Negative quality disappointing d76 1:1

[ZorkiKat]

I have been developing 1+1 D76 in a single reel tank for 30 years and the results came out properly. Same with 1+1 in double tanks- 2 reels and just the capacity needed to fill the double tank.

In fact I often use 1+3 (Ilford's ID 11 alternative dilution) in single tanks, with a single roll. The tank needs 220 ml to fill; at 1+3, stock D76 needed is less than 53mls, the rest is water. Times are extended of course, about double needed for 1+1 dilutions. Time has to be extended as the developer gets more diluted.

Diluting the developer is done for a certain output. One is compensation- when highlights or contrasts need to be tamed. Two is for greater sharpness. D76 at 1+1 does that. But the effects are more obvious when its diluted 1+3. Three is economy- if there are a lot of films to be developed, a diluted 1 shot developer may be more practical.

@Anitasanger: As for the "low contrast" issue- TX developed in 1+1 D76 tends to look lower in contrast than TX developed in straight D76. Could it be that it just looks new to you? You did say that the contrast looks lower than what you're used to seeing. Is this the first time that you used diluted developer? This reaction is quite common for people who are used to 'harder' negatives developed in more vigourous developers.

 

[steelydam]

I majored in art/photo in undergrad and the "technical god" in our photo dept taught us to do it like ChrisCrawford says - develop only 1 roll in a 2 roll tank/2 rolls in a 4 roll tank, etc, with empty reels at the top as place holders. I will say that due to lack of time nowadays I will often do 4 rolls in my 4 roll tank and notice no difference to my relatively unsophisticated eye. I shoot nothing tricky like snow scenes and don't rely on my photography to put food on the table & roof overhead, otherwise like Chris I'd probably have stayed with what my good old prof taught us.

 

[Tom A]

I have no idea of how many rolls of TriX I have souped over the decades - at least 10 000. I standardized early on with the D76 1:1 mix - always in 5 reel Paterson tanks and at 10 min with 3 flips every 60 seconds.
Apart from mechanical problems with the camera and the occasional mis-judgement of "Sunny F16" - always got a printable neg!
Check your meter and also the shutterspeeds of the camera. Sounds like exposures could be off and though TriX is probably the most forgiving film - it has a latitude of about 3/4 stop under and 1 stop over.
Shoot a roll in the shade - cycle through from 1 sec to 1/1000 and if you have access to a handheld meter use that as a reference. If you have an even light - the negatives should look the same - just difference in depth of field.
The M6 has a very good meter in it - and unless it has a problem - it should give you even exposures.
I have just been scanning some stuff shot in Toronto in the mid-eighties - all done with Tri X/D76 1:1/10 min and it is still the "industrial" standard for using TriX. Other developers can give finer grain or sharper edges - but none has the flexibilty of that combination.

 

[filmfan]

As I stated above, I use TX400 + D76 1+1 for all my photos (basically). I don't use this combination for any specific purpose like tonality or whatever. I use it because it always gives me a usable image. Always.
Maybe your shutter speeds are off on the camera?

 

[BillBingham2]

Anitasager,

As you have several rolls to soup (develop) yet I would suggest you run a test or two.

1) Test your meter in the M6 with a known good meter. Use an 18% gray card or a like good surface and stable lighting to test against. Don't adjust any differences, just write them down.

2) Take about three rolls under the same lighting conditions as you did for the previous rolls, make sure they are 36 exposure. No good pictures, I promise you a few will be ruined. Make sure you label these rolls as not to get them mixed up with the previously shot ones.

3) Take a pair of scissors into the dark room and cut the first roll into three relatively equal lengths and load the strips on different reels. Put them in your tank in the top, bottom and middle and develop them as recommended above. If the negatives come out more to your liking (I think less flat) then try it again with the two other test rolls at the top and bottom to confirm improvement and if it works end the test.

4) If the negatives from the cut roll do not come out to your liking tweak the temp or time to adjust to where you think it will work better and try again. Continue with a third try if they are not just right.

5) Shoot more and repeat till you get the results you want and then soup the good rolls with the times that work.

6) If the M6 meter is off get it adjusted and repeat the tests to find your new normal times for your regular lighting.

