Recommended Developer Volume
Old 04-08-2018   #1
DanielJohannes
Registered User
 
DanielJohannes is offline
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 9
Recommended Developer Volume

Hi all,

I've read that Kodak recommends using 250ml of stock/500ml of 1:1 D76 per roll of 35mm film. I tend to dilute to 1:1 as it makes my developer go a little further, but am unsure of exactly how I should be implementing this with my current setup.

I'm using a Paterson 3 reel tank, with a capacity of 1L. The obvious problem is that, if I use all 3 tanks, there will only be 333ml of developer per roll, rather than the recommended 500ml.

I'm wondering whether it'd be worth it to leave one reel empty. Does developer volume really impact negatives that much? If so, is it possible to adjust development times to compensate?

I'm slightly confused as to why Paterson would make a 1L 3 reel tank in the first place... regardless of whether one uses diluted developer or not, the volume is always going to differ from the manufacturer recommendation.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2018   #2
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,520
I use a Paterson tank system. The tank I most always use will hold two reels of 35mm film or one roll of 120 film.

For 35mm film I only develop one roll at a time. It works for me. With one 35mm roll, on the bottom of the Paterson tank it says use 290 ml of working solution. I usually use 300 as it’s easier to take 150 plus 150 if it is working solution of 1 to 1. Or, another way, 290 ml is 10 ounces. 5 plus 5.
__________________
I make photographs as a return ticket to a moment otherwise gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2018   #3
john_s
Registered User
 
john_s is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 844
If you do a search, you'll find probably a million opinions, for and against just about any dilution/quantity amounts. Just about anything will work. Will it be optimum? Most of us will never know for sure. At least with negative processing there's scope for correction in the print making stage.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-08-2018   #4
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,491
Use stock solution and save time. Use diluted and save money. your choice.

Buy another tank and do two at once.

4 oz or 120 ml stock is required.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2018   #5
DanielJohannes
Registered User
 
DanielJohannes is offline
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 9
Where are you getting that figure from, Ronald? The figures I've stated are straight from the Kodak spec sheet.

I'm not asking about the benefits of diluted and stock. I'm asking whether it'd be worth it to process 2 rather than 3 rolls in my 1L tank, in order to get the recommended 500ml of 1:1 per roll.

In other words, has anyone experimented with using different volumes of developer for processing a constant amount of film?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2018   #6
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,491
I do not think you are interpreting the spec sheet correctly. A short roll or one with few dense highlights will need less stock. The spec has been around for 50 years that I know of and is based of 80 square inches of film and maximum amount of dense highlights, i.e. there is a lot of insurance built in.

go to this PDF, page five

http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites...ources/j78.pdf

This is the most poorly written data I have ever seen. Casual reading would indicate 8 rolls in a liter , but it actually means two batches of 4 rolls with some time compensation for second batch.

Photo Lab Handbook by John S Caroll page 247 D76 1:1 capacity- 8 rolls per gallon
and increase time 15% after first 4 rolls. This is 64 oz stock + 64 water. That works out to 4 oz + 4 oz water per roll . Mr Carroll states it plain simple English. This does not mean 2 oz + 6 water as that is a different dilution.

You need 250 ml per roll or slightly more for the plastic tanks. So yes you may do three rolls . You need enough to cover 3 reels. Measure with water with cap off. Then use 50/50 mix or just fill tank .

I stick to even 125ml amounts as that is my smallest bottle size. D76 can not be kept in less than full bottles. PH or activity goes up rapidly, then down and there is no home way to measure it`s strength. Full bottles is 6 months after which is goes bad slowly.

One roll in a gallon or one roll in 8 oz has the same time ALL OTHER TINGS BEING EQUAL.





I have been using 125 ml stock and 125 ml water for decades in single roll stainless tank.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2018   #7
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielJohannes View Post
. . . Does developer volume really impact negatives that much? . . .
Dear Daniel,

No. The only exception I know is Xtol, and no-one (including one of the designers of Xtol) had been able to explain to me why this is so.

