Still using D-76/ID-11?

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,014
Format
8x10 Format
His earlier prints of Moonrise were softer because he had not yet enhanced the negative. These earlier prints also show more unevenness or development blotchiness in the sky because it isn't full black. But there is now a premium on these earlier prints because there are relatively fewer of them. The great majority of the 360 or so of them are the bold extreme contrast black-sky version printed with the altered negative.

Yes, it's fine to standardize on freshly mixed D76, as long as you consistently do that. Otherwise, you need to allow it a week or so to reach equilibrium. Choose one or the other, and stick with it. But I've never heard about or encountered that kind of issue with respect to D23, so it wouldn't worry about it in that case.
 

gone

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
5,504
Location
gone
Format
Medium Format
For many years, all I shot was Tri-X developed in D76 full strength. Beautiful look, lots of tonality, and Leica glass meant no worries on the sharpness. Then after a long layoff from photography, I went back to that same combination, but experienced too many problems w/ Kodak's defective packaging on D76 and Dektol developers. So I made a change and bought 5 different developers, 3 different kinds of Foma films, some Ilford Delta 100 (wow, what a film), and some Tri-X, but I bought it from an individual, not from Kodak.

What I'm slowly coming to is: Tri-X and D76 is a great combination, but it's look can be changed so much by using different developers, it's almost like using several different kinds of films. Pretty neat. I didn't like this film in F76+ at all, and it's supposed to be similar to D76. As mentioned by others, always wait until the next day (at least) before using freshly mixed D76.
 
Last edited:

Agulliver

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
3,574
Location
Luton, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
For something like 35 years my most common combination has been HP5 (later HP5+) in ID-11 stock. I am no professional but it's served me well shooting HP5+ at anything from 200 to 6400 ISO in conditions from bright sunlight to a dim jazz club. In short, an extremely versatile combination with which it is very difficult to actually go wrong.

Often people will dilute 1+1 to tame contrast, but that's a matter of preference.
 

Film-Niko

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
708
Format
Multi Format
Nothing wrong at all with D-76 / ID-11. It is a good and trusty solution. Used it myself in the past.
It is just that first XTOL surpassed it, offering all the advantages of D-76, but surpassing it with finer grain and being more environmentally friendly.
And now ADOX XT-3 has surpassed XTOL, offering the same excellent picture quality as XTOL, but much much better solubility, no dust anymore because of Captura technology, 1L and 5L packs, and even being much more environmentally friendly because of improved buffer technology.
 
OP
OP

dpurdy

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
2,674
Location
Portland OR
Format
8x10 Format
I guess I should update since I started this thread. I mixed 1.25 liters stock and then diluted it to 2.5 liters. My first roll came out perfect at 13 minutes so I did 3 more rolls in the same developer and they also came out perfect so I did 4 more rolls in the same developer but added a minute of time and they also all were perfect and matched the previous rolls density. When I contacted the 8 rolls they all needed the same time and contrast setting, which was my standard normal contrast. I was very impressed as was the client. I am now going to do some testing and see about making it my go to developer for personal work. That will include 8x10, 4x5, 120 and 35mm.
 

Philippe-Georges

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
2,676
Location
Flanders Fields
Format
Medium Format
The trouble with D-76, which is a very good developer, is that some components are a carcinogene health risk.
So the alternative is Chris Patton's E-76 Ascorbic-Phenidone based formula.
It works identically like the classic D-76 but is more health friendly.

I took the liberty to add a pdf sheet with this formula and directives made for personal use, of course you can interpret it according your personal insights.
 

Attachments

  • E-76 FILMDEVELOPER (07-07-'20).pdf
    40.8 KB · Views: 87
Last edited:

Raghu Kuvempunagar

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,765
Location
India
Format
Multi Format

Congratulations! Are you reusing D-76 1:1 and is it recommended?
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,991
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
DREW WILEY said:
But I guess in Glasgow or Montreal you aren't accustomed to extreme contrast range challenges. .
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Montreal but in Glasgow I have seen few greater contrast challenges that those I saw at the New Year's Day match between Celtic and Rangers.

Just a bit of levity to lighten what looks to be the gathering storm

pentaxuser
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,947
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format

In the quantities used, the Borax is more of a known environmental/ personal risk than any of the other ingredients.
And a to get a meaningful ascorbate based developer with any lifespan, it needs much more serious iron sequestration than E-76 gives.
By the time you have resolved these problems, you're most of the way to Xtol/ XT-3 anyway.

takilmaboxer said:
But I often mix my own D-23. Should I let it stand a week like the above advice for D-76?
Click to expand...

No. And D-76 largely reaches equilibrium in 48hrs - it seems to relate to the formation of HQMS etc.

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
reusing D-76 1:1 and is it recommended?
Click to expand...

No. If you want to replenish a diluted developer you are really better off looking at DK-60a or DK-50 (their 1+1 dilutions seem to be where HC-110's Dilution B and Dilution D were aimed at respectively substituting for).
 