You might want to read a good book (Minor White comes to mind) on the Zone system to give you some hints on stuff. Kodak has great info that if you follow like a chemist (e.g. no changes in temp throughout the process) you will get good results, but many people tweak it a bit here and there to find what works best for them.

Be a scientist, write up test, results and try things out in the Darkroom. The darkroom is where the scientific part of photography comes in. The artistic part is with the camera and deciding how you want the image to look.

Good luck and let us know how you make out.

B2 (;->

 

[BillBingham2]

What temperature do people use? It's part of the equation too, no?

B2 (;->

 

[filmfan]

This is film processing, not interplanetary travel, as in rocket science. Some process in modified coffee (google: cafenol) there is a method that within reason will work.

Hear, hear!

 

[tj01]

Sometime ago, I did an experiment with 2 reels, where I develop normally in 2 reels. Then i RECYCLED the developer and did another 2 new reels. All 4 negs came out quite similar to my untrained eyes. So I think it's OK to do 2 reels in 2 reel tank, and 4 reels in 4 reel tank. I mean, those spaces are meant to be filled up with reels right ?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Sometime ago, I did an experiment with 2 reels, where I develop normally in 2 reels. Then i RECYCLED the developer and did another 2 new reels. All 4 negs came out quite similar to my untrained eyes. So I think it's OK to do 2 reels in 2 reel tank, and 4 reels in 4 reel tank. I mean, those spaces are meant to be filled up with reels right ?

What developer did you use? D-76 full-strength can be reused like that. So can Tmax Developer diluted 1+4. If you try that with Rodinal it'll give disasterous results. The space is not 'meant to be filled with reels', its meant to be filled with CHEMICALS.

The guy who said this isn't science is wrong. It is science, specifically chemistry. I've studied chemistry and even compounded my own chemicals. In any chemical reaction, you need enough of each reagent to complete the reaction. If the developer is so diluted that there is not enough of the developing agent to react with the amount of exposed silver, then guess what, kids? YOUR FILM WON'T BE DEVELOPED FULLY. D-76 is a fairly weak developer, it does not have the ability to be diluted and process large amounts of film that some stronger developers like Tmax Developer can do. The chemical engineers who design this stuff based on the chemical reactions that have to take place know what they're doing; the directions that Kodak gives are given for a reason: they give CONSISTANT results.

Keep in mind too that Tri-X was completely reformulated a few yrs ago and requires different processing times than the old version did. Modern films are more demanding on developers than older films, so if filling the tank with reels when using diluted D-76 worked for decades before...well it probably did but now it doesn't. Things have changed enough to make that experience irrelevant. Even my older developing times I used 10 yrs ago are largely useless because of changes in films since that time!

Seriously, why the heck would you spend thousands of dollars on expensive gear only to f--k up your film because you're too stupid to read directions or too tightfisted to buy enough developer? This rant isn't directed at the original poster. He didn't know that you aren't supposed to use only 2 rolls in a 4 roll tank, and he came asking for help. This is directed at those others here who, having been informed of it, saw fit to say that they know better than the people who actually designed this stuff and ridiculed the idea that one had to do things right to get good results.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Very nearly always, yes.

. But with any D-76 dilution, each reel should have a roll of film.

+1. None of the empty reel, 2X volume for 1/2 capacity in the older photography books too. The Kodak developing books don't mention such extra ordinary methods too.

The Metol/Hydroquinone reserve in such dilutions should suffice to cover the developing job at dilution 1+1. Even 1+3, with just half of what is in 1+1 is able to develop the negative properly with appropriate time adjustment.

The total silver reserve in a film emulsion is never fully developed anyway (gamma infinitum?) in usual pictorial applications.

 

[filmfan]

Had to laugh... This is why I love the internet.
So much pent up aggression.
Try to enjoy life and the discussion of film processing.

Edit: I thought that RFF was one of the last places on the internet where you did not see posts like. I guess it's slowly changing.

The guy who said this isn't science is wrong. It is science, specifically chemistry. I've studied chemistry and even compounded my own chemicals. In any chemical reaction, you need enough of each reagent to complete the reaction. If the developer is so diluted that there is not enough of the developing agent to react with the amount of exposed silver, then guess what, kids? YOUR FILM WON'T BE DEVELOPED FULLY. D-76 is a fairly weak developer, it does not have the ability to be diluted and process large amounts of film that some stronger developers like Tmax Developer can do. The chemical engineers who design this stuff based on the chemical reactions that have to take place know what they're doing; the directions that Kodak gives are given for a reason: they give CONSISTANT results.

