to be ready for future EU legislation. You can check the MSDS for the actual product you're using like @Ben Hutcherson shows above and confirm that your D76 version also contains metol. If it's not metol/hydroquinone-based, it can hardly be called D76 anymore.

If I wanted to replenish, can I use a published version of D-76R which does use metol?

I don't know whether the Adox buffer would interact in a funny way with the borate buffer of a regular D76 variant, but I don't expect so. This is about the only potential issue I can think w.r.t. compatibility.
 
OP
OP

Alan9940

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
2,432
Location
Arizona
Format
Multi Format
Thanks Ben and koraks for the replies.

So, it sounds like I can mix my own D-76R and use it with the commercial D-76 I have on its way from B&H. I'm going to give it a try and see how things go.

It's somewhat difficult to find Kodak's technical publications nowadays, but I read somewhere that if I plan to process TMax films, using a replenish routine, I should initially mix something like 1 part D-76R to 4 parts D-76 because TMax films are "harder" on the developer. Given that I shoot other films in addition to TMax, is it really that critical to follow this initial modified formula? Wouldn't an increase in development time compensate for whatever TMax films do to the stock developer?

Thanks, again, for any insight provided.
 

Kino

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
7,784
Location
Orange, Virginia
Format
Multi Format
If you are looking to save money by replenshing, let me give you an alternative: Scratch mix D76.

Corrected/updated prices; Thank you Bernard for catching my error.

 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2025-01-14 145105.jpg
    56.7 KB · Views: 116
Last edited:

Milpool

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
783
Location
n/a
Format
4x5 Format

D-76 still uses metol. No change there.

Follow the replenishing guidelines in tech pub J-78 (google Kodak D-76 tech pub).

You’re correct that Kodak recommended a different replenishing regime for the TMax films. J-78 tells you what to do. Essentially you use a weaker replenisher but more of it. According to Kodak this would better preserve emulsion speed and control contrast. My two cents is this recommendation probably had in mind high volume labs doing regular process monitoring (ie measurements). In practice I highly doubt these sensitometry differences are consequential enough to matter. On the other hand, this is the internet so you’re probably best off doing what Kodak recommended.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,716
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
That's a rather specific question and I couldn't answer it with certainty, but I'd be inclined to follow Big Yellow's advice.
Yes, you could also compensate for this by extending development. This may give a very subtly different curve shape, IDK. I doubt it'll be very significant in any case.
 
OP
OP

Alan9940

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
2,432
Location
Arizona
Format
Multi Format
@Kino Yeah, I've mixed D-76 from scratch for many years, but right now I'm a little short on a couple raw ingredients. And, since I was ordering some paper from B&H, anyway, I thought I'd toss in a couple bags of D-76. I'll mix the D-76R, of course, since that's no longer available. I downloaded the J78 pub and will follow Big Yellow's advice therein.

Thanks to all for your help.
 
OP
OP

Alan9940

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
2,432
Location
Arizona
Format
Multi Format
One more question for the group...

I was just reading through the replenishing instructions in J78 and it says that a modified D-76 stock, for processing and replenishment of TMax films, is only good for 4 weeks. I thought one of the primary advantages to using a replenishing routine is that the stock lasts for 6 - 12 months, depending, of course, on how much film is run. Why would the active life of the modified version be so short? Or, is this because TMax emulsions are exceptionally hard on the developer?
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,361
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
It is always important to remember that replenishment was mainly designed for high volume commercial labs.
4 weeks might mean 400, 4000, even 40,000 films for labs using D-76.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,892
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
a modified D-76 stock, for processing and replenishment of TMax films, is only good for 4 weeks.

Don't use your replenished D76 on Tmax films. Use it for everything else. Tmax films will kill it.

I've been using D76 replenished for a while, now. I would not recommend attempting to replenish a purchased bag of D76. There are too many unknowns about what's in that bag. If you mix the recipes @Kino provided above, you're all set. Everything you use to mix D76R is also needed for plain D76. Makes no sense to scratch mix one and not the other.
 

DeletedAcct1

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
869
Location
World
Format
35mm

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,716
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format

bernard_L

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
2,062
Format
Multi Format
If you are looking to save money by replenshing, let me give you an alternative: Scratch mix D76.