The amount of developer you need to develop a film is tiny. If you doubt me, consider the following two examples.

1 Polaroids. Two teaspoons of chemicals suffice to develop and fix a piece of film that is maybe 20% of the area of a 36-exposure 35mm film.

2 Two-bath developers. ALL the developing agent is normally in the first bath, so you're developing it with what soaks into the emulsion: again, a couple of teaspoons' worth. The second bath merely provides a nice, wet alkaline environment to let the developer work.

The vast majority of the developer that you pour into the tank is there merely to ensure that the film is wetted rapidly and evenly. If it's very weak it may by the end of the development time have oxidized into uselessness, or been poisoned into uselessness by developer by-products (notably hydrobromic acid), but really, you don't need to worry about developer volumes.

This isn't just me making it up: it comes from quite long discussions with people who know a great deal more about the subject than I do, and from reading serious books such as those by L.P. Clerc, Grant Haist, C.B. Neblette and Pierre Glafkides. Google their names if you're not familiar with their work.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2018   #8
Pentode
Registered User
 
Pentode's Avatar
 
Pentode is offline
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 188
I seldom use a 3-reel tank, but I do follow Kodak's recommendations, for the most part.
The D76 data sheet suggests adding 10% to the developing time when using a small tank that doesn't allow the full volume of developer per roll.

With D76 1:1 I either develop a single roll in a two-reel tank at normal developing times or I add 10% time to two rolls in a two-reel tank and single rolls in one-reel tanks. With short rolls (24 frames or less) I'll just use normal developing time in the smaller volume of developer.

It's probably a little wasteful of developer to use a two-reel tank for a single reel and I don't know how necessary it really is - I haven't tried normal times with smaller developer volumes - but I can't tell much difference between the rolls with less developer and added time and the rolls with full developer and normal time so I'm inclined to just keep following Kodak's instructions. Both methods seem to work equally well. D76 is cheap and the results I'm getting are predictable so I'm disinclined to try to fix anything that isn't broken even if it costs me a little extra developer or a little extra time.
  Reply With Quote

No difference (to me)
Old 04-09-2018   #9
KenR
Registered User
 
KenR is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 690
No difference (to me)

I have developed 1 roll in a 2 reel tank using enough solution for 2 rolls, 2 rolls in a 2 reel tank using the same amount of 1:63 dilution of HC110 and to my eye there is no difference. Same with 2 or 3 rolls in a 3 reel tank using enough solution for 3 rolls.
I admit that I have never done rigorous testing on this, but they are close enough that I can't tell the difference.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2018   #10
Oren Grad
Registered User
 
Oren Grad is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 267
Although I happen to be using Ilford DD-X at the moment, for many years my standard for developing 35mm film in D-76 1+1 has been three rolls of film at a time in 40 oz of D-76 1+1 in a 5-reel Paterson tank.
  Reply With Quote

Commentary, long, ignore
Old 04-12-2018   #11
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is online now
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,595
Commentary, long, ignore

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald M View Post
This is the most poorly written data I have ever seen.
It is pretty confusing. You only need to look at all the arguments about whether dilution information means 1+dilution or 1:dilution ratiometrically (it is the former, not the latter, by the way) to see that Kodak's data sheets are fairly easily confused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
No.
In practice there are always 2 limits - adequate chemicals to develop all the exposed silver (not much) and enough chemistry to develop the exposed silver sufficiently evenly to avoid weird development marks on the film (a lot more).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
The only exception I know is Xtol, and no-one (including one of the designers of Xtol) had been able to explain to me why this is so.
Sort-of, with regard to Xtol. In Xtol the ascorbate develops silver with similar efficacy as hydroquinone, regenerates the dimezone-S (secondary developing agent) and also acts as a preservative like sulfite. What you can be sure of is that Xtol dies because the ascorbate is doing a lot of different things and it is exhausted in solution relatively easily and quickly. What is very unclear is exactly how all the different ascorbate functions interact, but sometimes observational data beats a basis of theoretical understanding.

