Wow! D-76 Is Actually Pretty Good.

Snapshot · Jan 15, 2008

Hi All,

I been using or experimenting with several developers for B&W development, such as XTOL, Rodinal, FX-37, PC-TEA as well as a couple of pyro forumulas. However, I've never had an opportunity to use D-76 so I whipped up a homebrew batch and developed some film undiluted. Well, I was surprised at the quality and it certainly gave XTOL a run for its money at the same dilution level. I found the tones and gradation to be quite good and sharpness acceptable. I've also tried D-96A and found it to be the equal of XTOL in my unscientific observations and measurements.

I guess exotic formulas aren't necessary to get decent results for B&W. Also, it demonstrates that the actual differences in developers are fairly small when compared to the intrinsic grain and tonal qualities of the film being developed.

Ian Grant · Jan 15, 2008

Well most companies used to make a D76 equivalent because it was the standard fine grain motion picture developer. It's what most commercial photographers used for many years, usually in deep tanks, and is a good all round developer

Ian

Vaughn · Jan 15, 2008

Developer choice is a matter of film, physics, chemical engineering, taste, Old Wives tales, experimentation and a bunch of personal bias tossed in.

D-76 is a darn good developer.

vaughn

David Brown · Jan 15, 2008

Snapshot said:
I guess exotic formulas aren't necessary to get decent results for B&W.

Uncle Bill · Jan 15, 2008

I switched to D-76 as my main developer after getting tired of HC110, messing around with something the consistancy of honey wore a little thin. I don't mind mixing up the powder. I also have a five litre packet of ID-11 which is the same stuff which I will get to at some point.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jan 15, 2008

Snapshot said:
I guess exotic formulas aren't necessary to get decent results for B&W. Also, it demonstrates that the actual differences in developers are fairly small when compared to the intrinsic grain and tonal qualities of the film being developed.

You can say that again! I've been developing for about four years, and I'm just starting to understand which developers behave better in which situation!

Mike Wilde · Jan 15, 2008

The one challenge is its aging

If you home brew, be aware that how the d76 works new versus once it is a few months old is the issue. That said, I until the pyro bug bit used to develop all of my traditional silver in d76, 1+1 and tabular in fx-37.

If I am unsure of how to process a new to me one off film, then D-76 is still my go-to developer.

If there are a ream of films to be processed, then HC-110B or twice as weak, and a syringe to deal with it can be awfully handy though, and to my eye the results are not a mile off of D-76 1+1

Snapshot · Jan 15, 2008

Unfortunately, it seems I have too much time today. I've now used D-76 undiluted and at 1+1 dilution. I must be blind because I can't see much of a difference. It must be noted, however, the subject matter is different and it may contribute to my difficulty in discerning differentials. Has anyone else experienced similar observations? I'm also wondering if replenishment is a serous option or is there too much compromise.

Ian Grant · Jan 15, 2008

D76 was designed to be used in deep tanks or processing machines and when used with replenishment gives superb results. I've always used developers like ID-11/D76 and now Xtol this way and it's very easy even on a relatively small scale. The developers ripen with use and settle to an equilibrium as they are replenished, the quality improves giving slightly better results compared to using as a one shot.

Ian

jim appleyard · Jan 15, 2008

D-76 and Rodinal are the devs I keep coming back too. Other devs are excellent as well, but D-76 and Rodinal are just simple and time-honored.

Alden · Jan 15, 2008

jim appleyard said:
D-76 and Rodinal are the devs I keep coming back too. Other devs are excellent as well, but D-76 and Rodinal are just simple and time-honored.

I would like to understand the reasons for other developers. I've been thru a mess of them, including two years with pyro, and am back with D76H 1:1.
Why use anything else, and I am really asking. To shape the curve differently?

Pyro wise, I found that I could match my pyro's with 76. Tried to get better grain with Xtol, no, not really. So what are the reasons for all the other developers?

The only thing I can think of is Microdol for that "look".

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 15, 2008

I think all of them exist because many b&w photographers are interested in the science of photography as well, much the same as golfers are interested in which clubs they use. I firmly believe that the people that bring forward new types of chemistry do so believing they can offer something better to photographers.
On some level there must be some very minor differences, but in my opinion I think consistency pays off. I've used Pyrocat exclusively for roll film and almost exclusively for sheet film for some time, and I must say my results are much better. But I'm convinced that is not due to the formula of the developer, I believe it's because I spent enough time with it to learn how to use it to my best advantage. No more no less.
That's my two cents, anyway. I don't want to trade my Pyrocat for anything because I'm getting good repeatable results with it that I know how to print.

Not to disregard the original poster - D76 is as good as anything else out there. I don't think switching developer from one formula to another is going to make you a better photographer and printer.

- Thomas

Lee Shively · Jan 15, 2008

Many years ago, an older and more experienced photographer than myself recommended that I use D76 1:1 with Tri-X. He said it was "the standard" and, although there were a lot of good developers, D76 was the best compromise for grain, speed and tonality. I ignored him. Old guys don't know nuthin' when you're young and full of hypo and vinegar. Cut to modern times...I finally tried D76 1:1 with Tri-X. And HP5 and FP4 and Plus-X and Pan F and whatever else I was shooting at the time. Old guys sometimes do know a few things after all.

The only developers I use now are D76 and Rodinal. Rodinal is another developer that's been around forever and is considered "the standard".

Uncle Bill · Jan 15, 2008

I use D76 1+1 most of the time and I am happy with the results. I have not tried Xtol yet, might do that in the spring.

IloveTLRs · Jan 15, 2008

I see D-76 as a reliable old friend.

jim appleyard · Jan 15, 2008

Alden said:
I would like to understand the reasons for other developers. I've been thru a mess of them, including two years with pyro, and am back with D76H 1:1.
Why use anything else, and I am really asking. To shape the curve differently?

Pyro wise, I found that I could match my pyro's with 76. Tried to get better grain with Xtol, no, not really. So what are the reasons for all the other developers?

The only thing I can think of is Microdol for that "look".

I think you answered your own question with the "look". D-76, FG-7, HC-110, D-23, et al belong to a "family" of devs. Rodinal belongs to another. Pyro, yet another. You (I do) may see a change from family to family, but not much, if any, within the family. I don't think I could see a difference in a D-76 neg compared to an FG-7 neg, but I can between D-76 and Rodinal.

I like the Pyro's for their ability to keep highlights in check a bit better than other devs and for the punch midtones they give me.

Another thing to keep in mind is availability. D-76 is still mostly available worldwide. My localmom & pop pharmacy can order D-76, even tho' it isn't on the shelf. Some chemisty just isn't available in some areas. Germans tend to use German chemistry, the English use chemistry made in England...

Some folks simply started using D-76 or whatever the high school photo teacher used and never switched. If it ain't broke...

Snapshot · Jan 15, 2008

Ian Grant said:
D76 was designed to be used in deep tanks or processing machines and when used with replenishment gives superb results. I've always used developers like ID-11/D76 and now Xtol this way and it's very easy even on a relatively small scale. The developers ripen with use and settle to an equilibrium as they are replenished, the quality improves giving slightly better results compared to using as a one shot.

Ian

Hmm... I didn't realize that D-76 can ripen like PPD developers. I'll try to replenish D-76 and see what happens.

Pinholemaster · Jan 15, 2008

Whoever said D-76 wasn't?

Used it for years.

fschifano · Jan 15, 2008

Think about it. D-76 has been around since what, the mid 1920's? If the formula was no good, do you think it would have survived with the popularity it currently enjoys for nearly 80 years?

Harry Lime · Jan 15, 2008

D76 and Tri-X is a real classic combo. Looks gorgeous and it's cheap.

A friend of mine used Divided D76 and I always used to marvel at the longscale negs it produced.
I think the highlights look better with DD-76, than in standard D-76 (sometimes they plug up)

Neanderman · Jan 15, 2008

Ian Grant said:
used with replenishment

Do you adjust your development times as time goes on?

Ed

Snapshot · Jan 15, 2008

Neanderman said:
Do you adjust your development times as time goes on?

Ed

If my understanding is correct, replenishment does the following:

- Maintain consistent developer solution activity
- Maintain a constant volume of developer
- Provide some economy of use

So, the simple answer is that no adjustment of times are required.

Bruce Osgood · Jan 15, 2008

Harry Lime said:
I think the highlights look better with DD-76, than in standard D-76 (sometimes they plug up)

I'm not familiar with DD-76 could you explain the DD part? There is an FDD-76 which I believe is Photographers Formulary version.

Thanks,

MikeSeb · Jan 15, 2008

Great thread. I'm an inveterate tinkerer; despite stellar results with Xtol, I have an unrelenting urge to fool with other developers. Partly this has been prompted by the declining amount of B&W film I am shooting these days, and the longer intervals between processing sessions. So I need a developer that does the job and lasts on the shelf--or one I can quickly mix from constituent chemicals--and requires no fuss to use. This odyssey has become expensive and tiresome, as I now have mostly-full bottles of DD-X (yuck), HC-110 (yawn), Xtol (hurry, hurry, might go bad), and others mouldering on my darkroom shelves.

Finally out of sheer exhaustion, I mixed up some D76H, which is D76 without the HQ and with bit more alkali (if I recall correctly). Dropping the HQ means no activity/pH change after a month of age so it's more predictable. I had not used D76 of any stripe in decades.

The results stunned me. Every film I've developed in it has been beautiful. The others are going into the waste bin--except maybe the Xtol--it's pretty darn good; and, well, maybe the HC-110 since it lasts longer than pharoah's mummy, and well....

Seriously, I've had my flings, sown my wild oats. Time to settle down with a nice girl who still has a few alluring tricks up her, ah, sleeve. (With apologies to the distaff frequenters of this forum. )

Ian Grant · Jan 16, 2008

Neanderman said:
Do you adjust your development times as time goes on?
Ed

Snapshot said:
If my understanding is correct, replenishment does the following:
- Maintain consistent developer solution activity
- Maintain a constant volume of developer
- Provide some economy of use
So, the simple answer is that no adjustment of times are required.

The short answers is yes and no.

If you start with totally fresh stock solution then yes you need to increase the times slightly as you begin to put more films through it, I add replenisher every few rolls of film.

But as it matures and stabilises the time become constant, I keep a little notebook with times, replenishment and comments so I can monitor the results.

When I make up a fresh batch of developer I season it with some of the previous batch. I started doing this firstb while at school with Microphen, and have continued ever since with ID-11(D76), Adox Borax MQ and now finally Xtol. Now I keep my working solution in a 2.5 litre Plastic bottle using the other 2.5 litres as the replenisher, in the past with a commercial darkroom I used deep tanks.

This way of working is extremely economical, very quick as there's no solutions to make up each time and gives excellent results.

Ian

Wow! D-76 Is Actually Pretty Good.

Snapshot

Ian Grant

Vaughn

David Brown

Uncle Bill

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Mike Wilde

Snapshot

Ian Grant

jim appleyard

Alden

Thomas Bertilsson

Lee Shively

Uncle Bill

IloveTLRs

jim appleyard

Snapshot

Pinholemaster

fschifano

Harry Lime

Neanderman

Snapshot

Bruce Osgood

Membership Council

MikeSeb

Ian Grant

Wow! D-76 Is Actually Pretty Good.

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency