Why did you (if you did) move on from D76/ID-11

OzJohn · Sep 24, 2013

I tried most developers that were on the market back in the late 70s early 80s and since then have only used D76 diluted 1:1 @20degC and always one shot. This strategy affords great consistency in film processing and eliminates an important variable from the work flow. I think there is great merit in choosing a developer you like and sticking to it. OzJohn

Truzi · Sep 24, 2013

I've not moved away from D76/ID11, but have been playing with other developers. I like the concentrates because sometimes my B&W output is so low I end up wasting the D76 from lack of use. I also like variety in all aspects of my life, so wouldn't be happy with just one developer. Also, I'm still learning these other developers, so "important" film goes into D76 (I'm not great at developing, but am more consistent with D76).

Even if I end up preferring another, I find D76 a great general-purpose developer, so can't see not having some around.

hdeyong · Sep 25, 2013

I'm boring. Started with and used D76 for a long time, and was completely pleased with it. Then, I went to HC110 because the results are similar to D76 for my Tri-X and FP4, it's an easy to use one-shot, and it has a great shelf life. Oh, yes, and it's economical.

Bill Burk · Sep 25, 2013

I run a D-76 shop. I think it's funny to say it that way, because I am one person.

mauro35 · Sep 25, 2013

The choice of developer, as many people said, depends mainly on the artistic idea one wants to obtain, if not constrained by economical or other practical reasons. I particularly like black and white images with a classic, warm look and that is the main reason why I settled on Tri-x in D76 1+1 and Agfa APX-100 in Rodinal 1+50. They just make so perfect combinations for me, I cannot, at the moment, think of changing any of them. Moreover I don´t have yet many years of experience and keeping the same settings may be good for consistency as well.

Ian Grant · Sep 25, 2013

cliveh said:
I find this hard to believe. Could this have more to do with the film/development and exposure you were using?

No it's a result of the slight reduction in the Sulphite, 75 - 80 gm per litre is the optimal maximum level to give the best balance of sharpness, fine grain and tonal range. Agfa 44 (Ansco/GAF 17) is quite similar and again gives slightly better results.

The ASA developer used for film speed tests was almost identical to Adox Borax MMQ which is why it gives full box speed

Ian

Tony Egan · Sep 25, 2013

I started with D76/ID11 but moved to XTol about 12 years ago. In 35mm I primarily shoot TX400 in XTol 1+1. It gives me a bit more shadow detail in low light photography especially when shooting gigs and needing a "push". I just stick with it for all other formats up to 4x5 as its easy to mix, temperature control at 1+1 is simple and it has never let me down.

There aren't many developers I haven't tried once or twice including mixing up chemicals from scratch. While it's been an interesting distraction occasionally, I'm just not a natural chemistry or testing nerd! And as others have said above, a badly exposed and composed picture gains nothing from the difference between 'a' and 'b' developer.

markbarendt · Sep 25, 2013

Moved from D76 to XTol to get a little extra speed. It allowed me to learn and practice replenishment, a truly sweet way to work.

Moved from XTol to DD-X mostly for convenience. 1+4 is easy to measure and it gives me great negs. Yes, it is more expensive but at under $5 a month I don't care.

TareqPhoto · Sep 25, 2013

I am new to film and have no much experience on developers, but i used few of them and what i found even it is not a fact or a proof is that liquid ready developers giving me better results over powdered developers mixed for stock.

I used D-76 2 packs until run out and the results were not bad but not amazing, only Acros was the best to develop with, but TMAX/HC-110 and even Ilfosol 3 all gave me sharp nice decent results, but i am planning to use D-76 for certain films, maybe for LF films, and for MF films i will stick with HC-110 and TMAX.

fotch · Sep 25, 2013

I use to use UFG but it was to hard to get, and use D76/ID11 for most everything.

Saturnine_Zero · Sep 25, 2013

This is an interesting topic. I've only developed 2 rolls so far in D-76, just getting back into it. I'm perfectly happy with the results I guess but I'm not at the stage where I can tell the influence of the developer.

My only concern is shelf life. D-76 is cheap as chips but my out put is not high and I don't like things to go to waste. I may develop more now that my 30m roll of Delta 400 arrived. I might look in to HC-110 if it has a long shelf life? but I always intended to stick with one film and one developer until I got to know them.

jimrohrer · Sep 25, 2013

OzJohn said:
I tried most developers that were on the market back in the late 70s early 80s and since then have only used D76 diluted 1:1 @20degC and always one shot. This strategy affords great consistency in film processing and eliminates an important variable from the work flow. I think there is great merit in choosing a developer you like and sticking to it. OzJohn

+1

Roger Cole · Sep 25, 2013

If I could only choose one developer it would (so far anyway) be D76/ID11. It's not the best or worst at anything but does everything pretty well.

When I started using TMY when T-Max films first came out I tried T-Max developer then T-Max RS (used one shot though) on the recommendation of a friend who ran a lab, and found I got a bit more speed from it, so I still tend to use it for those films and for pushing my remaining stock of TMZ and for Delta 3200.

I use Diafine for pushing Tri-X and for the the compensating effect on the highlights and a slight push of Pan F+.

That said, I have an unopened bottle of HC-110 I mean to try. I too don't get to develop often enough and a very long lived concentrate is appealing. I have tried Rodinal but (gasp! horrors!) was unable to get results I liked from it. That, however, was back in the 90s. I have a new bottle and will try it again too.

