Stealth3kpl Posted April 27, 2011 Share #1 Posted April 27, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) A previous thread talked of slightly over exposing some films (eg Tri-X at 320) and slightly under developing (eg try at normal developing time less 10 or 15%). I'm about to try D76 with LegacyPro 100 (Fuji Acros). The Masive Dev Chart suggests exposing at 100iso and developing at 20C for 10.5mins for 1+1 D76. Does anyone know if the Massive Dev Chart shows developing times geared towards wet printing, or lower contrast negs better suited to scanning? I suspect the former but the web site is DigitalTruth. Are there any known successful rules for Acros and D76 for scanning? Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 Hi Stealth3kpl, Take a look here Massive Dev Chart, Acros, D76 . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
christer Posted April 28, 2011 Share #2 Posted April 28, 2011 I cannot answer any of your questions. To get the optimum exposure index and development time for you and your environment (your thermometer, your agitation etc) you need to run a few tests. There is no way around it. Too dense negatives mean your exposure index was too low. Too contrasty negatives mean your development time was too long (or temperature too high, or too much agitation etc). And of course the other way round (too thin =too high e.i.; contrast too low = development too short). When testing, change only one parameter at the time and keep good records, preferably on a sheet of paper that you photograph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted April 28, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted April 28, 2011 Does anyone know if the Massive Dev Chart shows developing times geared towards wet printing, or lower contrast negs better suited to scanning? Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted April 28, 2011 Share #4 Posted April 28, 2011 Does anyone know if the Massive Dev Chart shows developing times geared towards wet printing, or lower contrast negs better suited to scanning?Pete ...to my knowledge, developing B&W film expressly for scanning is not the "norm" - I would therefore expect the Massive Dev Chart to be crystal clear on this point if its developing times were computed for this purpose. It is also worth noting that the given times are guidelines. Do your own testing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted April 28, 2011 Share #5 Posted April 28, 2011 Does anyone know if the Massive Dev Chart shows developing times geared towards wet printing, or lower contrast negs better suited to scanning?Pete Read the FAQ on their site. Then you will know even less than before. Aesop has a point. In fact three. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredSF Posted April 28, 2011 Share #6 Posted April 28, 2011 I personally think D-76 sucks. It's one of the worst developer I had the misfortune to experiment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted April 28, 2011 Share #7 Posted April 28, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm sure it's geared towards wet printing. In fact, I'd wager that the time for any film for a common developer such as D-76 is taken right from the manufacturer's recommendations. Did you check the Acros pdf to see what time was recommended for D-76? I've never bought into the 'reduced development for scanning' argument. If you have a decent scanner, B&W negatives typically don't have the densities required to cause any problem. Slide films, yes, but not negative films. I'm sure you could construct a scenario where that isn't true, but you would know that if you were shooting in that situation and would probably want to reduce development for other reasons (even if you were wet printing). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted April 28, 2011 Share #8 Posted April 28, 2011 I am the one who processes his Tri-X for around 10% less time than advised by the MDC. However, despite the fact that I never wet print, I am certain that the negatives I have would suit either wet printing or scanning. I over expose and under-develop to retain shadow and highlights in the negatives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted April 28, 2011 Author Share #9 Posted April 28, 2011 Did you check the Acros pdf to see what time was recommended for D-76? I didn't think of that. Yes, it says 10.5 mins for the above scenario. I would say that Massive doesn't seem to have digitally geared development times. I guess i'll run it through at 100 first and see what happens. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted April 28, 2011 Share #10 Posted April 28, 2011 That chart gives massive overdeveloped negs every time I try it, however the Kodak and Ilford times they publish are right on the money for my Leica negs and V35. I am very careful with times, same agitation, immersion technique, fresh developer, and use multiple Kodak process thermometers to be sure everything is correct. Do what you need to do. Scanning requires low contrast so be very careful. Test 12" of film or 6 frames of your car, house, and stereo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted April 28, 2011 Author Share #11 Posted April 28, 2011 I personally think D-76 sucks. It's one of the worst developer I had the misfortune to experiment. Why was that? Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
too old to care Posted April 28, 2011 Share #12 Posted April 28, 2011 I personally think D-76 sucks. It's one of the worst developer I had the misfortune to experiment. Me too. I have used it for years, more than I care to remember and always been happy with it. I mix it 50/50 and have always gotten good results. Wayne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted April 28, 2011 Share #13 Posted April 28, 2011 I am the one who processes his Tri-X for around 10% less time than advised by the MDC. However, despite the fact that I never wet print, I am certain that the negatives I have would suit either wet printing or scanning. I over expose and under-develop to retain shadow and highlights in the negatives. Agreed, there's definitely reasons for reducing development. I just think the whole scanning reason is a bit oversold on the internet. My negs scan fine and I rarely wet print them at anything other than grade 2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted April 29, 2011 Share #14 Posted April 29, 2011 I personally think D-76 sucks. It's one of the worst developer I had the misfortune to experiment. What other developers have worked better for you? How many times have you tried D-76? Methinks there is something wrong with your application, and not the formula. -- Pico - 46 years of D-76 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredSF Posted May 2, 2011 Share #15 Posted May 2, 2011 I've used mostly Ilford and Agfa APX films for about ten years. For the first year I used to develop my negs with D-76. I have found the result to be quite coarse on the grain and a rather pronounced contrast. Then, I switched to the brands developers, and the results were immediately improved. D-76 is only generic, and results tend to confirm that. I've also used Agfa chemicals on Efke films with a good deal of success. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 2, 2011 Share #16 Posted May 2, 2011 I've used mostly Ilford and Agfa APX films for about ten years. For the first year I used to develop my negs with D-76. I have found the result to be quite coarse on the grain and a rather pronounced contrast. Then, I switched to the brands developers, and the results were immediately improved. D-76 is only generic, and results tend to confirm that. I've also used Agfa chemicals on Efke films with a good deal of success. I grew up with D-76 mixed 1:1 and found it good, however I've switched from Kodak films to Agfa (usually 100 iso) and Rodinal 1:50 and am very pleased with the outcome. I think some of my unhappiness with D-76 comes from using it with the new Tri-X, but admit that I have not thoroughly retested the method I used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
engelfangen Posted May 5, 2011 Share #17 Posted May 5, 2011 Hello! I develop all my Acros @ 100 in D-76 1+1 20°c for 11 min. It works very well for my and it is easy to scan the film. best regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
underground Posted May 14, 2011 Share #18 Posted May 14, 2011 I personally think D-76 sucks. It's one of the worst developer I had the misfortune to experiment. Thats too bad. I do well with it "stock" with TriX, with slower films I like to use T-Max. What do you use now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredSF Posted May 16, 2011 Share #19 Posted May 16, 2011 Thats too bad. I do well with it "stock" with TriX, with slower films I like to use T-Max. What do you use now? I switched to M9... the little amount of film I use today is Acros 100 in medium format for pinhole shots. As I have no longer control over processing, I hand it to a semi-pro lab where they use D-76! Being pinhole shots and in medium format makes it OK. I personally would avoid it for 35 mm, for my personal taste. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.