Tri-X D76 1:1 Development Questions

[jimnorwood]

I’m new to 35mm film development ! I’m using Tri-X shot at 400 and plan to develop in D76 1:1. The Kodak data sheet states for 1:1 

“If you process one135-36 roll in a 237 mL (8-ounce) tank or two 135-36 rolls in a 473 mL (16-ounce) tank, increase the development time by 10 percent (see the following tables)”

I use a two reel Paterson tank using 300ml of 1:1 developer for a single roll at 20 degrees so do I need to increase developing time 10% from the recommended 9:45 to 10:43 ? I did search for an answer but couldn’t find a clear answer. 

Secondly if I’m developing at 19 degrees do I just take the middle value (10 1/2 min) between the Kodak suggested 20deg time (9 3/4 min) and 18deg (10 3/4 min) ? 

[kmac]

Yes, pretty much so. B&W film has some latitude so you'll still get quite usable images if the time and temperature are not exactly right.

[SCL]

You should do fine, assuming your exposure was good. TX has plenty of latitude, but for best results, next time, do a roll in which you bracket exposures each side of your indicated exposure, and when you develop the roll, use the same dilution, temp and time as you did this time. When you examine the results of your bracketed roll you can determine the ideal ISO for that developer concentration/time/temp combination.

[Bettendorf]

 

7 hours ago, jimnorwood said:

I’m new to 35mm film development ! I’m using Tri-X shot at 400 and plan to develop in D76 1:1. The Kodak data sheet states for 1:1 

“If you process one135-36 roll in a 237 mL (8-ounce) tank or two 135-36 rolls in a 473 mL (16-ounce) tank, increase the development time by 10 percent (see the following tables)”

If you are reading a 'Kodak' data sheet for Tri-X, there is NO adjustment necessary for what you are doing.  Kodak lists both 8oz. and 16oz. as 'Small Tanks' so you merely drop down to 'D-76 1:1' and over to your temp and you have your time.

As far as your splitting the difference for developer temp, you are correct.

Tri-X data, 2016, F-4017.pdf

 

Edited November 12, 2022 by Bettendorf

[jimnorwood]

36 minutes ago, Bettendorf said:

 

If you are reading a 'Kodak' data sheet for Tri-X, there is NO adjustment necessary for what you are doing.  Kodak lists both 8oz. and 16oz. as 'Small Tanks' so you merely drop down to 'D-76 1:1' and over to your temp and you have your time.

As far as your splitting the difference for developer temp, you are correct.

Tri-X data, 2016, F-4017.pdfUnavailable

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Sorry I wasn’t clear. The sheet that I was looking at that includes the extra 10% development time suggestion is the Kodak D76 developer.
https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j78.pdf

It’s rather confusing that this is not included in the Tri-X sheet or do the tables already include the extra 10% ?

Edited November 13, 2022 by jimnorwood

[Bettendorf]

31 minutes ago, jimnorwood said:

Thanks for taking the time to reply. sorry I wasn’t clear. The sheet that I was looking at that includes the extra 10% suggestion is the Kodak D76 developer.
https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j78.pdf

It’s rather confusing that this is not included in the Tri-X sheet. 

You're welcome, no trouble at all.  Glad to be of some help.  Yes, the tables include the increases.

Kodak's D-76 sheet is rather general for a multitude of uses.  When developing film, be sure to use to use the data for the film itself, whether it be Kodak, Ilford, Kentmere, or what ever.  

Since you are just starting out, I might encourage you to progress slowly, taking notes of what you have done and evaluating the results.  I can say that starting out with Tri-X and D-76 you are in the company of tens of thousands over several decades.  Enjoy your new hobby.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Bettendorf

[rodeo_joe1]

The reason for Kodak's suggested time increase with small capacity tanks is to compensate for the reduced amount of developer with 1 + 1 dilution. By 'small tanks' Kodak mean anything smaller than 3 gallons!

Since an 8 fluid ounce tank at 1:1 dilution can only hold 4oz of full-strength developer; it's Kodak's opinion that this amount of D-76 will effectively run out of power and require a slightly longer development time over what's 'standard'. That compensation isn't automatically added to the published times. Otherwise people using slightly larger tanks would end up over developing their film. The times are based on using an adequate quantity - about 200ml - of fresh full-strength developer per film. 

It's practically the same as the recommendation to increase development time with re-use of full strength D-76 over multiple films. 

Your 300ml tank will contain slightly more than 4oz (118.3ml) of full-strength D-76, therefore it won't need as much as a 10% time extension. Maybe only 5%.

Also, why are you developing at 19 degrees? Warming up the developer by another degree is surely trivial. That's if your thermometer (room thermostat?) is actually accurate to within a degree. Air temperature isn't necessarily the same as liquid temperature BTW. You need to measure the temperature of the developer solution with a proper immersion thermometer. And an extra degree is easily added by (a) diluting with warmer water, or (b) sticking the bottle of developer in a microwave for a few seconds. 

Edited November 14, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[AJG]

2 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

The reason for Kodak's suggested time increase with small capacity tanks is to compensate for the reduced amount of developer with 1 + 1 dilution. By 'small tanks' Kodak mean anything smaller than 3 gallons!

Since an 8 fluid ounce tank at 1:1 dilution can only hold 4oz of full-strength developer; it's Kodak's opinion that this amount of D-76 will effectively run out of power and require a slightly longer development time over what's 'standard'. That compensation isn't automatically added to the published times. Otherwise people using slightly larger tanks would end up over developing their film. The times are based on using an adequate quantity - about 200ml - of fresh full-strength developer per film. 

It's practically the same as the recommendation to increase development time with re-use of full strength D-76 over multiple films. 

Your 300ml tank will contain slightly more than 4oz (118.3ml) of full-strength D-76, therefore it won't need as much as a 10% time extension. Maybe only 5%.

Also, why are you developing at 19 degrees? Warming up the developer by another degree is surely trivial. That's if your thermometer (room thermostat?) is actually accurate to within a degree. Air temperature isn't necessarily the same as liquid temperature BTW. You need to measure the temperature of the developer solution with a proper immersion thermometer. And an extra degree is easily added by (a) diluting with warmer water, or (b) sticking the bottle of developer in a microwave for a few seconds. 

Since I've been using stainless steel graduates for decades, if the temperature is cold by one degree I will just wrap my hands around the graduate and stir the solution with the thermometer a bit until the temperature rises to what I normally use (68 F.).  Stainless steel conducts heat quite well so it doesn't take long for a slight change.  I always have to caution my beginning students not to hold on to their developing tanks in between agitations for the same reason--developer can easily warm a couple of degrees leading to over developed film.

[Bettendorf]

3 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

The reason for Kodak's suggested time increase with small capacity tanks is to compensate for the reduced amount of developer with 1 + 1 dilution. By 'small tanks' Kodak mean anything smaller than 3 gallons!

Since an 8 fluid ounce tank at 1:1 dilution can only hold 4oz of full-strength developer; it's Kodak's opinion that this amount of D-76 will effectively run out of power and require a slightly longer development time over what's 'standard'. That compensation isn't automatically added to the published times. Otherwise people using slightly larger tanks would end up over developing their film. The times are based on using an adequate quantity - about 200ml - of fresh full-strength developer per film. 

It's practically the same as the recommendation to increase development time with re-use of full strength D-76 over multiple films. 

Your 300ml tank will contain slightly more than 4oz (118.3ml) of full-strength D-76, therefore it won't need as much as a 10% time extension. Maybe only 5%.

Also, why are you developing at 19 degrees? Warming up the developer by another degree is surely trivial. That's if your thermometer (room thermostat?) is actually accurate to within a degree. Air temperature isn't necessarily the same as liquid temperature BTW. You need to measure the temperature of the developer solution with a proper immersion thermometer. And an extra degree is easily added by (a) diluting with warmer water, or (b) sticking the bottle of developer in a microwave for a few seconds. 

 

 

Well Joe you're wrong.  That compensation is added to the published times, and not automatically but deliberately by Kodak's tech writers who knew exactly what they wanted to convey.

Tell me why they wrote a line for D-76 and one for D-76 (1:)?  And why are the times different?  Could that be... 'compensation added'?

You said:  "Otherwise people using slightly larger tanks would end up over developing their film."  Really?  Isn't 16oz "slightly larger" than 8oz?  I guess the writers failed to remember that and accidentally lumped both sizes together under Small Tank, using the exact same times.

I was going to go into the Kodak D-76 publication J-78, but I don't want to confuse you more than you already are.  You might try reading all of F-4017 and see if any of you theories are there.

You did quite a disservice to the OP by introducing all your error and confusion, maybe you could remedy that.

 

 

 

[glen_h]

The rated capacity for D-76 stock is 1 roll of 135-36 or 120 per 8 oz or 250ml.

