• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Tri-X in D76 1+1

Although you don't shoot enough film to make it worthwhile, in terms of cost, Ultrafine (Photowarehouse) version of D76 is $6.09 + shipping is likely the cheapest. The problem of course is the minimum order.
 
A few from a recent trip to Depoe Bay, Oregon
M4-2, Voigtlander 35 1.4 Nokton Classic SC V2, 022 yellow filter, Tri-X @ ISO 200, Film Photography Project FPP-76 1+1:

Surfers, Otter Rock, Oregon:


Devil's Punchbowl State Park, Otter Rock, Oregon:


Devil's Punchbowl at Low Tide:


The Lookout Visitors Center, Cape Foulweather:


Entrance to Depoe Bay:


I have paid attention and followed the advice of developing Tri-X in a 1+1 dilution of D-76 or a close clone. One roll in a 480ml stainless tank and 250ml of stock soultion. I make a full 500ml, fill the tank all the way and only have a bit left over. The scans were done with a Sony A7II using a FE90 2.8 Macro, a Negative Supply Pro Carrier 135 and a 5X7 Lightsource Pro 95 CRI. I recently switched to using the Negative Lab Pro plug in for Lightroom Classic and it has really made digitizing the images a lot easier. I used to have to adjust exposure for each image capture and correct after import. Now, it's the same exposure setting for the entire roll and NLP converts the entire roll with one click. What used to take several hours is now down to less than an hour. It takes me almost as long to flip the images as it does for everything else.
 
You can mix your own D76
 
Radost said:
You can mix your own D76
Click to expand...
Kodak D76 is out of stock just about everywhere except for the folks selling who knows how old stock on eBay.
I can get a gallon package of Film Photography Project FPP-76 for a dollar more than the liter package.
Or it's looking more like the big switch to Harman Technology.
 

I believe it is cheaper to mix your own
 
Radost said:
I believe it is cheaper to mix your own
Click to expand...

Pretty much depends on how much you need to spend on sodium sulfite. Almost 400 grams of the stuff in a 1-gallon package of D76.
 

It's ridiculously easy (and CHEAP) to make it yourself from scratch. I've been doing it ever since Sino Promise effed up the "Kodak" products. You can make a gallon of D-76 for about a dollar if you DIY.
 
retina_restoration said:
It's ridiculously easy (and CHEAP) to make it yourself from scratch. I've been doing it ever since Sino Promise effed up the "Kodak" products. You can make a gallon of D-76 for about a dollar if you DIY.
Click to expand...

While I agree that it's ridiculously easy and cheap to mix D76 from scratch, I think it's impossible to mix a gallon of it for less than $1. A litre is possible for perhaps a little less than that. Sodium sulfite alone would cost more than $1 for a gallon.
 

I settled on D76H years ago and have excellent results with it, and therefore, no reason to change.
 

You're right, sorry I was thinking of liter measurements.
To make a gallon of D-76, it uses $2.62 worth of sulfite*, so my estimate is that a gallon of D-76 costs about $3.00 from scratch. Still a huge savings over packaged developer.

*I buy 5 pounds at a time, for $17.75
 


Yep, roll-your-own is a big savings. I do it for D-23 and Pyrocat, and will do for D-72 when I run out of Dektol.

HOWEVER, anyone thinking about this should have:

  • Good lab technique
  • Good face/breathing, eye, and skin protection
  • Nitrile gloves - latex doesn't do the trick, it's too porous.
  • A decent lab apron
  • Good ventilation
  • Glass bottles with polycone-style caps to store the results.

It's entirely possible to mix this stuff up safely yourself, but you have to pay attention the lab safety and bioprotection. Some of the components of these developers ain't good for you, especially if breathed as a powder or in contact with bare skin.
 
chuckroast said:
Yep, roll-your-own is a big savings.....................
Click to expand...

The other big advantage, especially for those of us who live far from suppliers, is that we can make up basic developers when companies like Kodak fall over.
 
john_s said:
The other big advantage, especially for those of us who live far from suppliers, is that we can make up basic developers when companies like Kodak fall over.
Click to expand...

That's true! Another serious advantage is making small quantities like 500ml of D76.
 
Kodak recommends a minimum of 8 ounces of undiluted developer per roll of film. Since I use 1:1, I use a 16 oz tank for one roll, and 32 oz tank for two rolls. I tried using less developer, but had to extend development time. This told me Kodak knew what they were talking about. Also, the published development times always work.
 
I've decided on using Ilford ID-11. I have enough storage for five liters plus I can develop two rolls in a single tank at 1+1.
 
madNbad said:
I've decided on using Ilford ID-11. I have enough storage for five liters plus I can develop two rolls in a single tank at 1+1.
Click to expand...

I developed some tmax400 with id11 stock and was shocked how little sharpness and detail it had. Tmax400 with xtol and especially xtol 1:1 looks like a different film.
 
Alright, you guys finally got me to order some Xtol before it ends up next to the Kodachrome.
 

my issue with self mixing is not the price but consistency and freshness.
 
chuckroast said:
The formula for D-76 is pretty well known and easily made yourself from raw chemicals.
Click to expand...

This is what I do for my D-76 and I've not seen any ill affects at 1:1 at 200 iso.

Is there any chance you're not giving the film substantial agitation?

Please, post your entire action and chemistry on the line so we can "see" if there is any part of what you're doing during D-76, 1:1 development.
 
As it happens, I developed a roll of 35mm Tri-X in Film Photography Project's D-76 1:1 yesterday.

A single roll in a 16oz tank... with only 8oz of developer solution, enough to just cover the top edge of the reel. (Of course, you're not supposed to do this, but it falls under my dad's old motto, "An amateur knows how to follow the rules, a professional knows how to break them.") I got very nice results at standard time and agitation. Shot with my Olympus OM-2n, some quick 2400dpi scans:



As a side note, this was my first time using FPP's fixer vs. Kodak or Ilford chemistry.

It worked okay, but it took far longer to clear the film than I expected. Since it was my first time using it, I had the foresight to test it with the tongue of the film I'd cut off when loading the reel while the film was developing, and I discovered it was very slow to clear even with major agitation. So rather than my typical 3 or 4 minutes in the fixer, I gave it 8, which worked.

But I was surprised: I'm used to just-mixed undiluted fixer working far more rapidly. It's not a big adjustment to use longer fixing times, just unexpected.
 
RalphLambrecht said:
my issue with self mixing is not the price but consistency and freshness.
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t that be a plus for self mixing? Mix as much as you want anytime you want?

I
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register