T-Max and D76

[Rick L]

I just found this interesting -

I use D76 for many films - at 1:1 - as a one shot use

I shot some 4x5 T-Max for the first time yesterday - as well as some Ilford FP4 + -

I developed the Ilford with it at 1:1 as before - turned out fine

then I looked at the data sheet for D-76 to confirm the time FOR T-Max- and was surprised to see that although the roll film chart gives a time for 1:1
the sheet film chart only gives a time for full strength -
not a problem - i can do it and keep track of the number of sheets I've used it for

but I am curious if any of the folks with more scientific minds than mine can say why its only full strength for sheet film

thanks

[Drew Wiley]

Ignore that. It works just fine at 1:1. The real problem is that you need to standardize on either using 76 freshly mixed, or else wait about a week for it to reach pH equilibrium after mixing, and then use it up all up within a few months in that particular state. For the longer-term version of usage, divide the full stock volume into full air-tight smaller glass bottles, each sufficient for one-time usage when diluted. But different concentrations (1:1 vs 1:2 vs 1:3) might yield slightly different curve shapes. 76 won't give you a true straight-line midsection anyway, but a slight sag into a slightly lengthened toe. This film is amendable to all kinds of common developers and various gamma contrast targets. TMax will still give you a steeper toe with deeper shadow gradation than FP4, but in turn, requires more careful shadow placement metering.

For the straightest line, Kodak originally recommended TMRS developer full-strength. That was apparently in conjunction with its potential use as a color separation film, since TMX100 was originally engineered to replace several other films, including Super XX, which was the previous product of choice for color separations. But that's an uncommon application nowadays; and TMRS developer is no longer being made (not to be confused with regular TMax developer). HC-110 is more convenient anyway, if one needs a somewhat ironed out midsection to the curve. But for pictorial use, many of us prefer staining pyro developers instead, which make the highlights much easier to print than 76 does.

[Willie]

Drew mentioned the activity. Ilford ID11 is their version of D76 and from what I understand does not have the gain in activity after mixing.

[Drew Wiley]

There is also a buffered version of 76 available from Photographer's Formulary that stays consistent.

[Bill Burk]

Press photographers want to get their film developed in less than 13 minutes 30 seconds, so they use D-76 full strength. The large format photographers do not need the "fine grain" results that 35mm photographers need so stock is just fine.

[Drew Wiley]

Undiluted stock strength is just fine if you're willing to spend twice as much on this particular developer than you need to; 1:1 also works well for sheet film. But press photographers who want film developed at all are probably almost extinct. Perhaps the past tense, "wanted", would be more appropriate. Now press photography is more about beating the competition by pressing the send button faster than the other guy.

[Rick L]

thanks all

I have used the 1:1 for Ilford and other films - I figured it was not an issue for the t-Max sheets as well

I've used it on roll film for decades - so its what I have around - well - until this weekend :rolleyes:

I went to mix up a new batch, but the powder came out brown- turns out, based on a quick search, all the D76 I have on hand is from a known bad batch

[paulbarden]

I went to mix up a new batch, but the powder came out brown- turns out, based on a quick search, all the D76 I have on hand is from a known bad batch

After purchasing bad batches of Xtol twice, bad Dektol and bad D-76 in the past 18 months, I am not buying Kodak chemistry for the foreseeable future. (Remember, Kodak promised replacement Xtol by Mid-February, and I don't think any of us has received replacement product yet) Instead, I am buying components from ArtCraft Chemicals and making developers from scratch here at home. D-76 is ridiculously easy to make from scratch.

[tgtaylor]

Rick,

Just compare the times given for Xtol and D-76 in the tech pub: For Rotary tubes for example it gives the time for full strength Xtol (@ 68F) as 7.25 minutes and D-76 at 6.25 minutes. So full strength D-76 requires 1 less minute in the developer. Now look at what it says for Xtol 1:1 - 9.75 Minutes. Simply substract 1 minute for D-76 - 8.75 minutes at 68F for your time. I do this all the time when using films like Fuji that only give full strength times for Xtol.

Thomas

[Rick L]

After purchasing bad batches of Xtol twice, bad Dektol and bad D-76 in the past 18 months, I am not buying Kodak chemistry for the foreseeable future. (Remember, Kodak promised replacement Xtol by Mid-February, and I don't think any of us has received replacement product yet) Instead, I am buying components from ArtCraft Chemicals and making developers from scratch here at home. D-76 is ridiculously easy to make from scratch.

I have been thinking about that, the recipes are out there

[tgtaylor]

If I were you I'd think twice before mixing chemicals.

[paulbarden]

If I were you I'd think twice before mixing chemicals.

Why?? D-76 is stupidly easy to make and I've been doing it from scratch since 1985.

[Rick L]

I was a bartender way back in college -

that was likely more dangerous mixing:D:D:D

[grat]

If I were you I'd think twice before mixing chemicals.

One should always think twice-- and prepare your work area well, and take reasonable precautions. But chances are, you're exposed to far more dangerous chemicals when you're cleaning your bathroom.

I don't get this paranoia about mixing photochemistry-- for the most part, you aren't dealing with Instadeath in a jar, or having to carefully monitor temperature levels lest you accidentally add a 4th toluene group.

