D76 1:1 Testing @ 3 different times with 1 roll

anitasanger

Well-known
Local time
9:11 PM
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
358
D76 1:1 Testing @ 3 different times with 1 roll

First I would like to thank all of you who have been gracious enough to offer me advice and share your own trial and errors. Secondly, I'd like to say that this took FOREVER. But that's okay because I am willing to ask, learn, test and work hard in hopes of achieving the best results I am capable of producing. In response to this thread http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99467 I have performed an experiment to test the varying results of D76 at different times. This was not my idea, but advice suggested to me by several forum members here.

I started by shooting an entire roll of Tri-X 400 36 exposure throughout the duration of 15 minutes in my front yard with a Leica M6 classic and a Summicron 50. I focused carefully on performing the correct exposure with the internal meter and shot 12 photographs. Most all of the shots were shot at 1/1000th of a second with varying apertures to compensate for proper exposure. After the 12th shot, I started all over again and tried to recreate the first 12 exposures as best as memory could serve me. After that, I shot the last 12 in the same area, but deviated composure slightly to include my son.

When the Oklahoma sun disappeared in the west, I locked myself in the bathroom with the lights out, popped the film canister and felt my way across the length of negatives and did my best to cut the rolls into 3 even lengths. I then loaded the film rolls into separate development tanks and took to the kitchen.

These are the logistics I used for my rolls.

1st roll - D76 1:1 @ 68° 9 minutes 45 seconds (Kodak Recommendation)
2nd roll - D76 1:1 @ 68° 8 minutes 30 seconds
3rd roll - D76 1:1 @ 68° 11 minutes

I loaded each tank with the film roll on the bottom and one empty roll on top. Since I plan on throwing my current batch of D76 out and remixing a batch with distilled water, (I have very harsh well water with a little sediment, but it tastes good) I took Chriscrawfordphoto's advice and filled the tank up as if I were developing 2 rolls. The mixture was 10oz of D76 full solution to 10oz water, giving a total volume of 20oz. I agitated all rolls a whole lot.

After my first roll came out of the photoflo and was hung to dry, I could tell that it looked really good. As far as a negative hanging to dry looks, it looked dang near perfect. The second roll looked very acceptable with perhaps a bit more contrast. The last roll looked significantly darker and was thicker feeling, but looked capable of achieving acceptable prints with an enlarger. Well there is an exception. Somehow in my super precise controlled experiment, I ended up screwing up the top of the negatives of roll 3. I didn't have an extra reel to put on top and I guess it floated up. Who freaking knows. It's very possible that my ADHD played a part in this mistake. No Adderall today my friends.

As soon as the negatives were dry, I scanned them into my Apple with an Epson Perfection V500 flatbed scanner. No levels, colors or manipulation of any kind was done to the negatives. Please bare in mind that I was not striving for photographic composition or moving anyone to tears with my technique etc. I was merely trying to snap up a bunch of similar exposures so I could test the developer. Science is pretty fun. The results are as follows:

These are the photos from the first batch. 1st roll - D76 1:1 @ 68° 9 minutes 45 seconds (Kodak Recommendation) I was very pleased after viewing the results of the scanned negatives. Skin tones looked very nice, awesome contrast and I finally got those Leica sharp images I've been pining for. Technically, they were everything I had hoped for.


img443 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img444 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img445 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img446 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img447 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img448 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img449 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img450 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img451 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img452 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img453 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img454 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img455 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img456 by saveamerika, on Flickr
 
These are from the second roll. 2nd roll - D76 1:1 @ 68° 8 minutes 30 seconds. Upon viewing these results, I noticed several things. First off, the dark shadow detail was preserved significantly better with the lower developing time. In fact, I didn't realize just how dark the shadow were from the first roll until I got to view the second roll. The contrast was a little lower than the first roll and the grain seemed to be finer. I preferred the grain structure on the first roll, significantly in the sky and on the Dodge Dart, however, I liked the shadow detail significantly better on roll 2. And of course, this roll, being the variable that I would like to study most, ended up the shortest with fewest exposures. Typical.


img457 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img458 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img459 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img460 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img461 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img462 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img463 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img464 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img465 by saveamerika, on Flickr
 
These exposures are from the 3rd roll. Upon scanning, I found that the negatives are a lot muddier and lacking contrast than I initially thought. They are still quasi- acceptable and could make some salvageable prints, but unequivocally over developed as you can see below. And don't forget about my ADHD screw up, you'll see the blown out portions toward the top of the negative.


img466 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img467 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img468 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img469 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img470 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img471 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img472 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img473 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img474 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img475 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img476 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img477 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img478 by saveamerika, on Flickr


img479 by saveamerika, on Flickr


Conclusions:

I feel very, very satisfied having done this test. It forced me to understand how negatives look when variables are manipulated. You can read about it all day, but actually doing it yourself and seeing it helps it register better. I'm also happier with my Leica now. I know that my previous lackluster negatives were due to human error rather than mechanical malfunction. How will I proceed?

