Tri-X in D-76 stock: better than diluted 1+1 ?

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 14, 2021

It doesn't matter in LF... It barely matters in MF... But for 35mm photography, grain and developer dilution can be paramount...

I had never done it, but for TX I see I prefer stock: to my surprise, grain is not dissolved ! It's sharp but very small !
Why is more common 1+1? Maybe cost?
Stock is truly great for 320 and 640.
By the way, images are sharp as with 1+1, and resolving of fine detail is superb even at 640.
The same for TMY (same development times using stock...), but with some more shadow detail and resolving power.
I guess the situation was a little different with films available three or four generations ago.

afriman · Apr 14, 2021

Very interesting. I've never used D-76 undiluted, simply because I always took for granted the conventional wisdom of 1+1 offering better sharpness at the expense of slightly more grain, as well as promoting consistency. Just goes to show that one should always try out the various options for oneself, to determine one's own preferences. Could it indeed be the case that today's emulsions respond differently, while the myth stuck?

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 14, 2021

I imagine when Tri-X had much bigger grain, chances are that the way older, bigger grain was dissolved, produced a more serious loss of acutance...
But with the smaller current grain, sharpness and fine detail remain there anyway: stock D-76 makes Tri-X look fine today.

cliveh · Apr 14, 2021

I would question why you think Tri-X is better developed in D76 using stock solution. I would suggest there is no difference to 1:1.

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 14, 2021

cliveh said:
I would question why you think Tri-X is better developed in D76 using stock solution. I would suggest there is no difference to 1:1.

I would suggest that is not possible, chemically speaking.
Of couse everyone decides what to try, and what to see or not, and what to post: here there's site for black opinions and white opinions.
And I like stock D-76 better than Xtol for soft overcast light.

R.Gould · Apr 14, 2021

I don't use Tri X, but I do develop fomapan 400 and 200 in ID11 stock, which is the same formula as D76 and I would say that when I used ID11 1/1 I got worse grain than I do with ID11 stock, grain is still there, but with 35mm it is not quite as bad as 1/1, plus ID11 is more ecconicol stock.

DMJ · Apr 14, 2021

Undiluted D-76 is a solvent fine grain developer whereas diluted (1:3) becomes a non-solvent hd. So undiluted should be less sharp. This is from "The Film developing Cookbook".

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 14, 2021

DMJ said:
Undiluted D-76 is a solvent fine grain developer whereas diluted (1:3) becomes a non-solvent hd. So undiluted should be less sharp. This is from "The Film developing Cookbook".

And what did you find on your own wet prints with current Tri-X when you developed it with D-76 Stock?

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 14, 2021

R.Gould said:
I don't use Tri X, but I do develop fomapan 400 and 200 in ID11 stock, which is the same formula as D76 and I would say that when I used ID11 1/1 I got worse grain than I do with ID11 stock, grain is still there, but with 35mm it is not quite as bad as 1/1, plus ID11 is more ecconicol stock.

Just what I saw.

awty · Apr 14, 2021

I started developing all my 35mm film exposed @ 400 to 1600 in straight d76 for the same reasons.

afriman · Apr 14, 2021

DMJ said:
Undiluted D-76 is a solvent fine grain developer whereas diluted (1:3) becomes a non-solvent hd. So undiluted should be less sharp. This is from "The Film developing Cookbook".

Exactly. This is the established view that has been held for as long as D-76 has been available, and I am sure it's backed by solid chemistry as well as the experience of many photographers. Like Juan, I'm just wondering if that necessarily still holds true to the same extent with modern film emulsions. And it emphasises the fact that nothing beats trying things out for oneself rather than just taking for granted what is widely held to be the case. While the description of the difference immediately made me opt for one-shot 1+1 use, I never tried using the stock solution undiluted. Who knows, if I had done that, I might have subjectively preferred the results, irrespective of the science behind it all. We can analyse images in terms of grain, acutance, tonality etc., but the sum is greater than the parts. It's the overall aesthetic that matters, and that may well be different than a simple description like "finer grain and less acutance".

Lachlan Young · Apr 14, 2021

DMJ said:
Undiluted D-76 is a solvent fine grain developer whereas diluted (1:3) becomes a non-solvent hd. So undiluted should be less sharp. This is from "The Film developing Cookbook".

It's not that clear cut. With modern emulsions (post mid-1950s) it became known that the placement of iodide such that it could be released by solvent developers could be exploited to raise sharpness - and to a much greater extent than could simply be achieved via lower sulphite developers.

You might see slightly more apparent granularity with many (reasonably) modern emulsions as you dilute D-76/ ID-11 to 1+1 and apparent sharpness will largely stay the same. The MTF response on lower frequencies might actually drop slightly when used with very low sulphite developers (Rodinal). The extent to which these dilution related sharpness differences with ID-11/ D-76 may actually be clearly seen is quite possibly lower than the abilities of the end user to precisely control temperature/ development time/ agitation patterns, such that they are producing exactly contrast matched negs between each dilution, rather than each deeper dilution delivering larger margins of safety for under/ over development.

DMJ · Apr 14, 2021

afriman said:
Like Juan, I'm just wondering if that necessarily still holds true to the same extent with modern film emulsions

I don't know if it still holds true and I have only used the new (after 2007) Tri-X with HC-110:B. Just to clarify, my quote was from the 2020 edition of the book. More "post 2007 Tri-X is finer grain than ever before, almost comparable to discontinued Plus-X...". I guess we need to know the degree of agitation (time and frequency) and the PH of the water.

gone · Apr 15, 2021

I like the look you get with stock vs diluted. It's an easy combination to dial in to get those deep, smoky blacks. I've heard that it's sharper when diluted, but it's plenty sharp for me. Sharper than my focus, that's for sure.

halfaman · Apr 15, 2021

I also prefer undiluted D76 for Tri-X and HP5+ in 35 mm. Not only for finer grain but also more punchier contrast, specially with HP5+ that I find too soft developed in 1+1.

Stats · Apr 15, 2021

The only way to find out is to do your own testing. You have to be the judge when it comes to the materials which you incorporate into your work.

NB23 · Apr 15, 2021

1:1 is used to save money.
I prefer stock D76, found my negs had more sparkle.

Christiaan Phleger · Apr 15, 2021

Back in the old newspaper days I'd mix my own gallon of Kodak D-76 and then do a somewhat Ilford style of re-use, every four roll tank I'd dump it back in and make a mark on the jug, and then next four rolls I'd add 10 % more time; usually I'd do 4-6 batches that way. And save a quart or two for pushing. The older Ph shifted slightly used stock worked well in those dark stadiums and gyms I'd always have to shoot.

cliveh · Apr 17, 2021

I would suggest that using D76 at 1:1 makes it easier to get the correct temperature.

R.Gould · Apr 17, 2021

Temperture is not a problem, I store my litre bottle out of sight in the lounge, when needed I get it out and check the temp, and adjust the time using the Ilford time temp chart,

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 20, 2021

The only reason I see for using 1+1 in 35mm is sunny scenes tone control.
Stock is tonally better for overcast light.

NortheastPhotographic · Apr 20, 2021

If you are trying to improve upon the performance of D76 1:1 you should just use XTol. If you are trying to improve upon the performance of XTol 1:1 you should use XTol replenished. If you are still not satisfied then it's time for a larger format or TMax 400.

Outside of that, get funky and try Pyro.

eli griggs · Apr 20, 2021

My impression has always been that I prefer the grain in the 1:1 D76 to stock solution, the same with HP5 and Plus-X and Pan films.

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 20, 2021

NortheastPhotographic said:
If you are trying to improve upon the performance of D76 1:1 you should just use XTol. If you are trying to improve upon the performance of XTol 1:1 you should use XTol replenished. If you are still not satisfied then it's time for a larger format or TMax 400.

Outside of that, get funky and try Pyro.

I've used Xtol and Pyro, and D-76 is lovely, thanks.

Juan Valdenebro · Apr 20, 2021

Another comment:

I'm storing my D-76 in 350ml amber glass bottles: they contain indeed 360ml when they're full to the brim, and although my tank for 35mm recommends 375ml, 360ml cover the reel, so that size has been very convenient, and after using it once, I discard the used stock developer.

Today I developed a roll, 36 frames of Tri-X: I've been presoaking for a single minute years ago, just for temperature, but today it was the first time without presoak for me... Today I poured the just used D-76 into its empty glass bottle, and I was surprised because a good amount of developer was missing: I didn't measure that volume, but I'd say close to 20ml... Every single time before today, my 360ml of used D-76 got right to the brim when I poured that used developer back inside the glass bottle when development time was complete... So I discovered (never saw that before, never heard about it) it seems film absorbs a good amount of liquid... I imagine my films have been absorbing water from my presoak for years...

Then when I washed my film I found two things:

Tri-X gives me better microcontrast without the presoak: there's a crispness I don't get with presoak no matter if I extend time or agitation.
That made me think films are designed for receiving developer when they are dry, and if they absorb water first, the process is a bit weak during the very relevant first two minutes... I liked very much to avoid presoaking.

The other thing I found was grain is totally sharp, but very small, different from dilutions' grain: this is with current Tri-X in D-76 stock. Not dissolved in any way. Sharp and small as with Perceptol 1+2.

Sharpness and fine detail are very high. Shadow detail is great for EI640. And that's cool as Tri-X is by design a little dark in the shadows, at least compared to TMY... Acutance is great too. Grain is very sharp: you can see it with a 22x loupe: totally sharp, but it doesn't grow. Base fog is very low for 35mm Tri-X slightly pushed.

If someone wants to try it:

Tri-X @640. D-76 Stock, 21 degrees Celsius. 4 slow inversions in the beginning, 4 slow inversions every minute. 7 minutes.
That's for a Kaiser MF condenser enlarger... I'd test 8-9 minutes for softer light enlargers.

Tri-X in D-76 stock: better than diluted 1+1 ?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency