D76 anyone?

GeneW · 01-28-2005

The recent threads on D76 got me thinking about this classic developer. Going over my negs from several decades, one thing I notice is that I've never been disappointed with ANY roll of Tri-X film developed in D76. I quit using it mainly when I wasn't shooting frequently enough to keep the developer fresh.

The tonality always seems pleasing and the grain structure crisp but not overwhelmingly grainy. I always use it diluted 1:1.

So when I was in the camera store today, I picked up a pouch and will use D76 for the next while... It *is* a classic after all

How many of you use this developer regularly? Anyone tried it with Neopan 400?

Gene

matu · 01-28-2005

Hi Gene I'm a begginer developing my own film, and I use D-76.
I have used it with Ilford FP4, Hp5+, with agfa APX 400, Tri-X and T-Max, now I'm planning to use it with Neopan 1600, and I've read that it's recomended diluted.
From my short experience I have grown fond of Tri-X 400 and D-76, maybe is just because they where made for each other.

pshinkaw · 01-28-2005

I've used it since 1966 when I was in Junior High School. Had to re-mix it a few times to have fresh stock since then.

Actually, I have about 8 packages I acquired almost 20 years ago. I mixed up one last month after I rediscovered it in a closet. It is still good! No discoloration or oxidation to speak of. The Microdol-X I was hoarding was all bad and had to be thrown out.

I sometimes play around with Acufine, but I generally use D-76 full strength and Microdol-X 1:3 if I'm playing around with film sizes smaller than 35mm. Tried HC-110 many years ago, but could never get the results that everyone else talked about. Just wasn't worth the trouble to change.

-Paul

back alley · 01-28-2005

i haven't done my own negs in a while but i started with d76 when i was young (about 100 years ago) and then move on to other developers.
it must be a forgiving soup because i was pretty clueless at the beginning. that and it's been around a very long time.

joe

doubs43 · 01-28-2005

Gene, I use D-76 or Ilford ID-11 for any film of 400 ASA/ISO rating. It and Rodinal (for slower than 400 films) are all I use. Like you, I dilute my D-76 1:1 and have always been pleased with the results.

It's a classic alright and there's a reason it's been around for so long...... it's good!!

Walker

Doug · 01-28-2005

D76 is a real classic, and seems ideal with Tri-X. I turned to other developers to avoid mixing solutions from powder. They seem reluctant to dissolve fully, and using hot water just gets the oxidation off to a fast start!

Of course, that same grumble applies to Diafine too, but once mixed it lasts nearly forever.

I recall liking the FR X-44 liquid developer because it was packaged in 1-oz bottles for handy mixing 1:15. But, looking back through my records, along with D-76 and Diafine, Edwal FG-7 was a major favorite for Tri-X developing.

thmk · 01-28-2005

I am not that long in the business of developing my own films and I use D76 diluted 1:1 for Tri-X and Plus-X. For the Neopans I used only Adox ATM49 so far.

GeneW · 01-28-2005

Thanks for all the replies re D76. I'll mix up a gallon this weekend and develop a roll or two.

Yeah, me too on having trouble getting powders to mix completely. For years all I used was Edwal FG-7 and I saw a big bottle of that today and was *so* tempted. It's a longtime fav of mine. My worry though is how long it will be on the market. Wish I could get some Diafine without importing it, but no Toronto stores that I'm aware of stock it -- and I've looked.

So, time to link up again with good ol' D76. I'm looking forward to it.

Gene

Doug · 01-28-2005

I've heard it said that HC-110 is pretty much a liquid-concentrate version of D-76... If so, that would make it very attractive. Opinions?

Sean Reid · 01-29-2005

Gene,

I don't use film any more but I used the Tri-X D76 combo for years and years (large and small format film). If you haven't tried this yet, try rating the film at 250 ISO and then cut back the development time from 10 mins to 8.5 mins (1:1 mix, 68 degrees, agitation for 5 secs. every 30). The result is usually well-exposed shadows (because of the increased exposure) and highlights that aren't overly dense (because of the reduced development time). So you end with a slightly flat (in terms of contrast) rich, long-scale negative that can be the starting point for all kinds of different print interpretations.

Cheers,

Sean

GeneW · 01-29-2005

Doug, I use HC-110 quite a bit and it's a good developer. But it produces a subtly different look than D76.