Well, I can't help but agree with Chriscrawfordphoto in his hypothesis regarding solution for 2, to process 1 being a superior developing technique. This week I processed 5 rolls in a Patterson 5 roll tank exactly how I did roll 1 today and had very disappointing negatives. When I tried his method today, I ended up with far superior results. So I can conclude that my success today with roll 1 can be attributed to either doubling my solution as Chriscrawfordphoto suggested, developing one roll at a time rather than 5, or even a combination of both. Regardless, I am thankful to everyone who has provided me with input on getting me back on track.

I am still on the fence about how to proceed with the development of the many rolls I have waiting for me. I don't know it I want to stick with Kodak's suggested times, go with the 8:30, or perhaps try something in between. I really enjoyed the contrast of roll 1, but I liked the shadow preservation in roll 2. Roll 3 is just ridiculous. I would greatly appreciate any input, suggestions or comments about this little experiment.

Lastly, I'm going to propose an experiment in hopes of putting to rest the single/double solution conundrum. If someone would be willing to shoot a roll under same conditions, pop the roll, cut it in half and develop identically with the exception of using twice the amount d76 as needed for one of the rolls, we could look for visible differences. As of now, I'm leaning toward proceeding this way. But if my 5 roll botched job was just a freak thing, I don't want to waste any more developer than I have to per roll to achieve the same results. Oh well, I just wanted to throw that out there in case anyone wanted to give it a test. If not, that's cool too. For now, I'll appreciate any input on the test I performed today.

Cheers, Luke
 
I almost forgot. I stopped the development for about 30-60 seconds in running water. I didn't use any acidic stop bath. Fixed for 4 minutes with Kodak rapid fixer, rinsed
For 30 minutes and bathed in photoflo for about a minute.

And lastly I wanted to say, if nothing else, this experiment is testament to the incredible diversity and forgivability of D76 and the might Tri-x!
 
Last edited:
Wow. Great work and excellent writeup. I still have to mull all of this and compare to my own results with D76, but I have observed generally the same results as you and Chris Crawford regarding using double the amount of solution for a roll. I find that when I put in one roll and an empty reel, I tend to get a better looking negative than two rolls filling up a tank with nearly identical development variables.

I'm still very much a novice at home developing, so I'm still learning how manipulating variables in development can affect the negatives. In particular I'm interested in your condition number 3 (overdevelopment). I thought that when you develop something for longer time, the highlights tend to "increase" (get more white). Is this false? I'm still a bit fuzzy on the science of what's happening in the tank during each step. Something about silver particles swelling and disappearing, or some such? I hope all of you experienced photographers out there don't laugh at my ignorance.
 
thanks for the extensive work with processing and documenting.

as for the different development results, i am a bit puzzled over the looks - but i assume, that the scanning may have had it's part in the way how the finished pics are presented here.

so, just for being curious ... would it be possible to have all three results to be scanned in one single go?
like, put the negatives side by side and scan in a lower resolution in a single file, in order to compare the density of these negatives relative to one another when scanned with the same parameters (in the same scanning step). i have no idea whether this will show any interesting result, though.

cheers,
sebastian
 
Thanks guys, I appreciate it.

Funny you should ask, because a density comparison was in my Initial write up. However, the negatives are still curly and I couldn't manage to get a sample from each of the 3 batches to lay flat on the scanner for a one shot go of all negs. I have them pressing in a book now and will try to do this soon.

As for answering the technical reasons for why each batch looks different, I'm in no position to give a thorough answer. Until now, I haven't really experimented, rather followed the times on the box. Others here will be able to better answer your question. I'm ready to learn too!
 
Luke,
There are a few things I can say right away:
1- I personally do not apply any stop bath or water bath after development, I just develop, and then fix directly, using always fresh fixer. This works, and this apparently helps to reduce the grain. BTW, whatever method you use, make sure the water temperature is within 2deg C tolerance for all the baths - plunging your negatives into cold water after development can lead to reticulation.
2- The shadow detail is principally based on exposure, and then it INCREASES with development, but increases slower than highlight density, therefore the longer you develop the bigger the contrast range of the negative. Your inverse impression, in my opinion, has been caused by your scanner settings.
3- I am not sure, if you develop for wet printing, for scanning or for both. If you develop for scanning, then you should keep the development on the short side, and adjust the contrast in PS, if you wet print, you should adjust your development for printing with your paper of choice. If you do both, you should still develop for wet printing, as this is more important: should you have difficulties scanning too dense/contrasty negatives, you can scan them as slides, and invert in PS.
4 - Be careful with your boy sitting out on the ground in the winter - he can get pneumonia !
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the tips. I basically want to shoot for a negative that will have the best potential for silver printing. While my darkroom is currently defunct due to my wife's med school stuff, it will be ressurected soon.

As for Maxwell, well it's weird in Oklahoma. Last week it was 18 degrees and got so cold, my well pump quit working. Today, we had a high of 72! It's quite irritating as I adore cold weather. As Will Rogers the famous Okie said, "If you don't like the weather in Oklahoma, stay a day."
 
If you feel the need I would retry the experiment, but this time shoot different EIs on each shot. Divide the 36 exposures into three groups again 8 shots each. On each of the 3 groups shoot the same set of exposures as follows:

- Meter the scene. Assume a fairly dimly lit day so with an ISO 400 film the "correct" exposure would be f8 @ 500. I would then shoot for the 8 exposures:

1. F8 @ 500 (start)
2. F2.8 @ 500 (N-3)
3. F4 @ 500 (N-2)
4. F5.6 @ 500 (N-1)
5. F8 @ 500 (correct)
6. F11 @ 500 (N+1)
7. F16 @ 500 (N+2)
8. F16 @ 1000 (N+3)

Then you split again and develop with your three different times. By lining up the three sets of 8 you can find out the effect of exposure (with your meter/camera) and development times on the film. You can almost certainly get a printable negative with the three middle exposures (N-1, N and N+1). You'll find the shadow details start to disappear with N+2, N+3 and the highlights start to block up with N-2, N-3.

Later you can play with the exposure and development times depending on the lighting conditions. The general rule of thumb is that on a bright day you down rate your film, and decrease development. ie: on a bright sunny day you'd expose TriX as ISO 100 and develop 20% less.
 
Paulfish-

You've got to be kidding me? Locust freaking grove? That's my home town! Born and raised. My dad owns the only pharmacy in town, he's been the town pharmacist since 1982. What a SMALL world. Crazy huh? When I read Locust Grove, I almost flipped. It's a tiny little town nestled in the foothills of the Ozarks. Wow.

Heck yes! That old Mopar was my daily driver for about 4 years. I'm currently I'm the process of swapping out exhaust manifolds because the old one cracked. 1965, 273 slant 6, automatic. Heck of a little car. My dad lives and breathes Mopars, with a quite extensive collection!
 
I guess I'm a bit behind the times. I drive a 65 Dodge, shoot film and do the majority of my corespondence via typewriter with my 1968 Olympia. And when I need to feel the wind in my hair, I hop on my my old 2-stroke Vespa!
 
I guess I'm a bit behind the times. I drive a 65 Dodge, shoot film and do the majority of my corespondence via typewriter with my 1968 Olympia. And when I need to feel the wind in my hair, I hop on my my old 2-stroke Vespa!

I don't drive a car of that vintage but I do type on manual typewriters on occasion. I have a 1936 Underwood Universal, a 1970's vintage Royal Mercury portable, and a 1970's vintage Olivetti Model 23. In comparison with other typewriter collectors, mine's not even a collection, just a mere smattering. Oh, I also am the long-term caretaker of an IBM Selectric II, red in color, like Hunter S. Thompson's.

Feel free to join the rest of the "type-o-sphere" at Strikethru's blog, a bunch of crazy people who post jpg images of their typewritten pieces - "typecasting" is what we call it.

~Joe
 
Sounds amazing! I can't wait to check it out. Thank you! I have a couple 1935 Remingtons, an older Remington, it's green, about 10 Olympias, a Hermes and a few others!
 
Back
Top Bottom