[Drew Wiley]

Depends on the specific chemicals involved. There are quite a number developer formulas which contain potentially hazardous ingredients. D76 isn't one of them; but you still want to wear nitrile gloves to prevent the risk of skin irritation. I'd agree that most people have more dangerous chemicals under their bathroom sink, in their garage, or in a garden sprayer than the typical black and white darkroom does. But that fact doesn't excuse any kind of carelessness with chemicals.

[Jim Andrada]

A million years ago I was a Chem & Physics combined major. I remember one of my classmates messing up and causing the lab building to be evacuated when he "forgot" to work under the hood and got a good whiff of Cyanide gas. Fortunately it was a pretty minimal concentration and he recovered, but he hit the floor pretty hard when he passed out. Compared to that the stuff one uses in D-76 etc is rather benign - just don't eat or drink it. Come to think of it, hitting the floor was a good thing since Cyanide is lighter than air so he was in a safer spot. Had another classmate who got impatient when something wouldn't dissolve in room temperature Ether and stuck it over a Bunsen burner to heat it up. He got some nasty facial burns when it ignited in his face. Quite dramatic. There's a moral to this story so I'll sum it up by paraphrasing an expression about pilots. To wit: "There are old chemists and bold chemists, but there are no old bold chemists."

I switched to Computer Science, or as we called it in 1959 "Applied Mathematics".

[Drew Wiley]

In High School chem class I was one of the ones who made liquid stink bombs propped in a bucket over the rear second-level entry. These were intended for students; but one day the teacher chased the class dunce around the building to the back, then himself entered by the rear door and got doused with stench. But the next day that same dunce started randomly mixing concentrated chemical regents and dumping them down the drain. The teacher asked him what he had just poured down, then instantly slammed him on the floor away from the sink blast. All the plumbing below and quite a bit of the storage room below was blown up. Both this dunce and the no. 2 class goof-off went only to have their own companies as adults and were quite successful, while the whizz kid who got a CalTech scholarship eventually ended up in prison for income tax evasion; and the math/physics no.2 runner-up ended up as a stoned hippie on welfare. Ya never know.

[srpirolt]

I use D76 1:1 with T-Max (and Delta and in the past Acros) sheet film exclusively and never had an issue. Maybe it's not published for sheet film due to the developer's "capacity" as it requires using twice the volume of liquid, and therefore requiring larger tanks. And for what it's worth, John Sexton uses D76 @ 1:1 as well.

[Drew Wiley]

Sexton was under contract with Kodak from the inception of this particular film, that is, its marketing inception, to promote the combination of TMax and D76. Yes, It's a competent general-purpose developer. But there are good reasons many of us now prefer different developers instead. Diluting 76 1:1 doesn't mean you need larger tanks or greater volume. I would do up to 12 4X5 sheets at a time in a tray containing 500 ml of 1:1 D76. Then I tossed the developer. Tanks never appealed to me, and certainly not re-use of any developer.

[Michael R]

Drew, what caused you to move away from D-76 to your staining developers etc.?

[Drew Wiley]

Highlight control. I was doing a lot of mountain trips where the contrast range was extreme. Yet I wanted everything sparkly and well defined, gradation-wise, shimmering glacial ice clear down to dark pits in black volcanic rocks. That was in graded paper days. Having solved that issue with pyro, my main complaint with TMax 100 was its poor edge acutance - fine for portraits, unwelcome in landscape work. So I relied more on TMax 400 instead, or FP4 if the light was a bit softer. Then Quickload packets came out with ACROS in them, great for backpacking use - a film with about the same range and speed as FP4. The Kodak Readyload system was unreliable; it took them a long time to do correctly.

Nowadays I still use pyro for TMY400, FP4, HP5, Acros etc., but have switched to Perceptol 1:3 for TMX100. This gives me enhanced edge definition (unlike Perceptol 1:1). And modern VC papers give me more control over the highlights. The crucial role of TMX100 for me is in 120 roll film applications, where I need a film with a long straight line with excellent development versatility, yet fine grain. Once I get into sheet film sizes, grain is a non-issue.

Most of my D76 and older-version TMax development was actually for sake of Cibachrome masking, where a bit of an upswept curve was desirable. But nowadays, making for either color or black and white negs, I want almost a total straight line, yet of very low gamma. 76 won't deliver that. It's like power steering - gotta have a gentle touch. Ciba masking was more like using a sledgehammer. I don't use 76 for anything now.

[srpirolt]

I would do up to 12 4X5 sheets at a time in a tray containing 500 ml of 1:1 D76. Then I tossed the developer. Tanks never appealed to me, and certainly not re-use of any developer.

Drew, I am curious, that sounds like a lot of film for so little developer...at least based on Kodak's tech sheet. I usually use 1000ml for 10 sheets, one shot. No issues with exausting the developer?

[Drew Wiley]

No exhaustion. No fog. This was mostly for finicky lab work, densitometer tested. I suspect that Kodak factored in quite a bit of safety margin for sake of less than ideal darkroom habits.

[robphoto]

I also process my 4x5 TMAX 400 in 5x7 trays, up to 12 or so sheets, usually about 700ml of developer in the tray.

I use Sprint Standard Developer 1:9, which I think aims to be a Metol-free replacement for D-76 1:1, same basic setup since TMAX came out in the mid 80's

[Jim Noel]

If I were you I'd think twice before mixing chemicals.

I have been mixing my own chemistry for both B&W and color since the 1930's. Now that I am 92 perhaps I should quit because, "It could kill you."