The trend for using Rodinal in homeopathic concentrations also shows that a minimum amount is needed fairly well too. Look around the web at all the blotchy scans from 'high dilution' Rodinal done badly. In this case the other, concomitant trend for stand development makes this worse and it can be hard to differentiate dilution blotch from stand blotch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
The amount of developer you need to develop a film is tiny. If you doubt me, consider the following two examples.
1 Polaroids. Two teaspoons of chemicals suffice to develop and fix a piece of film that is maybe 20% of the area of a 36-exposure 35mm film.
To be fair, polaroid film used two teaspoons of concentrated paste.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
2 Two-bath developers. ALL the developing agent is normally in the first bath, so you're developing it with what soaks into the emulsion: again, a couple of teaspoons' worth. The second bath merely provides a nice, wet alkaline environment to let the developer work.
Except there is almost always enough sulphite or other alkaline product in divided developers for the A bath to do quite a bit of developing. I've fixed films straight out of the A bath to test this. It makes sense: 3-4 minutes in the equivalent of stock D76 or HC110 dilution B is enough to mostly develop many films, especially the old technology films that work well in divided developers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
The vast majority of the developer that you pour into the tank is there merely to ensure that the film is wetted rapidly and evenly. If it's very weak it may by the end of the development time have oxidized into uselessness, or been poisoned into uselessness by developer by-products (notably hydrobromic acid), but really, you don't need to worry about developer volumes.
This is true, absolutely, but consistency and evenness also come from being able to replace locally exhausted developer quickly. It's one of the reasons I prefer to use time to control contrast rather than modifying agitation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
This isn't just me making it up: it comes from quite long discussions with people who know a great deal more about the subject than I do, and from reading serious books such as those by L.P. Clerc, Grant Haist, C.B. Neblette and Pierre Glafkides. Google their names if you're not familiar with their work.
This is, of course, true, but somewhat academic. Development occurs on and in the film, and what is elsewhere in the tank is largely an innocent bystander (particularly without agitation), but assuming that molecule A in the developer will find molecule B in the film irrespective of where it is in the solution ignores the realities of the physical situation in a 1L developing tank.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
Although I happen to be using Ilford DD-X at the moment, for many years my standard for developing 35mm film in D-76 1+1 has been three rolls of film at a time in 40 oz of D-76 1+1 in a 5-reel Paterson tank.
This is similar to what I do with D76. It works out to (rounded off) 150mL stock/roll. Kodak's times are for 240mL of stock/roll, and they say to extend the time by 10% if using 120mL stock/roll at 1+1. I’ve found this accurate, which suggests that this amount of stock/roll is starting to exhaust. I find that more stock provides better consistency.

Here is a practical test: try developing 4 films in 1L of D76 1+3 (62.5 mL stock/roll). The photos are very likely to come out blotchy. Even if you use constant agitation, it doesn’t work very well. Then try 2 rolls in the same situation (125 mL stock/roll). It works much better.

Marty
  Reply With Quote

Practical advice to the original poster
Old 04-12-2018   #12
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is online now
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,595
Practical advice to the original poster

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielJohannes View Post
I've read that Kodak recommends using 250ml of stock/500ml of 1:1 D76 per roll of 35mm film. I tend to dilute to 1:1 as it makes my developer go a little further, but am unsure of exactly how I should be implementing this with my current setup.

I'm using a Paterson 3 reel tank, with a capacity of 1L. The obvious problem is that, if I use all 3 tanks, there will only be 333ml of developer per roll, rather than the recommended 500ml.

I'm wondering whether it'd be worth it to leave one reel empty. Does developer volume really impact negatives that much? If so, is it possible to adjust development times to compensate?
As long as you have at least 120 mL of D76 stock, you can adjust time.

Your calculations are a bit out. Kodak says that for their times you need 240mL of stock per roll, and if you use 120mL of stock per roll you need to extend their times by 10%.

