Back to basics D76 & TriX

What are you rating the film at? Try a couple of rolls and bracket the exposures from 250/320/400 and see which one works best.
As for developing, you might want to try different agitation too. 30-40 sec. initially and then 3 flips/taps every 60 sec.
It is worthwhile shooting yourself in with a film. Set aside 5-6 rolls and try different versions of film speed and agitation. Once you got it nailed - life gets much easier.
 
Tom, thanks for the quick response! Of course I forgot to mention it, I rate the film at 400, agitate initially about 1 min, then 4-5 inversions each minute. 1 min stop with water and 10 min in fixer from powder.
I must say the results are not bad, and I got better extending the time from the original 9 min. Just not at the same level as some labs results. I really got used to shoot at 400, so I would prefer to avoid changing that. also I checked the camera exposure against other cameras, and it seems fine. I'll try develop my last rolls for 11:30 minutes (or maybe 12?), and see if there is some further improvement. I'd really like to stick to triX+d76 combo. It would be nice to master it, as many people here do!


Tom A said:
What are you rating the film at? Try a couple of rolls and bracket the exposures from 250/320/400 and see which one works best.
As for developing, you might want to try different agitation too. 30-40 sec. initially and then 3 flips/taps every 60 sec.
It is worthwhile shooting yourself in with a film. Set aside 5-6 rolls and try different versions of film speed and agitation. Once you got it nailed - life gets much easier.
Click to expand...
 
I would go for 12 min in that case. "waste" some rolls and bracket in the developer instead. Maybe 12 min and one roll at 13 min and see what it looks like.
 
Started doing some rolls in ID11. So far running it at 11 min - looks pretty good - 5 rolls hanging up to dry at the moment.
The package of ID11 was from the early 90's or late 80's. One of those things that has been cluttering up a shelf in the darkroom for a long, long time. I should try to use up the equally aged Perceptol in the cabinet under the sink!!!!
Some people have wine cellars and cabinets - I seem to have developer cabinets!!!!!
 
I don't think current Tri-X is what it was 20 years ago. It doesn't seem to have the same speed - seems more like an ISO 200 film in Aculux (a fine grain developer not dissimilar to D76 in properties). Having said that, Aculux itself has also been reformulated (twice) and maybe whatever used to make it good has been banned for health and safety reasons!

There's a lot to be said for Kodak BW400CN (C41 film) instead of Tri-X unless you specifically want grain. BW400CN works best at ISO 200 but it's so forgiving that you don't really need a meter.
 
Tom, D76 last 6 months perfectly if you keep air away from it. I have done very careful tests. Weekly at first for two months, then monthly on the same batch. Main subject was a step wedge and textured black wool and some white linen fabric, studio strobes, same bath of film, paper, camera lens throughout. Partially full bottles are worthless after 24/48 hours and I don`t care what Kodak says.

Small bottles are my answer, mix a gallon or a liter, cap loosely and allow to cool. Decant into smaller one time use size glass bottles.
 
Last edited:
I still like the ADOX Borax MQ, specifically for the reasons TomA mentions. I can intermix XX and XXX in the same tank. That's particularly convenient and good.

Also it seems to last forever. I know six months is supposed to be it, but I have a 2-litre soda bottle of ADOX Borax that I mixed up over a year ago, and I'm still using it. Does need to be periodically filtered, to get rid of the grey crud in the bottom of the bottle.
 
As a rule I dump D76/ID11 after 4 weeks - unless I have used it up. I rather mix fresh soup than take a chance. The 1 gallon kit gives me 2 gallons @ 1:1 - enough to do 25 + rolls anyway. That is usually 2-3 weeks of shooting.
The Adox does last a long time - though I find it slows down after about 35 rolls (I use it with the replenisher and pull 50 rolls from a 2 liter mix). I usually add about 30 sec. to a minute with the last 10-15 rolls.
Developers are cheap to mix - and I prefer to be safe and sound - and use as fresh developer as I can. Screwing up a print is one thing - can be redone - screwing up a film is usually "fatal".
 
Hi Tom,
You are right, of couse. Time to dump the ADOX, and mix fresh. The raw chemicals are cheap enough, and summer shooting season is ahead. Time to change the bottle too, a two-litre soda bottle gets the "grey crud" deposited on the inside. Soda bottles are free and perfect receptacles for this stuff.
-Dan
 
There is slightly different composition chemically between the D76 and ID11. Not enough to make a big difference. My ID11 package was about 20 years old, so in deference to its age I gave it 1 minute extra (11 rather than my usual 10-10.30 with D76). No change in density of the negatives.
As with any developer and recommendations - you always test it to accommodate your own style and light measuring technique. Most of my shooting for the Back to Basics has been "Sunny f16" style. I do carry a meter (a small Gossen Digisix) but unless I feel it is needed - I just guess. TriX/Arista is surprisingly flexible when it comes to slight over/under exposure anyway.
 
Glad to read that all seems OK on the health front ,apart from those unpleasant side effects. You have a terrific positive outlook which can only help. Oh, yes, I have been a Tri-x addict for a very long time.
 
Almost getting to the end of my "Back to Basics" project. About 160 rolls so far, mostly done in variations of D76 and with either Arista Premium 400 or triX.
The last 5 rolls were done with Tmax2-400 and HC110 as a comparison with the older style emulsions. the Tmax2-400 is probably the finest grain 400 iso film made. Not as flexible as the TriX and does require better metering skills as it doesn't like over/under exposure by more than 3/4 stop.
The last 5 rolls also were done with more "modern glass". I just picked the 4 lenses in my arsenal that I think are among the best today (with one exception - the 90f2.8 M-Elmarit).
There is no real conclusion, and I did not think that there would be. Even lenses from the 60's are more than good enough for TriX/D76 and probably 95% of everything you want to do. Yes, lenses like the 21f4.5 C Biogon, the 35f2.8 C Biogon, Elmar 50f2.8 vII are marginally better in most cases, but not enough to make a big difference in the end result.
The only lens that I always had problem with is the 90f2.8 M-Elmarit. I have had a couple of them over the years and for some reason, never warmed to it. It is a bit smaller and lighter than a pre-Asph 90f2 - but not significantly so - so why not get that extra stop of the Summicron. It is also, in my opinion, a very "bland" lens - sharp enough, good enough contrast - but about as exciting as stale bread!
I will add some more stuff to the Back to Basics set as I go along - but not stay wedded to the slow 21's and f2.8 35/50/90. Need to try out a couple of Divided D76 formulas etc and TriX/XX in them. Might even shoot some +X for that.
Not many surprises, the 21f3.4 SA is still a great lens with its own look. The Summaron 35f2.8 can hold its own against any Summicron, the v1 Elmar 50f2.8 is nice, but not spectacular and the Elmarit v1 90f2.8 I find more pleasing than the M-Elmarit 90f2.8. The C-Biogon 35f2.8 is probably one of the best, if not the best 35 lens I have ever used. Amazing quality in bl/w. The 21f4.5 again, one of the best, if not the best 21 available. The Elmar 50f2.8 vII is superb - prefer it to a Summicron on any reasonably bright day and compact too.
All of this is of course highly subjective - and many will disagree with me, which is fine. My point was simply that one can live with a f2.8 set of lenses quite comfortably - and still get the shots. the benefit is small size, light weight, better prices - but no real problems - and it is easy to handhold a M at 1/15 sec.
Once we get better weather - I might even attempt a full f3.5 kit (21f3.5 Ricoh, Summaron 35f3.5, Elmar 50f3.5 M-mount and the Apo-Lanthar 90f3.5) probably on M2's.
Last Saturday I went to the All British Field Meet here in Vancouver (6-700 british cars gathered on a big lawn). The weather was abysmal, pouring rain and grey. Only shot a couple of rolls before I decided that I was wet enough - but most of it at 1/60 and 1/30 and f2.8-f4. Yeh, I would have liked sun and f11 - but all the shots worked, sharp and nice contrast etc. The benefit was that I could easily walk around in the rain, 2 M's and 2 lenses (35f2.8 and 50f2.8) and I really did not miss any f2's and f1.4's settings at all.
 
Brings back memories

Brings back memories

Wow read the whole thread. It's been a long time since I've done any processing.Haven't rolled my own in at least 30 years,but i still have some gear for that.

The last time I was using Tri-x developed in C-76 ( D 76 + Glenn Fishback's Crone additive) Tri-X rated between 800-1600ASA I think:)

Gotta go look in the garage and find my stuff .I think i still have some D-76 mix too!

Glad to hear your still kicking Like Paulfish ,never give up :)
 
Thanks Travis. I am now working on a second installment "Back to Basic's II". Still using mainly TriX/D76 or variations thereof, but the lenses are all 60's f2.8's (35/50/90) and M2's.
 
Tom, I haven't read the whole thread, but have dropped in now and then to see what was up. My question is this:
I live in California and I use a developer called Formula 76 by a guy named Lauder. It is a gallon of ready-to-use film developer that does Tri-x in 10 minutes 1:1 at 68 deg. I always assumed it was a real clone of D-76, until this week, when I tried a 1-gal packet of the real deal as a cost saver, and YUCK! My negs were thin and flat! I'll be going back to Lauder, but I wonder if you have tried it in your trials. Lauder Chemical Formula 76. Great stuff, and gets me ISO 400!
 
Vic, I haven't tried the Lauder, mainly because I make my own "soup" from scratch most of the time. The Back to Basics project had me making up Kodak's (and Ilfords) version from store-bought packages. I did try the Clayton formula a while ago - works well, but way too short shelf life for me.
There is probably no film that has been developed in so many concoctions as TriX - and some work well. It is a film with great tolerance for experiments too.
Wonder why your trial with the D76 resulted in such bad negatives though, as D76 is pretty bullet proof.
 
Thanks, Tom, for the reply. Well, I think that if I had exposed at 200 or 250, things would have turned out differently. I've been using the Lauder for maybe the last 15 years, and I guess I have just "dialed in" to it. I worry, though, because I hear that this is a one-man shop, tales of him driving the product around to the stores himself. He has all the colleges using his stuff. What if he retires? Guess I'd better go take a chemistry class!
 
A quick note on the longevity of D-76: After much deliberation, I decided to chance doing a roll of Tri-X in some D-76 that I mixed last September. That was 9 months ago! I wanted to use the D-76 1:1, since that is my usual. To be on the safe side, I used 8oz D-76 to 8oz water, in a 16oz tank. The negatives look great! Not at all weak, pretty good shadows, highlights not blocked. Looking forward to printing some of these!

Oh, yeah: I had the D-76 stored in green bottles, and the bottle I used was only about 80% full!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top