MehmetCati
Hi!
I’ve bought some Kodak D-76 to give it a go.
The powder is for a 1-litre batch.
Does anyone know how many films (stock solution) the litre is enough for?
(It doesn’t say on the packet)
Regards,
M.C.
CPD
Hi Mehmet,
I’m not really familiar with D 76, but I’d recommend using it as a single-bath developer at dilutions of 1:1 to 1:3.
Normally, you extend the development time after every two films, and then after a certain number of films you have to top up with replenisher (I can’t think of the German word for it), and after a few weeks the developer is then finished.
I read in a book that when using the stock solution, the pH value would constantly fluctuate over a wide range, etc. I’ve never checked this myself.
But as I recall, the prevailing opinion is that D 76, or its English counterpart ID 11, is much more process-stable when subjected to dilution, slightly coarser-grained but sharper as a result.
Regards
CP
CPD
www.jackspcs.com/dskodak.htm
You'll find a few interesting links there
Best regards
Gast
Mehmet,
The English write 10 films per litre, each one 10% longer than the first, so the first is 100%, the next 110%, then 120%, and the 10th 190%. Don’t multiply – always add.
MehmetCati
Hello everyone!
I’ve since found some information from Kodak.
It states that you can develop 4 films (Kb) per litre, or 2 films at a 1:1 ratio.
I think I’ll give the 1:1 ratio a go.
(I did ask about people’s experiences with Lucky film in another post. I’ve since tried AM74 and Rodinal with it. Let’s see how it ‘gets on’ with the d-76).
As I understand the Kodak information, you should extend the time by 10% for two films at the same time (as oleksander writes).
Thanks for the help and
Best regards,
M.C.
Gast
Mehmet,
I’m a bit puzzled by the information from Kodak: Ilford ID 11 and Kodak D76 are almost identical, yet Kodak specifies 4 films per litre and Ilford 10?
You’ve misunderstood me slightly: with Ilford, one litre extends the life of each film by 10%.
So
1st film 100%
2nd film 110%
3rd film 120%
4th film 130%
5th film 140%
6th film 150%
7th film 160%
8th film 170%
9th film 180%
10. Film 190%
If you always use two films, then (not official, was in a photography magazine)
1+2 100%
2+3 120%
4+5 140%
6+7 160%
8+9 180%
10 190%
or a half-litre batch (I use this as I can’t get a litre in a tin)
1 100%
2 122.5%
3 145%
4 167.5%
5 190%
Basically, you know that 100 ml develops 1 film; so 1 litre develops 10 films, 0.5 litres 5 films, 2.5 litres 25 films and 3.8 litres 38 films.
The first development is always 100%; for the last film, add 90%, so you calculate: 90% : (n films - 1) and get the extension per film.
Please note, this only applies to ID 11, Kodak 76 and those that follow; other developers have different rules.
Gast
My formula has been messed up by the programme
90 divided by the number of possible films minus one gives the extension factor
Sorry, my German isn’t good enough to put this across
CPD
Hello Mehmet,
Oleksander is right. You can develop a maximum of 10 films in one litre. Developing just four films would be a very expensive business indeed.
I’ve had a look at the D-76 data sheet. It is actually quite confusing, but you can also use the one for ID-11. As Oleksander says, the two developers are practically identical; chemically, they probably differ slightly (different complexing agents, perhaps differences in the percentage composition?). In practice, however, that’s irrelevant – you’ll have to work out the correct development time yourself.
Regards, CP
Gast
Hello,
According to the data sheet, when using D76 as a single-use developer, you can develop a maximum of 16 films per gallon of stock solution, i.e. ~4 films per litre of stock solution or ~250ml of stock solution per film. With a 1+1 dilution, that works out as 250ml of D76 plus 250ml of water.
Anyone who thinks they can get by with 100ml of D76 stock solution per film is in for a nasty surprise. I did it because I used to think that D76 and ID11 were identical. The result was rather dull, underdeveloped negatives.
Regards,
Heinrich
CPD
Hi Heinrich,
Interesting info!
I’ve had a look through various recipe books and websites for D 76 recipes. Some of them differ quite a bit from one another. And as for what Kodak puts in its D 76 or Ilford in its ID 11, they’re hardly likely to tell us.
Best regards, CP
MehmetCati
Hello!
Thanks to everyone for the helpful info!!!!!!!
I’ve now had a bit of time to spend on my computer again and found the datasheet for the d-76 developer on the Kodak website.
As I understand it, one litre is actually only enough for 4 films.
There is also the larger pack for a 3.8-litre batch. I found a specification for 16 films in a catalogue. So the 4 films per litre figure works out quite well.
Kodak specifies 16 films for one gallon (I don’t actually know how many litres that is at the moment – probably 3.8).
Due to a lack of time, I haven’t got round to trying out the D76 yet, but I’ll probably stick to the 4-film figure.
I might get hold of the ID 11 and try it out on my films.
Otherwise
KEEP GOING
M.C.
Gast
Anyone who thinks they can get by with 100ml of D76 stock solution per roll of film is in for a nasty surprise. I did it because I used to think that D76 and ID11 were identical. The result was rather dull, underdeveloped negatives.
Hello,
As a D76 user, I’m a bit puzzled now. For Tri-X, I use a 1+1 dilution with just 125ml of stock solution. You can’t really fit much more than 250ml into a standard JOBO box anyway. The images don’t look underdeveloped. Should I use more developer in future?
Regards,
Andre
heinrich
Hello Andre,
I got my information from the Kodak technical data sheet, which states:
If you use D-76 Developer diluted 1:1,.....You can develop one 135-36 roll (80 square inches) in 473 mL (16 ounces) or two rolls together in 946 mL (one quart) of diluted developer. In my post, I simply rounded the 473 up to 500 ml.