Mark Fisher · Sep 25, 2013

keeping properties, liquid concentrate allows fresh mix everytime.....I use Rodinal. I also like the look it gives with Tri-x in 35 and Acros in 120

pgomena · Sep 25, 2013

I always had trouble getting consistent results out of D-76. It had to be my fault. There are many photographers who have used it very successfully, and it is an industry standard. (I think most of my problem was that I used it infrequently and never settled on a good, consistent system.)

I used it primarily for 35mm film when I did use it. I gave up on D-76 and found HC-110 gave me results more to my liking. I now use Pyrocat-HD for almost everything. Since I primarily use medium and large format cameras, I don't worry about grain. My 35mm work these days is almost non-existent, and much of what I used 35mm for is relegated to electronic means. (In other words, non-serious work.)

DWThomas · Sep 25, 2013

D-76 gives me warm fuzzies because I probably first used it in about 1957, and almost every B&W film made gives specs for developing with it. However, as one whose film efforts are a bit sporadic, HC110 used as a one-shot has become my soup of choice. I can mix it and use it in minutes and it's always fresh.

Harry Lime · Sep 25, 2013

About 10 or 12 years ago I moved from D76 to DD-X.

Then about 5 years ago I moved from DD-X to Barry Thornton's 2 bath and Diafine. Two bath developers just work better for me.

Recently I've contemplated a move to Divided D76, so in a sense I will have come full circle.

D76 and Tri-X is just one of those brilliant combinations.

presspass · Sep 25, 2013

Another D-23 fan. I started with D-76, moved to other stuff, and went to D-23 several years ago just so I could have a developer that didn't depend on manufacturing changes. It works well with TMax 400, Tri-X 400, and HP5. It works diluted as far down as 1:4 and also as a replenished full-strength developer. Cheap, easy to mix, and repeatable results.

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 25, 2013

Harry Lime said:
About 10 or 12 years ago I moved from D76 to DD-X.

Then about 5 years ago I moved from DD-X to Barry Thornton's 2 bath and Diafine. Two bath developers just work better for me.

Recently I've contemplated a move to Divided D76, so in a sense I will have come full circle.

D76 and Tri-X is just one of those brilliant combinations.

Harry, Thornton does an 'easy peasy' version of it, where you develop your film in whatever your regular developer is, for 2/3 of the normal time, and then 3 minutes in a water + sodium metaborate solution (2 teaspoons to 1 liter of water). I've got several gallon bags of D76 sitting around, and hear this works brilliantly and is so easy to do.

Pioneer · Sep 25, 2013

I use a lot of TMX100 and I get great results with D76, so that is what I use. But I use Rodinal for just about everything else.

TheFlyingCamera · Sep 25, 2013

I was always a bit of an iconoclast, so I started off with Edwal FG-7, instead of D-76. Then I progressed to Edwal TG-7, which was supposedly formulated for improved performance with T-grain films like Tmax and Delta (I was shooting Tmax 100 and 400 almost exclusively at the time). I then tried Rodinal because in the long run it's so cheap, and because the Edwal developers became scarce (now extinct). Then I joined APUG, and got turned on to Pyro developers. Lee Carmichael (RIP) turned me on to Pyrocat-HD, and that's been my go-to developer of choice ever since, although if I want increased grain and a certain kind of acutance, I go with Rodinal.

Vilk · Sep 25, 2013

After a long (and very very satisfactory) run of DD-X, I recently had to switch to D-76 for reasons of availability. I began to travel more than usual, developing along the way--everyone carries D-76 where I go while I have yet to see a drop of DD-X.

Is it different? Yes. Is it better or worse than DD-X? Never asked myself--if the picture wasn't worth printing, the choice between the two had nothing to do with it.

PS. OK, so the above was about moving to D-76. It's quite possible I moved away from it at some point, but going further back than quarter century my memory becomes quite hazy...

MatthewDunn · Sep 25, 2013

Vilk said:
PS. OK, so the above was about moving to D-76. It's quite possible I moved away from it at some point, but going further back than quarter century my memory becomes quite hazy...

No, but that was still a very helpful answer. Surprised (perhaps as a newbie, I shouldn't be) at how many people still seem to use d76. To me that's re-assuring that you can start with something like Tri-X and d76 and, as long as the content and subject matter is there (and I get that that is the real magic), you never need to monkey with any of the other "magic bullets"...

polyglot · Sep 25, 2013

Confessions of a recovering magic-bullet chaser. That sums up a lot of the arguments over developer choice.

Harry Lime · Sep 27, 2013

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Harry, Thornton does an 'easy peasy' version of it, where you develop your film in whatever your regular developer is, for 2/3 of the normal time, and then 3 minutes in a water + sodium metaborate solution (2 teaspoons to 1 liter of water). I've got several gallon bags of D76 sitting around, and hear this works brilliantly and is so easy to do.

Interesting.

But then I would be dealing with two developers. I'm actually quite happy with my current set up. BT2B is pretty hard to beat for anything up to 400 asa and so is a nicely ripened batch of Diafine (1250asa).

But there is something about the D76 / Tri-X combo that visually presses all the right buttons. If I went DD76 I could have my cake and eat it.

Why did you (if you did) move on from D76/ID-11

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency