Jump to content

Anyone using D76


Shootist

Recommended Posts

You are absolutely not missing anything.

I have about a two decade time frame of using D-76 / Tri-X: from mid 70s to mid 90s with non-Leica negatives: I liked the combination immensely.

I went through a phase when I was obligated to use HC-110: a course and unrefined developer by comparison.

I am out of the loop regarding contemporary B&W processing, but Tri-X / D76 is a classic that is hard to beat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used the Tri X / D76 combination since the late 1970's and have always been extremely happy with the results. I do like to try different combinations of film and developer from time to time, but always come back to this classic pair up. When I visualize my projects in b&w, this pair is what gives me what I see in my mind's eye. So, I would say, sure, go ahead and experiment, but you are using a great seto fo film and chemical.

 

Best,

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks everyone for the replies. I've always like what I got from D76 but see a lot of posts about HC-110 and when looking at the comparison chart on the Kodak website for B&W developer I see that the HC-110 is grainier and that's not what I'm looking for but with so many posting about it I thought maybe I was missing something.

I'll be sticking with D76.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone using D76 as there main or one and only developer. I Find it works well on both Tri-X and HP 5+.

Never tried HC-110. Am I missing something?

HC110 has better shadow separation. That's what was made for, and for very large quantities of film to be developed. I used to dilute 1:37.5, somewhere in between A and B... A pain in the neck.

The advantages you can appreciate most if you shoot Plus-X or equivalents. Or Tri-X 320 in medium or large format film (4x5"/8x10")

It is a pain in the neck to mesure carefully for dilutions and it does not like air as it oxidises fast. You have to squish the air out of the bottle, you use very little quantities and it will go bad before you finish the bottle. When it becomes reddish it means is oxidised and no longer good.

D-76 is a great developer, if you feel like experimenting with Tri-X, try Rodinal or Edwal FG-7 (if still available).

Avoid fine grain developers (i.e. microdol-x and the like) as they actually eat grain to make it smaller, but you are loosing acutance hence sharpness.

If you look for smaller grain switch to slower film, but you will increase contrast, so do one step at the time.

 

 

Hope that helps a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for the replies. I've always like what I got from D76 but see a lot of posts about HC-110 and when looking at the comparison chart on the Kodak website for B&W developer I see that the HC-110 is grainier and that's not what I'm looking for but with so many posting about it I thought maybe I was missing something.

I'll be sticking with D76.

 

can you post some examples of tri x developed in D76 to see the results?

 

thanks

 

andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use d76 1:1 with neopan 400 when I shoot that film....I like the combination.

 

But for developing TriX, my preference is to use Rodinal 50:1; the charcoal blacks, creamy whites, shadow detail fading to black, the grainy look all give me the "YEA, that's It" feeling ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone using D76 as there main or one and only developer. I Find it works well on both Tri-X and HP 5+.

Never tried HC-110. Am I missing something?

 

D76 works well with Tri-X, but can tend to block up the highlights.

The ph also changes noticeably as it ages, which effects how

it develops your film

 

I switched to Divided D76 and Barry Thronton's 2 Bath, both of which

solved these problems and delivered better and more consistent

results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you post some examples of tri x developed in D76 to see the results?

 

thanks

 

andy

 

I'll have to look through my negatives for Tri-X shots but here are 2, I think, that are on HP5+. I like the HP5+ for it flatness after developing. Tri-X tends to curl into a U after drying and make it hard for scanning on my flatbed. I fine the 2 films very close in grain and contrast.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for posting the images....they look fine.

 

I am constantly interested in how different developers influence the final look.At the same time I try to stick to what I know to ensure repeatable results.

 

At the moment HC is my preferred choice, but never say never...

 

thanks

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I right in saying that D76 is the same as Ilford's ID11? For years I used FP4 with ID11 and always found it excellent. The negs now are a joy have re-discovered. I'll pop one in after this message as I, anyway, always like to see actual photos within threads; ignore the dust marks!

I have only recently "discovered" HC110, and like many have enjoyed it's ease of use compared to mixing up powders, plus it's quite a lot cheaper for one-shot use. I did find that HC110 with HP5 and FP4 produced much larger grain than it does with Tri-X, and since I'm currently smitten with Tri-X I'm sort of proceeding along those lines at the moment. Anyone else found bigger grain with Ilford film than Tri-X with HC110?

One other reason I'm persevering with HC110 is that I read in Ansel Adams' "The Negative" he uses it for a compensation developer, and I am on a bit of a quest to explore that area of my hobby. I am aware, though, that Adams was dealing with 120 film and larger, where grain was obviously less of an issue.

If I'm honest with myself I think I prefer ID11 (D76 I'm assuming) to HC110, but am smitten by the above considerations. Perhaps someone can tell me if D76 would work as a compensating developer too? I guess they all do, but maybe with varying success.

Jim.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

HC110 has better shadow separation. That's what was made for, and for very large quantities of film to be developed. I used to dilute 1:37.5, somewhere in between A and B... A pain in the neck.

The advantages you can appreciate most if you shoot Plus-X or equivalents. Or Tri-X 320 in medium or large format film (4x5"/8x10")

It is a pain in the neck to mesure carefully for dilutions and it does not like air as it oxidises fast. You have to squish the air out of the bottle, you use very little quantities and it will go bad before you finish the bottle. When it becomes reddish it means is oxidised and no longer good.

D-76 is a great developer, if you feel like experimenting with Tri-X, try Rodinal or Edwal FG-7 (if still available).

Avoid fine grain developers (i.e. microdol-x and the like) as they actually eat grain to make it smaller, but you are loosing acutance hence sharpness.

If you look for smaller grain switch to slower film, but you will increase contrast, so do one step at the time.

Hope that helps a bit.

 

Sounds like some good information.

Thanks. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a hot climate, so regulation of developer temperature simply has to match water temperature, which hovers around 80-85 degrees Fahrenheit, year round. As a consequence, I adapt D-76 to tropical usage with the addition of sodium sulfate. The latter chemical (added to the stop bath as well) keeps the film emulsion from swelling. And I, too, shoot either Tri-X or HP5.

 

Once I unload all of my old digital gear on Ebay I'll be able to justify the purchase of a digital scanner! But as of now, I'm all noise and no pics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have emulsion swelling problems because of the the sodium sulfate. Don't mistake that with the word sulfite, which makes up the bulk of the D-76 formula. I whip up my solutions from scratch. I also add boric acid to keep the hydroquinone activated within an acceptable pH range (see Stephen Anchell's 'The Darkroom Cookbook').

 

As far as extended time? This might amaze you, but even shooting HP5 and Tri-X at their recommended 400 ASAs, and developing at a 1:3 dilution my development times are 7 minutes, and 9 minutes, respectively.

 

Every photographer will have to experiment. I certainly know enough now to state that recommended developing times are a wild card.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...