In my search for the zone system, my own, unintentional tests have yielded the following results:
1 roll of 120 film in 400 ml 1+1 D76 solution = contrast and speed OK (gamma 0.54, Zone I at 0.14 logD)
2 rolls of 120 film in 400ml 1+1 D76 solution = lower contrast and reduced speed (gamma 0.47, Zone I at 0.07 logD – far too low)
Test conditions:
Development time 8:30 at 20°C and ~70 rpm (rotation, Jobo CPA)
Exposure: as for 200 ASA, aperture series Zone 1 to 10
Film: HP5plus
Camera: Linhof Technika IV 6x9 (Baby Linhof), Symmar 5.6/105mm lens
Don’t pin me down on the gamma; I measure this using a Hauk-Trialux light meter in projection; the values are likely to look slightly different with a densitometer.
If you’ve had good results with 125ml of stock solution (i.e. 250ml 1+1) and the times from the Kodak table work for you, then don’t change it. If you use more developers, the negatives will become harder and you’ll have to shorten the development times accordingly to get the usual contrast.
I only noticed this by a stupid coincidence. To verify the initial test result, I developed another test film alongside a holiday film (you should always confirm your experimental results with a control test – an old biologist’s rule), and the result was the aforementioned flat negatives. Repeating the test with just one film in 500ml 1+1 then yielded a gamma of 0.54 again. I only read the technical I only read the technical data sheet after the second test.
I haven’t carried out a similar test with ID11, so I can’t say how the test with ID11 would turn out. However, the technical data sheet for ID11 specifies 100ml per roll of film, and I assume that Ilford’s specifications are correct.
Regards
Heinrich
heinrich
/b
Gast
Heinrich, Andre,
Perhaps the usability depends on the layer thickness?
Roland
cfb_de
Hello Roland,
Certainly not. The ‘usable amount’ (or rather, the ‘smallest meaningful amount that can be used’) depends solely on the following factors:
- The total amount of reduced silver available in the emulsion.
- Desired amount of reduced silver. (*This* is the key factor, and the amount of reducing agent – aka “developer” – added should be sufficient to achieve precisely this.)
Or, to put it more simply: it depends on how much silver is in the emulsion (thin-film emulsions using flat-crystal technology usually contain slightly more per m² than conventional cast films), how intensely the exposure has been carried out, and how high the density of the negatives is to be kept. In each case, this is standardised to the silver halide content per unit area.
This is how the chemistry of development works, and no belief of any kind can change that.
Best regards,
Franz
skahde
I’ve been looking through various recipe books and websites for D76 recipes. Some of them differ quite significantly from one another.
And as for what Kodak puts into its D76 or Ilford into its ID 11, they’re hardly likely to tell us.
Hello,
When freshly prepared, the D76, D76h and D76d formulations differ more on paper than in their resulting properties, varying by just 10% in their activity; however, after a few weeks’ storage, they diverge significantly. In D76, prepared according to the published recipe, activity increases significantly; in D76h, it decreases; and in D76d, it increases only slightly.
The compositions of Kodak’s pre-packaged D76 and Ilford’s ID are clearly traceable from the MSDS. Kodak’s D76 is buffered with borax and is therefore at least very similar to D76d. ID11 corresponds to the original formula. In both cases, complexing agents to counteract water hardness are added, deviating from the original recipes.
Source, among others:
http://groups.google.de/group/rec.photo.da...00290747c?hl=de
Best regards
Stefan
skahde
In my search for the zone system, my own, unintentional tests have yielded the following results:
1 roll of 120 film in 400ml 1+1 D76 solution = contrast and speed OK (gamma 0.54, Zone I at 0.14 logD)
2 rolls of 120 film in 400ml 1+1 D76 solution = contrast flatter and speed lower (gamma 0.47, Zone I at 0.07 logD far too low)
Hello Heinrich,
0.54 vs. 0.47 matches Kodak’s specification from the datasheet: “To extend the useful capacity of D-76 Developer diluted 1:1—when processing two 36-exposure rolls in a 16-ounce tank—increase the recommended time by about 10 per cent.”
Based on my own experience, I have started not only to test a dilution for a single film and different times, but also to check the dilution of the developer for the total volumes required for one and two films. The litmus test is then the comparison between a short sensitometer strip and a complete film with a sensitised strip exposed on the last, unexposed frames.
An interesting result: when changing the amount of stock solution or the film length – except during development in bucket-sized volumes – deviations almost always occur. However, as long as high gammas are achieved without a drop in the highlights by extending the time, this can be easily compensated for.
In short: only a drop in the highlights (the gamma/time curve flattens out) indicates that the developer has been overworked. Compensation is actually always necessary with different quantities of stock solution. With standard manual development, however, these differences fall within the usual range of variation (+/- 10%). It is only when you take a very precise approach, armed with an automatic rotary processor and a densitometer, that you can clearly see what is happening.
Best regards
Stefan
skahde
The “usable amount” (or rather, the “smallest meaningful quantity”) depends solely on the following factors.
Such absolute formulations are, of course, always an invitation :)
Depending on the developer, one mustn’t forget about air oxidation either. If the working solution contains little sulphite, one simply needs to stir it long enough to send it to the great beyond. I’ve managed this several times with Pyrocat. The film length used was a sensitometer strip, roughly 20 cm of 35mm film.
Accordingly, depending on the development method (tank, 1-minute agitation, rotation) and the amount of oxygen introduced during development, you can develop different quantities of film per volume.
I just had to get that off my chest :D
Best regards
Stefan