View attachment 387893
Kodak prices for same: $900
I had mad a similar evaluation (attached file), appropriate for EU, based on prices of Suvatlar for Hydroquinone and Metol, and a household chemistry supplier for the rest. My result is 2.78€ for 1 litre of stock D-76. Cheaper than a 1-litre Kodak powder package; hardly worth the trouble in 5-litre quantity (but I can't use 5 litre stock before it goes bad).
I can't pinpoint the reason for the large difference between your result and mine. Only part comes from somewhat lower prices at Atrcraft, and from your buying larger quantities (assuming one uses 226 litres of stock D-76). I could not guess (maybe did not try hard enough) what ttl gr and MEASURES stand for. Furthermore, you seem to be dividing your total cost 110.37$ by the quantity 226 litres to obtain a unit cost 0.488$/litre, but the quantities you bought (and whose cost you add up) are not in the proportions of the D-76 formula. So it looks to me like 110.37$ is the cost of initial procurement, but not the (incremental) cost of 226 litres of stock D-76.
Can you please explain?

Side note: in my evaluation, the single largest contribution to the total cost is... sulfite, usually considered "cheap"; sure but there is 100g of it.
 

Attachments

  • Prix_Revient_Produits.pdf
    28.2 KB · Views: 38

Kino

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
7,784
Location
Orange, Virginia
Format
Multi Format


Bernard,

Thank you for catching my error.

Forgive my aging brain, I went back and re-calculated my prices based on current Artcraft Chemical prices and found my lazy error in math: too much copy/pasting and not enough thinking!

I was trying to find the required quantities of each chemical that would efficiently use 1 pound (453 grams roughly) of Metol efficiently. I somehow fell into a trance and miscalculated the Hydroquinone amount/cost.

"TTL GR" is the conversion from Imperial to Metric weights, "formula" is what is required to make 1 liter and "Measures" is how many portions of a 1 liter mix that can be derived from that chemical.

Hopefully this now correct (probably not); the price is higher but still a substantial savings in cost.

I need to either double-check my calculations or just stay off the Internet...


 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
288
Location
Kentucky
Format
Multi Format
FWIW, in the datasheet, Kodak lists the following as the capacity for a replenished system. I read this is as "discard and start over" when you hit these amounts(2017 datasheet J78, from when D76R was still available, here https://business.kodakmoments.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j78.pdf ). If you read a bit more into the details, they give 9600 sq. in. of developed film as the basis for these numbers. I also think of this in terms of a single sheet of 8x10, or 80in2 being a "standard unit" of film(my made up term, but hopefully makes sense given how it's referenced in a lot of processing documentation), and 1x 120, 1x 135-36, and 4x 4x5 are all equivalent to that number(back of the envelope math says 2 sheets of 5x7 will come a bit short of this-if you want to be exact 7 sheets of 8x10 have the same area as 16 sheets of 5x7, or that 274 sheets of 5x7 would be the aproximate capacity)


FWIW, I shoot at a volume where I'd probably come out financially ahead by replenishing, especially if mixing all from scratch, but bear in mind that they also recommend discarding and starting over after 4 weeks. Sometimes I use 2-3 gallons of D76 in a month, and sometimes I'm butting up against the the shelf life of a stock solution even using it 1 shot(although I've DEFINITELY stretched Kodak's recommendation for 2 months for a partial bottle, and in a pinch have used a partial bottle mixed 8 months or so before, but wouldn't have done that if I weren't developing purely for camera and lens function testing).


They also offer these instructions for TMAX film if you want to develop it in a replenished system. Note that this is stated as having a 1 month life before the whole volume should be discarded.



There's also these instructions for replenishment volumes to use for both TMAX and standard film

(the first paragraph refers to TMAX replenishment-it was cut immediately after the above text to avoiding having too long of a screen shot).



There's no discussion of replenishing mixed TMAX and conventional films. If doing so, I'd think the "safe" option(aside from segregating developers for the respective film types) would be following the TMAX regime for all solutions. I'd also go out on a limb and suggest that Delta films would be recommended to follow the same routine as Kodak, although as I understand it there are some technical differences that make Delta films a bit of their own beast(but seemingly a bit lower maintenance/more tame than TMAX) for this.

