What is wrong with D-76?

[Paul Kierstead]

Reading yet another thread where the most common response to "Which developer to use" seems to always come down to "The more exotic the better", I have a simple question: What is wrong with D-76? I will admit to being no developer connoisseur and have very limited B&W experience, but sometimes I am missing out on some secret.

So, what is so bad about D-76?

[steve simmons]

Any developer with a high content of sodium sulfite (which softens the edges of grain, will not give as sharp a result as a developer with less sodium sulfite. D-23 is another example of a developer with a lot of sodium sulfite that does not produce terribly sharp results.

steve simmons

[tim atherton]

But of course plenty of photographers use D23 for the results it gives.

I know Geoffrey James and Hiroshi Sugimoto are both fond of it. (and while Geoffrey's Tri-X landscapes/cityscapes certainly look sharp enough to me, I don't think Sugimoto is too worried about sharpness in a lot of his work....! more likely contrast).

I think Nick Nixon might be another D23 user if I remember correctly

[John Kasaian]

FWIW, I don't think anything is wrong with D-76---its great stuff. I have found that I prefer other developers with certain emulsions over D-76, but I doubt that the developer alone will make or break any photograph(at least mine.) Since the "new" Tri-X dosen't seem to want to behave with HC-110 in dilution B like the "old" Tri-X, I went back to D-76 and I'm pleased with the results. FWIW, I started using NACCO Super76 which is a liquid concentrate, so I have all the convenience of HC-110. -----------Cheers!

[jnantz]

sprint photographic systems has been making a "metol free" d76 / ilford ID-11 replacement. liquid concentrate 1:9 film developer. they've been making this for years ... http://sprintsystems.com/products.html

[Andre Noble]

My amatuer assesment is that the large host of traditional developers such as D-76 work well for indoors,studio portraiture, or moderate/low contrast outdoors situations.

However, the Pyro developer I have triedWimberly WD2D+ (similar to Pyrocat HD) reigns supreme in outdoor photography under sunlight conditions because of superior highlight contol and superior highlight gradation.

[Chad Jarvis]

I've been using D-76 for years, and I probably will continure to do so. I find it easy to work with and flexible with Plus-X, Tri-X, HP-5+ and FP-4, and my negatives are used for everything from silver to platinum to albumen.

Kenro Izu, one of the finest photographers alive today, swears by the Plus-X/D-76 combination. If that's not an endorsement, I don't know what is.

[Nick_3536]

D-76,D-23 etc are high sodium sulfite only if used at stock dilutions. I use D-23 at 1:3. It stops being a high sulfite developer that way.

[Michael Jones]

The short answer is "nothing." When all else fails, fresh D-76 always works.

Mike

[Bruce Watson]

D-76 undiluted or 1:1 is still the standard by which all other developers are judged.

Anchell and Troop, The Film Developing Cookbook, 1998, Focal Press.

[Paul Kierstead]

Thanks for all the answers! I think I will be sticking with my D76 1:1 for now.

I do understand the softness issue, and I understand why 35mm photographers obsess over it due to the enlargement factor, but I would think that LF photographers would obsess less; even for fairly large prints the enlargement factor is small even on a 4x5 camera. Unless a whole lot more mural size pictures are being done then I thought.

As well I was under the impression that at 1:1 D76 was quite sharp with an increase in edge acutance (and corresponding increase in grain appearance).

[Joe Lipka]

A common use for D-23 is for contact printing. The softening effects of the sulfite are not really an issue when contact printed. When making mega-enlargements it might become apparent.

And, of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with D-76.

[Chris Gittins]

On a related note, I use D-76 at 1:2 or 1:3 but hardly ever 1:1 and never undiluted. At 1:2 and 1:3 my 'normal' development times are 11 and 14 minutes, respectively. (I shoot mostly N-1 and N-2 scenes, so my times often come down to 10 minutes and below.) When I tried 1:1 I found I needed very short developing times to keep the contrast in a range which was easy to print. (I develop to print on Ilford MGIV FB w/ a #2 filter.) With the short times, I found I only got the contrast accurate to within about half a filter grade - not a big deal, but a little frustrating. Anyone else have that experience? Anyone spent much time comparing negs developed in 1:1 as opposed to 1:2 or 1:3? I only enlarge my 4x5s to 8x10 and have never noticed a difference, but it could be that I haven't developed enough at 1:1 to notice one.

Chris

[Brian Ellis]

As others have said, nothing. I got out of the "developer of the month" club about 10 years ago and settled on D76 as my only developer after testing it, HC110, Rodinal, and an Ilford developer the name of which I no longer remember. The only other developer I've tried since then was PMK and that was a waste of a lot of time and effort. There's a reason why D76 has been around for a century or thereabouts.