Keep in mind too that Tri-X was completely reformulated a few yrs ago and requires different processing times than the old version did. Modern films are more demanding on developers than older films, so if filling the tank with reels when using diluted D-76 worked for decades before...well it probably did but now it doesn't. Things have changed enough to make that experience irrelevant. Even my older developing times I used 10 yrs ago are largely useless because of changes in films since that time!

Seriously, why the heck would you spend thousands of dollars on expensive gear only to f--k up your film because you're too stupid to read directions or too tightfisted to buy enough developer? This rant isn't directed at the original poster. He didn't know that you aren't supposed to use only 2 rolls in a 4 roll tank, and he came asking for help. This is directed at those others here who, having been informed of it, saw fit to say that they know better than the people who actually designed this stuff and ridiculed the idea that one had to do things right to get good results.

 

[tj01]

What developer did you use? D-76 full-strength can be reused like that. So can Tmax Developer diluted 1+4. If you try that with Rodinal it'll give disasterous results. The space is not 'meant to be filled with reels', its meant to be filled with CHEMICALS.

D76 1:1 in Tri-X.

I think we are talking about the same thing, and agree with the same thing.
When you say D76 can be reused, it means there is enough juice if the reels are just submerged sufficiently.

With respect to the OP, i leave this thread.

 

[Chris101]

Never said it wasn't science. I said it wasn't rocket science.

...

Actually, it's not science at all. It's chemical technology.

Here is the PDF Chris Crawford was referring to:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.pdf

Here is the passage in contention, found at the end of page 2:

If you use D-76 Developer diluted 1:1, dilute it just before
you use it, and discard it after processing the batch of film.
Before using the diluted developer, make certain that there
are no air bubbles in the solution. If air is coming out of the
solution and forming bubbles, let the solution stand until the
bubbles dissipate. Don’t reuse or replenish the diluted
solution. You can develop one 135-3 roll (80square inches)
in 473mL (16ounces) or two rolls together in 946mL
(onequart) of diluted developer. If you process one
135-36roll in a 237mL (8-ounce) tank or two 135-36rolls
in a 473mL (16-ounce) tank, increase the development time
by 10percent (see the following tables).

Most of us have adjusted the processing in order to give us the negative density we want. The Tech Pub states that these recommendations are starting points. An increase of 10 percent development time to accommodate full tanks is easy to do, and considering the latitude of most films would probably not be noticed.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Wow I pissed off a lot of people, but I stand by what I said. If you're going to spend thousands of dollars on gear, then why half-ass your processing when doing it right is easy and cheap? I've had similar arguments here with guys who own $20,000 worth of Leicas and Hasselblads but balk at spending $2000 for a good film scanner. Its dumb and a false economy to buy a cheap scanner if you're wealthy enough to own the cameras and lenses that many people here have, and its dumb and a false economy to try and save a few pennies by reusing developer or using it beyond its capacity as related in the manufacturer's instructions. I look back to my days as a student when my photo professor told his students: "If you're not going to be bothered to do it right, don't bother to start." Most of the students were lazy and disregarded this advice. Guess how many of them still take pictures either professionally or as a hobby? Three. Yeah, three of us. out of 25 or so.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Wow I pissed off a lot of people, but I stand by what I said. If you're going to spend thousands of dollars on gear, then why half-ass your processing when doing it right is easy and cheap? I've had similar arguments here with guys who own $20,000 worth of Leicas and Hasselblads but balk at spending $2000 for a good film scanner. Its dumb and a false economy to buy a cheap scanner if you're wealthy enough to own the cameras and lenses that many people here have, and its dumb and a false economy to try and save a few pennies by reusing developer or using it beyond its capacity as related in the manufacturer's instructions. I look back to my days as a student when my photo professor told his students: "If you're not going to be bothered to do it right, don't bother to start." Most of the students were lazy and disregarded this advice. Guess how many of them still take pictures either professionally or as a hobby? Three. Yeah, three of us. out of 25 or so.

False economy? Not always. Some don't want to use more developer than necessary because they don't want to save a few pennies, but rather they don't want to misuse something which is not as easily available. In many places in the world, D76, along with many BW chemicals, is scarce. Having a lot of $$$ won't help if the commodity isn't around.