Film-Niko

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
708
Format
Multi Format

And in ADOX XT-3 even the Borax is replaced by an environmentally and health friendly substance.
With their SCALA BW reversal kit they have found a completely health and environmentally friendly solution for the bleach as well.
I have to say that I am very impressed by their efforts, considering how young and small this company is. Looks like there are working really dedicated and enthusiastic chemists.
 

bernard_L

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
2,047
Format
Multi Format
Did you wait the mandated 24 hours (or whatever) before developing the first roll? I'm asking because I monitored pH for 3 days after mixing Kodak D-76 (the official stuff in a yellow package) and saw no change +/-0.02. When I posted that finding, challenging common wisdom, someone retorted like it's not just the pH, there are complex reactions affecting activity...

I also second the question by Raghu Kuvempunagar about re-use of 1+1 dilution.
 
Last edited:

Raghu Kuvempunagar

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,765
Location
India
Format
Multi Format
Film-Niko said:
And in ADOX XT-3 even the Borax is replaced by an environmentally and health friendly substance.
Click to expand...

Any idea what this "environmentally and health friendly substance" is? Is it a Carbonate-Bicarbonate buffer? The recently introduced Tetenal Parvofin tablet developer, which is "free of boron compounds", uses this buffer.
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,947
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
Film-Niko said:
And in ADOX XT-3 even the Borax is replaced by an environmentally and health friendly substance.
Click to expand...
Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
Any idea what this "environmentally and health friendly substance" is? Is it a Carbonate-Bicarbonate buffer? The recently introduced Tetenal Parvofin tablet developer, which is "free of boron compounds", uses this buffer.
Click to expand...

[Edited to correct error] Trilon-M.

It looks like it could be potentially used to replace metaborate in many developers - at least for single shot use.
 
Last edited:

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,947
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format

It's to do with the formation of HQMS. Grant Haist goes into detail about it in his book - and HQMS was a research focus (relatively confidentially) for quite some time at Kodak etc - and the presence of HQMS is quite important to many of these milder alkalinity fine-grain developers, both MQ and PQ.

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
Thanks. Is it both an accelerator and a chelating agent?
Click to expand...

It seems to have capacity to buffer and have some sequestration effects too. More importantly, its pH is a XT-3 does seem to use a similar further sequestrant (listed in one part of the MSDS, but not the percentages used) to tackle the Fenton reaction.
 
OP
OP

dpurdy

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
2,674
Location
Portland OR
Format
8x10 Format
No I waited only a couple hours with the container tightly closed. I then processed 1 roll which might have seasoned it some.
In the 1970s I was in photography school and the only film developer they wanted us to use was D76. The idea of waiting was never addressed or mentioned or observed.
 

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser
Advertiser
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
4,248
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
Format
Multi Format
dpurdy said:
... D76 [in university]. The idea of waiting was never addressed or mentioned or observed.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression the activity change only happened if you were mixing the developer from scratch. Rumor had it that Kodak had some 'magic ingredient' in their D-76 so the activity stayed constant over the life of the stock solution. I never saw any change in activity, but I confess I didn't run sensitometer strips through the developer to check.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,716
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format

D76 was standard developer for most, while in the AF we would mix 5 gallon batches which were used that day without issues.
OP for large format you might want to think about DK50, I stopped using when Kodak stopped production and was too lazy to mix. I'm using Clayon F76+ but getting ready to shoot much more 4X5 this winter and thinking about DK 50 stock or 1:1 using Trix as a reference Foma 400 at 1:1 should be just shy of minutes.
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,947
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format

Yes - you're correct - I somehow got what are apparently the two Trilon chelation agents (or Dissolvine equivalent) in XT-3 back to front!
 
Last edited:

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,658
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
dpurdy said:
Great! Thank you people. The first roll is in the fix. I will look at it soon. I went 1-1 68º for 13 minutes. I process in total darkness in a vertical tank which holds up to 5 liters developer and I put enough in to easily cover.
Click to expand...
this will do fine; horizontal (rotation)-processing; one-shot is just more economical and consistent than messing with replenisher.
 

Philippe-Georges

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
2,676
Location
Flanders Fields
Format
Medium Format

To my humble opinion, the Hydroquinone is the culprit: http://www.inchem.org/documents/hsg/hsg/hsg101.htm

BTW, I keep E-76 stock for about 2 months in amber bottels and some Dust-Off sprayed on it to chase the oxygen. But most of the time it isn't necessarily as I use it faster...
 
Last edited:

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser
Advertiser
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
4,248
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
Format
Multi Format
Philippe-Georges said:
To my humble opinion, the Hydroquinone is the culprit ... [link to who document]
Click to expand...

People regularly slather Hydroquinone on their skin: https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1347/hydroquinone-topical/details - usually under a dermatologist's advice and supervision/prescription. Any substance in the universe can be written up as horribly hazardous, Hydrogen Hydroxide HOH (or some other fanciful name for water) is often cited as an example: "Warning - Inhalation Hazard", and it is.
 

Film-Niko

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
708
Format
Multi Format
Lachlan Young said:
[Edited to correct error] Trilon-M.

It looks like it could be potentially used to replace metaborate in many developers - at least for single shot use.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much.
Have you found it in the MSDS? I have looked at it and did not found it, but maybe I have overlooked it, or missed it because of a different technical term used for it.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…