Sean, I've done that with D76 and other developers -- i.e. rate it around 200-250 -- and the results are gorgeous. My only problem with that is low light. I often need 800 and a push development to handle the lighting I'm in.

Gene

Sean Reid · 01-29-2005

Hi Gene,

I did a lot of work on the NYC and Budapest subways rating TMZ (TMax 3200) at about 800 ISO which (souped in T-Max developer) worked beautifully. Have you tried that combo?

Gosh...I have't talked about film development in ages.

Cheers,

Sean

GeneW · 01-29-2005

I have an untried roll of TMZ, Sean, and have been just waiting to give it a go. Some folks claim that Tri-X pushed to 800 looks better than TMZ pulled to 800 but I need to try both to see.

BTW, since you're talking film

... do you know if TMZ can be processed well in D76?

tedwhite · 01-29-2005

Tri-X and D76 1:1 since 1968. No regrets. (Almost forgot: Plus-X, too).

aizan · 01-29-2005

anyone know a film that pushes well in d76?

Sean Reid · 01-29-2005

My own experience is that D76 is not the best developer for TMZ or for push processing Tri-X. YMMV... I've worked with acufine and other less common developers but in the end TMZ in TMAX developer has given me the best shadow detail and tonality. The grain is certainly evident (esp. with strong cropping and enlargement) but the negative is rich and gives a lot to work from. Pushing Tri-X tends to give very thin shadow areas - not my cup of tea but it may work for other styles.

Cheers,

Sean

GeneW · 01-30-2005

Mixed up some D76 last night and developed (and scanned) two rolls of Tri-X today. I don't know why something so mundane should be so much fun

Gene
.

doubs43 · 01-30-2005

Gene, where did you find the nice brown bottles?

Walker

GeneW · 01-30-2005

Walker, I bought these in the local photo store ... in 1972 ... they used to be a common item.

Gene

pshinkaw · 01-31-2005

I too heard that HC-11- was the liquid concentrate equivalent of D-76. I tried some as result and fouynd that to be untrue.It's poosibgle to use it in a way that gives results very similar to D-76, but as long as D-76 is available, why bother?

I think HC-110 may have been originally created for commercial applications back when you could actually get B&W developed at the drugstore. Some people love it, I'm more than happy to let them have it.

-Paul

GeneW · 01-31-2005

I think HC-110 acquired a lot of caché when Ansel Adams began using it for his rollfilm work. Before that, I'm told, it wasn't used much by amateur photographers.

I do find HC-110 a good push developer. It's fairly vigorous stuff.

Gene

pshinkaw · 01-31-2005

My problem is that it tends to be very sensitive to temperature variations. When you work out of a bathroom, that can result in a lot of variability. If you let the temp climb upwards, the graininess increased. It was a real nuisance when I was using half-frame 35's a lot. D-76 and Microcol-X were just easier to use.

-Paul

Scarpia · 01-31-2005

My wife and I have been cleaning out the accumulated detritus of 34 years of marriage and ratpacking. Last week she found in our front closet some developing gear and a sealed can of D-76 plus a sealed can of D-76 refresher. Both are at least 35 years old. Does anyone think they will still work? I used to use D-76 with plus-x and tri-x with very good results.
Kurt M.

oftheherd · 01-31-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by pshinkaw

I too heard that HC-11- was the liquid concentrate equivalent of D-76. I tried some as result and fouynd that to be untrue.It's poosibgle to use it in a way that gives results very similar to D-76, but as long as D-76 is available, why bother?

I think HC-110 may have been originally created for commercial applications back when you could actually get B&W developed at the drugstore. Some people love it, I'm more than happy to let them have it.

-Paul

I used to have a book, I think it was the Photographer's Handbook but I don't remember for sure. Anyway, it listed all the formulas for the different developers. I don't remember how differeent now, but I do remember HC110 and D76 were not the same. I have heard that D76 and Ilford ID11 were the same, but don't remember if that was from that book or just having read it somewhere.

Wish I had that book! It explained the chemical makeup of different developers and what they were best for. It was neat in Korea in the mid-70's to go to photography stores and buy chemicals and mix my own developers for trial. Hydroquinone cocktail anyone?

doubs43 · 01-31-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneW

Walker, I bought these in the local photo store ... in 1972 ... they used to be a common item. Gene

That's what I was afraid of. Bottles like that are almost nonexistent now...... at least I haven't seen any in years. I keep hoping to run across a few in flea markets and the like but no luck yet.

Walker