You are saying that the only right thing is the method you described. And imply that those of us who don't are lazy and are not doing it right. I've never done what you said in the times that I used D76 with Tri-X. I even develop it at stronger dilutions- 1+3, with no extra solution volume.

And how are you to say that I am doing it wrong when my negatives looked right? They print/scan well. With a condenser enlarger, I get full toned prints on #2 paper. So how can a published method -following Kodak's instructions found in various publications- which delivers a good product in the end, be an action with you describe as "lazy" or not right?

I see that your suggested method is sound. But you can't say that anything else is wrong. Having an extra reserve of reagents in the solution (as what the extra volume method would have) is a sort of safety factor which satisfies any doubts that the diluted solution may not be potent enough to do the job. However as Kodak have stated in their publications- their instructions for BW are largely suggestions for starting points and one can always deviate from them to achieve a desired end point.

However, using the "old method" - 2 rolls in a 2 reel tank with enough solution for two reels- delivers as well, without any real dire consequences. If this does good, what can be wrong with it?

Kodak have always been revising Tri-X since they introduced it. The developing times in the traditional developers have always remained the same, AFAIK.

 

[Jaans]

I'm just telling you what the directions say. What will happen is that someday one of you will have several rolls of mostly white subject matter that you'll develop together, the images will need more developer strength because of the high neg density and will come out underdeveloped. The instructions say that you can do 4 rolls in a 4 roll tank by increasing dev. time 10%. So, you're essentially underdeveloping 10%, not enough to make a major problem with a film like Tri-X, but you'll see it with Tmax films. Still, I am a perfectionist, I don't see economizing when my work is so important to me, so I do 2 rolls in a 4 roll tank with D76 1+1, even with Tri-X. I'll email the PDF to anyone that wants it. don't PM me, my PM box is near full. Email me at chris@chriscrawfordphoto.com

Well said Chris.

I'm also very particular about the number of rolls I will put into a tank. I only ever use a two roll Jobo and fill it up with 500ml every time. 250ml distilled water and 250ml D76. So effectively 1:1. I never use larger tanks as it adds another variable I have to factor into the equation. Just keep it simple and consistant. I actually really enjoy developing film so I would never cut corners with a larger tank. If I underdevelop a negative (as I have done with large tanks) I will be disappointed for weeks.

 

[atlcruiser]

If you're going to spend thousands of dollars on gear, then why half-ass your processing when doing it right is easy and cheap? .

Half-ass processing? Just cuz I take a lot of pictures and develope them myself with success to my eye and dont follow the "rules" I am lumped into half-assed?

That is just sweet......

 

[atlcruiser]

Seriously, why the heck would you spend thousands of dollars on expensive gear only to f--k up your film because you're too stupid to read directions or too tightfisted to buy enough developer? This rant isn't directed at the original poster. He didn't know that you aren't supposed to use only 2 rolls in a 4 roll tank, and he came asking for help. This is directed at those others here who, having been informed of it, saw fit to say that they know better than the people who actually designed this stuff and ridiculed the idea that one had to do things right to get good results.

Wait...now I get it! It is all clear now...I **** up my film cuz I am stupid, tightfisted and lazy!

But wait..I like how my film works...I have spent a lot of time making sure my process works for me....many, many rolls of film with pages of notes.... is that stupid? not sure but i have been told it is...hmmmmmm......Looks like I need to revisit my own sense of personal worth a bit.

 

[anitasanger]

Thank you to everyone for all of the different advice and opinions. I'm taking all of them into consideration and can hopefully arrive at an acceptable quality negativein the end. Sounds like a lot of you guys have been doing this for many years. You have each had personal results that may differ from the other, and that's okay. There are a lot of different variables when dealing with darkroom chemistry, and all of the different experiences you've all shared are what make message boards great. Thanks everyone, I've learned a lot from this thread!

 

[anitasanger]

Just to be clear. Would using a 2 roll tank filled with 2 rolls and enough 1:1 d76 for 2 rolls be the same as a 5 roll tank filled for 5 rolls? Or is the suggested method putting one roll in a 2 roll tank and filling it up as if I had two rolls in it? If it's the latter, wouldn't I be wasting more developer than necessary? Thanks.