You will have 167mL of stock per roll, which is enough, but which might need a little more development than Kodak suggests for the same contrast index, and which might not.

Stop worrying, shoot film, develop, look closely and extend development for more contrast and density and decrease it for less, and go from there.

And, although Kodak don't say it, don't go under 120mL of D76 stock per roll or risk streaks and unevenness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielJohannes View Post
I'm slightly confused as to why Paterson would make a 1L 3 reel tank in the first place... regardless of whether one uses diluted developer or not, the volume is always going to differ from the manufacturer recommendation.
Because 1L is a good round volume that makes it easy to calculate dilutions, and making it 3 reels rather than 4 gives you more stock and generally more consistent results.

It is also perfect, for example, for 3 rolls of film in Xtol 1+2, which is not a bad way to develop film.



Marty
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2018   #13
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freakscene View Post
. . . In practice there are always 2 limits - adequate chemicals to develop all the exposed silver (not much) and enough chemistry to develop the exposed silver sufficiently evenly to avoid weird development marks on the film (a lot more).
. . .

In Xtol the ascorbate develops silver with similar efficacy as hydroquinone, regenerates the dimezone-S (secondary developing agent) and also acts as a preservative like sulfite. What you can be sure of is that Xtol dies because the ascorbate is doing a lot of different things and it is exhausted in solution relatively easily and quickly. What is very unclear is exactly how all the different ascorbate functions interact, but sometimes observational data beats a basis of theoretical understanding.

The trend for using Rodinal in homeopathic concentrations also shows that a minimum amount is needed fairly well too. Look around the web at all the blotchy scans from 'high dilution' Rodinal done badly. In this case the other, concomitant trend for stand development makes this worse and it can be hard to differentiate dilution blotch from stand blotch.

To be fair, polaroid film used two teaspoons of concentrated paste.

Except there is almost always enough sulphite or other alkaline product in divided developers for the A bath to do quite a bit of developing. I've fixed films straight out of the A bath to test this. It makes sense: 3-4 minutes in the equivalent of stock D76 or HC110 dilution B is enough to mostly develop many films, especially the old technology films that work well in divided developers.

This is true, absolutely, but consistency and evenness also come from being able to replace locally exhausted developer quickly. It's one of the reasons I prefer to use time to control contrast rather than modifying agitation.

This is, of course, true, but somewhat academic. Development occurs on and in the film, and what is elsewhere in the tank is largely an innocent bystander (particularly without agitation), but assuming that molecule A in the developer will find molecule B in the film irrespective of where it is in the solution ignores the realities of the physical situation in a 1L developing tank.

Marty
Dear Marty,

I think we are singing from the same hymn-sheet. It's also worth pointing out that the penalties for increased exposure (bigger grain, reduced sharpness), compensated for by reduced development, are often insignificant in 6x9cm and above but can be important in 35mm.

For the underline, yes, pretty much -- but a lot of people (a) tend to see what they want to see and (b) overstate even what can be seen. With constant agitation, e.g. in a CPE-2, "the realities of the physical situation in a 1L developing tank" are somewhat different. All manufacturers of film and developer point out that their recommendations are starting points. Problems arise in two ways. One is when you treat them as unbreakable rules, as I did when I started: if I didn't follow the "rules", I was doing something wrong. The other is when you make the even bigger mistake of following even more tightly constrained "rules" laid down by various gurus.

Hence my simultaneous suspicion of, and agreement with, "but somewhat academic". Pure academic understanding is probably less useless than blind faith in e.g. some of the wilder excesses of Zone adherents or indeed stand development: I particularly like your description of "homeopathic concentrations" for Rodinal, and I rather like "innocent bystander" too. As for the exhaustion of Xtol, yes, it must be what you say but "really unclear" sums up the actual chemistry perfectly.

Finally, I really liked the picture of that wonderfully suburban living room you posted earlier.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 15:50.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.