Tri-X in D76 1+1

[chuckroast]

And the various commercial packaging options all differ in small but not insignificant ways - so it can really help to know which version is being discussed.

There ARE differences, with Kodak having added stabilizers and sequesterants to make it possible to distribute it all in a single package. In later iternations, they may also have added components to try to keep the D-76 alkaline swings that develop over time with the mixed developer, under better control.

Troop and Anchell confirm that the openly available formula with metol, hydroquinone, sodium sulphite and borax (which don't need all the stabilizing and sequestering agents since they are not stored together but mixed individually) does produce somewhat different results.

The thing is ... it kind of doesn't matter. D-76 itself underwent a lot of evolution in its lifetime. The openly available formula is more-or-less how it started out. If people start mixing their own, and calibrate their workflow to it, they will get consistent and good results, every bit the equal of factory D-76. More importantly, D-76H appears to conquer the developer's notorious tendency to get rising pH over time. Moreover, mixing your own ensures that you're not bitten by the latest problem introduced by Kodak, Sinopromise, Adox, Ilford, et al when they decide to silently "improve" the product.

I have a lot of DK-50 and D-76 here as packaged by Kodak. But if/when I run out, I am not going to take a gamble on some other company's variation on the theme. As you point out, you don't know what you're getting. I'll just roll my own and adjust my workflow accordingly, thereafter certain that my developer will never change. I similarly plan to replace Dektol with D-72 when my stash of the former is gone.

Mixing your own is easy, fun, and cheap (assuming you know proper lab technique and use good bio-protection in the process) and more-or-less guarantees you're always getting the same thing every time. Thus far, I've done D-23 and Pyrocat-HD in glycol that way and have been very happy with the results.

 

[madNbad]

Here's a few scans with a little more digital magic than I like to use. The thing I was worried about, scale focus images being out of focus, was a non issue. The thing I didn't worry about, shutter speeds changing unexpectedly, was. Next time I take the little Kodak out, I'll be sure to check the speed setting prior to taking the picture.
Kodak Retina 1 (Type 013) 50mm 3.5 Schneider Retina-Xenar, yellow filter, Tri-X @ ISO 200, FPP-76 1+1 for 10 minutes:

Multnomah Village, Portland, Oregon:
[

 

[Paul Howell]

I forgot, Photographers Formulary sells a updated version in liter size, it is one I have used, I think it has different buffers, times are the same as with Kodak D76, tones seemed to same as with Kodak. I guess if I were to go back to D76 I would go with PF version.

 

[pentaxuser]

The Film Photography Project FPP-76 is pretty good stuff. Another member posted he found it close enough to the Kodak formula that it was hard to tell the difference. I would like to try the Adox version but it won't be in stock until the end of November. The exposures on the roll are all over the place and that's on me for not checking the shutter speed each time but the edge marking have a good density to them and are easy to read.

So just to be clear,madNbad: In your first post were you using D76 or FPP ? I find it very confusing to suddenly be talking about FPP in the context of what I thought was D76

pentaxuser

 

[madNbad]

So just to be clear,madNbad: In your first post were you using D76 or FPP ? I find it very confusing to suddenly be talking about FPP in the context of what I thought was D76

pentaxuser

It's FPP-76 but it's using all of the same times and dilutions as D76, Most of the other D76 clones all use the Kodak charts.

 

[madNbad]

I forgot, Photographers Formulary sells a updated version in liter size, it is one I have used, I think it has different buffers, times are the same as with Kodak D76, tones seemed to same as with Kodak. I guess if I were to go back to D76 I would go with PF version.

Thanks, I'll try their version next. It's too bad that Kodak abandoned the quart or liter sizes for powdered developers and a one liter package of ID-11 is the same price as a gallon of Kodak.

 

[pentaxuser]

Just a pity that you didn't mention this in your opening post. Your pics using FPP look pretty good so if you have FPP "nailed down" in terms of time and desired quality of negatives why not stick to it?


pentaxuser

 

[madNbad]

Just a pity that you didn't mention this in your opening post. Your pics using FPP look pretty good so if you have FPP "nailed down" in terms of time and desired quality of negatives why not stick to it?


pentaxuser

I want to try a few others and see how well they mix and if there is any cost difference. Sorry for the confusion but some Kodak developers are becoming difficult to find and I mentioned Kodak doesn't offer them in smaller sizes. I thought of splitting a gallon of D76 into smaller bottles but there is no guarantee I would use all of them before the six month expiration date.

 

[pentaxuser]

I want to try a few others and see how well they mix and if there is any cost difference. Sorry for the confusion but some Kodak developers are becoming difficult to find and I mentioned Kodak doesn't offer them in smaller sizes. I thought of splitting a gallon of D76 into smaller bottles but there is no guarantee I would use all of them before the six month expiration date.

OK, Best of luck

pentaxuser

 

[JPD]

Could be the lightmeter. I got perfect results with my Capital/Soligor lightmeters and the recommended times, but then I got a new Gossen Sixtomat Digital that wanted me to expose one stop less, and the negs got thin.

 

[madNbad]

Could be the lightmeter. I got perfect results with my Capital/Soligor lightmeters and the recommended times, but then I got a new Gossen Sixtomat Digital that wanted me to expose one stop less, and the negs got thin.

It was more likely from the shutter speed dial that would change at the slightest bump. The meter was a Reveni spot meter but I'm sticking with my Sekonic 308.

 

[Steven Lee]

@madNbad To separate exposure from film development experiments I have resorted to something I call "home-made control strips". Basically it's a synthetic scene with well-known light which includes a grey step wedge to be able to sample densities with a densitometer. Next, I exposed this scene onto ~20 rolls of frequently used films and I put them in a freezer. They will last me quite a few years.

Next step is to develop a few reference negatives from those rolls. I cut them into 3-4 frame strips and found optimal times for my developers (Xtol and Ilfotec HC). This gives me reference negatives. So I know what good looks like.

Now, when I need to test a new chemistry or a development method, I pull those rolls out of a freezer, cut a few frames and run my experiments. This way the development problems are completely isolated from exposure and it's nice to have a reference to compare the results to.

This system finally made me realize, on a deep personal level, how irrelevant B&W chemistry actually is. I stopped paying attention to "D76 vs Xtol" or "Advantages of Pyro" threads. When done well, i.e. developed to the same contrast, the difference between most developers is insignificant. I don't see any "highlight sparkles", or other mythical attributes of different chemicals in my tests. In fact, even the difference between films is also not particularly exciting

 

[madNbad]

@madNbad To separate exposure from film development experiments I have resorted to something I call "home-made control strips". Basically it's a synthetic scene with well-known light which includes a grey step wedge to be able to sample densities with a densitometer. Next, I exposed this scene onto ~20 rolls of frequently used films and I put them in a freezer. They will last me quite a few years.

Next step is to develop a few reference negatives from those rolls. I cut them into 3-4 frame strips and found optimal times for my developers (Xtol and Ilfotec HC). This gives me reference negatives. So I know what good looks like.

Now, when I need to test a new chemistry or a development method, I pull those rolls out of a freezer, cut a few frames and run my experiments. This way the development problems are completely isolated from exposure and it's nice to have a reference to compare the results to.

This system finally made me realize, on a deep personal level, how irrelevant B&W chemistry actually is. I stopped paying attention to "D76 vs Xtol" or "Advantages of Pyro" threads. When done well, i.e. developed to the same contrast, the difference between most developers is insignificant. I don't see any "highlight sparkles", or other mythical attributes of different chemicals in my tests. In fact, even the difference between films is also not particularly exciting

I really liked the syrupy version of HC-110. When that bottle was gone, I tried Rodinal. Once I learned how to work with it and Tri-X it was great but it was at the expense of one stop. Figgured I would give the classic combo of Tri-X and D76 a try. I didn't want a gallon of Kodak, just to throw out half after six month and there are several clones offer in liter size which is just tight for me. I may try Adox or Photographers Formulary since the three are about the same price. Most likely, I'll stay with one of the D76 clones and continue at 1+1. It gives me a good, scannable negative that dosen't need much manipulation.

 

[Steven Lee]

@madNbad In that case I would be standardizing on ID-11. It is much easier to obtain in the US than all other options. Nothing against ADOX, but I can only get their stuff at Freestyle where it's out of stock 80% of the time, while ID-11 is available from a dozen websites and from 3 different local stores I can just walk into. Besides, ID-11 comes with a manufacturer-supplied datasheet where exact development times are provided for a given contrast index, as opposed to approximations to old Kodak D76. This is the same level of service Kodak used to provide before they were forced to leave the photochemicals market. Anyway... sorry about my rants, I just really like Ilford and what they're doing.

 

[Bill Burk]

After dredging up the D76 1+3 thread the next few rolls I went with 1+1. For two rolls in a 480ml stainless tank, the charts indicate 10 minutes plus ten percent for the second roll. I tried it and it still doesn"t seem to be enough time. Somewhere in the many threads one member mentioned they had been developing two rolls of Tri-X in a single tank for years using D76 1+1 for 13.5 minutes. This would seem to be about the right amount of time. Any other suggestions?

Might have been me. 13:30 gives me 0.62 contrast with D-76 1:1 at 68-degrees F in small tank (16 or 32 ounce tanks with 2 or 4 rolls 35mm). This makes negatives of average scenes that are good to print on grade 2 paper in a diffusion enlarger.

The time is also good for me with 4x5 in tray with shuffling. It’s good for fresh Kodak Tri-X, TMAX-400 and TMAX-100 all at their rated speeds. I think Kodak did that on purpose so the films could be developed together.

 

[madNbad]

Might have been me. 13:30 gives me 0.62 contrast with D-76 1:1 at 68-degrees F in small tank (16 or 32 ounce tanks with 2 or 4 rolls 35mm). This makes negatives of average scenes that are good to print on grade 2 paper in a diffusion enlarger.

The time is also good for me with 4x5 in tray with shuffling. It’s good for fresh Kodak Tri-X, TMAX-400 and TMAX-100 all at their rated speeds. I think Kodak did that on purpose so the films could be developed together.

I’m pretty sure it was your response I remember. At this point, I can get the Film Photography Project FPP-76 in one liter packages on a consistent basis. I’ll stay with the single roll in a 16 ounce tank at the 1+1 dilution and hopefully that will be it for a while.

 

[madNbad]

Just in case I change my mind, I have all the makings for Caffenol.

 

[Bill Burk]

And while 0.62 is great for speed testing, it’s a bit much contrast for most people’s taste. So a little less might be right.

 

[Don_ih]

There is the slight possibility that TriX and Tmax films will develop better in D76 1:1 if you do a good pre-wet of the film. Some of the things that get washed away might actually cause the developer to get overly restrained if you don't do it - especially diluted developer using less than the recommended amount of stock per roll.
I know that developing one roll of Tmax 100 heavily depleted my replenished D76 - I had to compensate by using a lot more replenisher (I think it was 3 times the normal amount).

 

[brian steinberger]

@madNbad In that case I would be standardizing on ID-11. It is much easier to obtain in the US than all other options. Nothing against ADOX, but I can only get their stuff at Freestyle where it's out of stock 80% of the time, while ID-11 is available from a dozen websites and from 3 different local stores I can just walk into. Besides, ID-11 comes with a manufacturer-supplied datasheet where exact development times are provided for a given contrast index, as opposed to approximations to old Kodak D76. This is the same level of service Kodak used to provide before they were forced to leave the photochemicals market. Anyway... sorry about my rants, I just really like Ilford and what they're doing.

+1. ID-11 is the only film developer I use.

 

[Paul Howell]

I really liked the syrupy version of HC-110. When that bottle was gone, I tried Rodinal. Once I learned how to work with it and Tri-X it was great but it was at the expense of one stop. Figgured I would give the classic combo of Tri-X and D76 a try. I didn't want a gallon of Kodak, just to throw out half after six month and there are several clones offer in liter size which is just tight for me. I may try Adox or Photographers Formulary since the three are about the same price. Most likely, I'll stay with one of the D76 clones and continue at 1+1. It gives me a good, scannable negative that dosen't need much manipulation.

Depending on how many rolls you shoot at year you might want to try Clayton F76+. I found it to be very close to D76. For Tri X I would use it 1:9 for a slower film 1:14. Freestyles sells it as their house developer in a small bottle. I was using it but switched to HC 110 and Rodinal as even the new version will last a few years.

Arista Liquid Film Developer - 12 oz. (Makes 1 Gallon)

Arista Liquid Film Developer - 12 oz. (Makes 1 Gallon) - Arista Liquid Film Developer is a fine grain liquid developer designed for one-shot use. Gives excellent tonal rendition, convenient to mix and highly economical. Can be diluted to 1+14 for…

www.freestylephoto.com

 

[pentaxuser]

For those advocating the purchase of ID11 bear in mind what madNbad said about the price disadvantage as follows:
"a one liter package of ID-11 is the same price as a gallon of Kodak."

That's quite a disadvantage to changing to ID11 in my book as well

pentaxuser

 

[brian steinberger]

5L of ID-11 is much cheaper.

For me I shoot a decent amount of film and it’s the only developer I use so I have no issue using it all up within 2 months or so.

If I shot less film I would mix my own. But I’m happy to support Ilford.

 

[MattKing]

For those advocating the purchase of ID11 bear in mind what madNbad said about the price disadvantage as follows:
"a one liter package of ID-11 is the same price as a gallon of Kodak."

That's quite a disadvantage to changing to ID11 in my book as well

pentaxuser

How long does it take you to use up 1 litre of ID-11?
How long would it take you to use 5 litres of ID-11?

 

[madNbad]

How long does it take you to use up 1 litre of ID-11?
How long would it take you to use 5 litres of ID-11?

Matt makes a good point. Currently I have four 1 liter packages of FPP-76. At about $9 usd that's $36. At 1+1 each liter will develop 4 rolls of film at the cost of $2.25 each. a 5 liter package of ID-11 is about $22 and at 1+1 will do 20 rolls at the cost of about $1.10 per roll. A one gallon (3.8 liters) package of Kodak D76 is enough for 15 rolls at 1+1 at a the cost of a dollar per roll. All of them last six months after mixixg and I really have no desire to use any of them without diluting. It would take exposing at least three rolls a month to insure there is some benefit. I have enough glassware to store five liters divided into one liter bottles. The last package of FPP-76, was split into four 250ml bottles, making a working dilution fast and easy. When the FPP-76 is gone, I'll try a gallon of Kodak first. If I use it all, I may give ID-11 a try.
All of this was easier with the consentrated liquid developers!