Speaking purely for myself, my main motivation for looking at replenishment is that I've been shooting a decent bit of 70mm long roll recently, where I'm often processing the equivalent of 3-6 rolls of 120 in one go(and really a bit more even for an equivalent length since it's ~9mm wider, although cameras also still shoot the same image area and there's often less rebate information than on 120 film). The long roll tank I use takes 1.6L of solution, so there's definitely some motivation for stretching developer as far as I realistically can while still keeping reasonable results). I don't think anyone has made a tabular grain film in 70mm, so at least that's not a consideration.
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,283
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format

Replenished ID-11/D76 gives results very similar, in terms of look, to used at 1+2, with slightly finer grain. The developer was designed for replenishment.

Ian
 
OP
OP

Alan9940

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
2,432
Location
Arizona
Format
Multi Format
Thanks, Ben, for all those details.

I've decided that I'm going to play around with replenished D-76 for the stock of 8x10 Acros and Fomapan 100 that I have, and run the TMY 400 on the Jobo using, most likely, Jobo Alpha developer since I've been playing around with that lately.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
288
Location
Kentucky
Format
Multi Format
Replenished ID-11/D76 gives results very similar, in terms of look, to used at 1+2, with slightly finer grain. The developer was designed for replenishment.

Ian

Thanks-this is part of why I want to try it too. I actually really like the look of 1:2, but times are tough to find even from unofficial sources like the massive developing chart.

1:1 is also already tough for 35mm when going by Kodak's recommendation of a minimum of 8 oz. of stock solution per "unit" of film. That of course is perfect for 120 since in most tanks you need ~16oz of solution, give or take, to cover the roll, so 1:1 works perfectly. With 35mm, I usually end up using a 16 oz. tank with an empty reel to go 1:1, or a 32 oz. tank(and usually a 120 reel to take up the empty space) to develop 2 rolls.

Full strength D76 of course works out perfectly volume wise for 35mm.

I'm actually really excited to try this for myself, since it sounds like it gets the contrast of dilute solutions, presumably grain more like stock, and no worry about solution volume for 35mm in a conventional stainless tank...
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,786
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
Question, would Photographers Formulary version of D76 replenished work with standard D76? I have a liter kit for PF D76 and might pick up a packet of the replenisher but then wondered if you work with Freestyle or Ultrafine version D76.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,892
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
Question, would Photographers Formulary version of D76 replenished work with standard D76? I have a liter kit for PF D76 and might pick up a packet of the replenisher but then wondered if you work with Freestyle or Ultrafine version D76.

The alkalines need to match, You can make D76 with borax or kodalk. The replenisher should be made with the same. So, if you don't know, it may or may not be worth attempting.
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
1,820
Location
Plymouth. UK
Format
Multi Format
Thanks-this is part of why I want to try it too. I actually really like the look of 1:2, but times are tough to find even from unofficial sources like the massive developing chart.

Simply take the times for the 1+1 and 1+3 dilutions and split the difference.
That should get you close to optimum.
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,283
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format

I don't know why lilford & Kodak never published times for 1+2, that goes for other developers that can be use FS, 1+1, & 1+3, Perceptol, Microphen, Xtol, etc.

The easiest way to determine an initial time for 1+2 is to plot a graph and interpolate, it's a slight curve not a straight line but quick and easy. Back in the 1980s I would use graph paper, these days a spread heet (line graph).




FP4 in ID-11 @ 100/22 EI 1 = FS, 2 = 1+1, 4 = 1+3, so on that basis 1+2 (3) would be around 14.5 to 15 mins.

Ian
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,892
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
DK76 is way mire active than D76, so times will be shorter, grain probably not as fine.

Ian

DK76 is claimed (on Digital Truth, and in some book I have somewhere) to be equal to D76. I don't think it's more active. Instead of 2g/L Borax, it's 2g/L sodium metaborate. But I haven't tried it. I could make it and see, I guess. But I still probably wouldn't notice. Who cares about fine grain? Use bigger film.

Kodak possibly doesn't recommend dilutions higher than 1:1 because of minimum recommendations of stock/roll. You can't fit 250ml of stock in a 500ml tank if the dilution is greater than 1:1.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…