expired d76

<p>I have an un-opened package of Kodak d-76 developer (powder)-- makes 1 liter, stock. The expiration date is 2011 - 10. (I guess that means October, 2011.) Am wondering if it is still good. </p>

<p>As long as no moisture has gotten into the package, it will be fine.</p>

<p>If it is clear when mixed it is OK ,if it is brown it is bad.<br>

Chris</p>

<p>(I do not know why there is a double post.) I did not know about the "brown" test. So, I will use the developer if it passes the test. Thanks.</p>

<p>Bruce,<br>

Kodak D76 powder is white. When mixed with water it is cloudy and as you stir/mix the solution it will clear as all particles dissolve. If the package has been contaminated or it very old ,the powder will be grey or brown and the solution will be tan or brown liquid depending on how old or contaminated it is. The plastic envelopes suffer less than the paper envelopes. <br>

Chris</p>

<p>Powdered chemicals have a shelf life of years before mixed. Didn't know they even printed an expiration date on them. I would not considered 2011 expired at all.</p>

<p>Agree. As I haven`t noticed any difference, I only buy expired D76. </p>

<p>I called Kodak some time ago about the same thing, and actually got someone that was knowledgeable and very helpful! He said that as long as it wasn't opened or exposed to extreme conditions it would work fine.</p>

<p>I have had unopened paper/foil packages go bad. The powder is a little brown, and when mixed very dark brown. Or, slightly brown and work just fine.</p>

<p>Not so long ago, there was an E2 chemical set on eBay. I was wondering how well that would work. I believe it was all in cans. Then again, there isn't much E2 film around to use it on!</p>

<p>On the older paper packages check the corners, they sometimes fail. I have tossed 9 packages of Dektol because of this. The last 2 gallons of D76 that I have used were purchased in 1991 according to what a previous owner had written on the package. Both worked just fine. The Dektol, on the other hand, was quite brown and mixed up looking like Coca Cola.<br>

<a href=" is a picture</a> on my flickr stream of what to look for.</p>

Like Clay, I brought a package of D76 with me to Europe bought circa 1988 and I finally mixed it 2008. It was just fine.

<p>Phew...pleased to hear that the powdered stuff will last a long time. I have some stuff over 15 years old which I bought up on sale and now in the process of (finally) building myself a darkroom. Looks like most of it will get used.</p>

9 years after the last post I just want to say today I mixed a gallon of D76 that expired 8 years ago. The powder was white and the solution went clear quick. I have full confidence it is just fine.

9 years after the last post I just want to say today I mixed a gallon of D76 that expired 8 years ago. The powder was white and the solution went clear quick. I have full confidence it is just fine.

That only tells us that it dissolved nicely. Report how it works as developer, and then we'll know whether it is fine or not.

That only tells us that it dissolved nicely. Report how it works as developer, and then we'll know whether it is fine or not.

Worked just fine qg.

Someday soon I am going to mix up some old D-67.

 

I am not so sure how old it is, but it is from the Direct Positive Film Developing

Outfit, the original one not the newer TMax version. (I believe the newer

one uses D-96 or something like that.)

 

I did one time mix a sealed foil pack of Dektol, with brown powder and

got brown liquid. I think I threw it away without trying it.

D-67? Is that the pre-mixed version of D-76?

 

Most of the chemicals in D-76 last 'forever'... except for the Metol that will turn pink or brown with oxidation over a long time. If the powders are all white, or no darker than pale cream, then the stuff should be fine.

 

Kodak packed some of the sulphite along with the Metol and Hydroquinone in the smaller part to prevent oxidation. So I reckon a storage life of 20 years isn't that harmful, in cool, dry conditions.

It seems that D-67 is the first developer for the original Direct Positive outfit.

 

The redeveloper is very strange, with a chemical fogging agent that is not so stable.

To develop two rolls with one batch, you have to mix it while the first roll is developing.

 

The TMax and recent reversal movie films use D-96 for first developer.

It seems that D-67 is the first developer for the original Direct Positive outfit.

 

The redeveloper is very strange, with a chemical fogging agent that is not so stable.

To develop two rolls with one batch, you have to mix it while the first roll is developing.

 

The TMax and recent reversal movie films use D-96 for first developer.

My bad Glen. I thought D-67 must've been a typo.

 

Anyway, basically the same goes for the colour of the chemicals - White's alright; brown's thumbs down.

My bad Glen. I thought D-67 must've been a typo.

 

Anyway, basically the same goes for the colour of the chemicals - White's alright; brown's thumbs down.

 

I first knew D-76 when I was about 10, and have always wondered about all the other numbers.

 

I had (and still have) Kodak's "Processing chemicals and formulas", which mentions

D-8, D-11, D-19, D-23, D-25, D-52, D-61a, D-72, and D-76, along with DK-50 and DK-60a,

but that still leaves a lot of numbers in the D series unfilled. And I still have no idea

how the numbering works.

And I still have no idea

how the numbering works.

I think it was just the order in which Kodak's lab techs came up with the formula.

D-1 was probably a Pyro-Soda mix concocted in the 1870s. D-19, IIRC is a Hydroquinone-caustic high-contrast developer for processing lith film.

 

Looking back, I find it amusing how much time and effort was put into seeking a holy grail of a developer. That elusive (and probably non-existent) magic soup that gave full film speed, along with fine grain, high acutance and superb tonality.

 

Jeez guys; why not just stop when you got to number 76? It's about as good as you're going to get.

I think it was just the order in which Kodak's lab techs came up with the formula.

 

(snip)

 

Jeez guys; why not just stop when you got to number 76? It's about as good as you're going to get.

 

I suppose so. But if you have a lab full of chemists, they can probably try hundreds of them a day.

But, then, the numbers should be in the thousands or tens of thousands.

 

So it isn't all the formulae that they came up with, but only the ones that were good enough.

But if they were good enough, why don't we hear about them.

 

I think when I was young, I thought D-76 was related to 1776, one country's favorite year.

Even more, my first tank and trays were named Yankee, and the trays are red, white, and blue.

 

(I still have my original 5x7 and 8x10 trays from over 50 years ago. Not so many years ago,

I got a set of Yankee 11x14 trays.)

But if you have a lab full of chemists, they can probably try hundreds of them a day.

You think?

I'm sure you're overestimating the number of research chemist's employed, and underestimating how long it takes to fully characterise a new developer. Plus there's the production cost v benefit to consider, as well as whether there's any actual need or demand for yet another fairly random combination of reducing agent, alkali accelerator, antioxidant and restrainer.

 

It's a juggling act with a fairly limited set of balls and throwing patterns!

 

And my first developing tank was plain black bakelite and branded 'Nebro', which I later came to know was a company founded by a chap named Neville Brown.

Edited September 20, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

Polystyrene is so much nicer. I think I never had a bakelite tank.

 

Reminds me, though, of one my grandfather had that I also didn't inherit, which

worked up to, as well as I remember, 122. It had different spacers that you put

either between the reel halves, or outside, to get all the combinations needed.

 

But now you don't find tanks up to 122.

 

You should be able to parallel process different developer combinations, and also

parallel characterize them. Well, maybe sequential characterize, but still do

it pretty fast.

 

The only number I know by number, is that the drug RU486 is named

after being the 30,486th try.

 

But otherwise, it does seem like we give different developers

more magical properties than we should.

Just a very minor point of order.

The dates on developer, films, etc are when they become "outdated". The thingie only "expires" when it no longer works.

 

NTIM, but things can continue to work, even if a little awkwardly, sometimes for decades after the "use before" date.