For D-76 1:1 is is half that.

The extra 10% is due to the reduction in activity during development.

At 300ml, you have a little more, so somewhere between 0% and 10% extra, maybe 5%

12 hours ago, Bettendorf said:

 

 

Well Joe you're wrong.  That compensation is added to the published times, and not automatically but deliberately by Kodak's tech writers who knew exactly what they wanted to convey.

Tell me why they wrote a line for D-76 and one for D-76 (1:)?  And why are the times different?  Could that be... 'compensation added'?

You said:  "Otherwise people using slightly larger tanks would end up over developing their film."  Really?  Isn't 16oz "slightly larger" than 8oz?  I guess the writers failed to remember that and accidentally lumped both sizes together under Small Tank, using the exact same times.

I was going to go into the Kodak D-76 publication J-78, but I don't want to confuse you more than you already are.  You might try reading all of F-4017 and see if any of you theories are there.

You did quite a disservice to the OP by introducing all your error and confusion, maybe you could remedy that.

 

 

 

I thought I already posted a similar statement, but it seem that I never hit submit.

 

Yes I agree with Joe.

The times in the table are right if you put 8 oz of stock or 16 oz of 1:1

into the tank, for one roll of 135-36 or 120.

 

With many tanks, though, the 135-36 roll will fit into 8 oz or 250ml.

 

Joe also mentioned the similarity to successive rolls in the same developer.

It isn't quite the same, though.

You could, for example, use D-76 1:1, 16 oz or 500ml, for two rolls at the same time, or two rolls successively.

In the former case, both rolls see full strength at the beginning, when most of the development is done.

The latter case is not recommended, even though the amount of developer and film is the same.

 

Though some people do stretch the capacity more than the recommended amount.

 

 

[Bettendorf]

On 11/12/2022 at 10:01 AM, jimnorwood said:

I’m new to 35mm film development ! I’m using Tri-X shot at 400 and plan to develop in D76 1:1. The Kodak data sheet states for 1:1 

“If you process one135-36 roll in a 237 mL (8-ounce) tank or two 135-36 rolls in a 473 mL (16-ounce) tank, increase the development time by 10 percent (see the following tables)”

Hi Jim.  When I read that quote in the beginning of that data sheet (J-78), I understood it as;  "and to show you what we mean", (see the following tables)

Which are the standard, box charts.  None of which have any footnotes regarding (1:1) tank volume.

Well this morning I saw this, on the second to last page after all the tables.

 

 

I don't know how I missed it but I sure did!  Clear as a bell, a footnote.

It seems it was I who "introduced error and confusion" into your post.  I'm sorry.

And now, onto Rodeo Joe.

 

 

[Bettendorf]

On 11/14/2022 at 4:45 AM, rodeo_joe1 said:

The reason for Kodak's suggested time increase with small capacity tanks is to compensate for the reduced amount of developer with 1 + 1 dilution. By 'small tanks' Kodak mean anything smaller than 3 gallons!

Since an 8 fluid ounce tank at 1:1 dilution can only hold 4oz of full-strength developer; it's Kodak's opinion that this amount of D-76 will effectively run out of power and require a slightly longer development time over what's 'standard'. That compensation isn't automatically added to the published times. Otherwise people using slightly larger tanks would end up over developing their film. The times are based on using an adequate quantity - about 200ml - of fresh full-strength developer per film. 

It's practically the same as the recommendation to increase development time with re-use of full strength D-76 over multiple films. 

 

Well Joe, You were certainly correct and I was wrong.  (see above post)

I'm sorry for my keyboard assault on you for no reason.  Have a good day. 

Edited November 16, 2022 by Bettendorf

[jimnorwood]

Well one thing I’m sure we can all agree on is that it’s not really obvious what Kodak means ! Still thanks to you all I now finally understand what they recommend and why. Next time I’ll add the extra time. 

About the temperature I do have an immersible thermometer. Perhaps wrongly I thought it easier to develop at room temperature which resulted in a chemicals temperature of 19 degrees, ensuring temperature consistency throughout the process rather than mess around with warming to 20 and perhaps risking a temperature drop. Perhaps my logic is flawed ? Is there an advantage to developing at 20 deg rather than 19 ? 

Edited November 15, 2022 by jimnorwood

[AJG]

The difference between 19 and 20 is minimal, and I wouldn't worry about it too much.  You can probably interpolate a small increase in development time and keep stop bath and fixing times the same as they would be at 20.  I use a water bath that chemicals sit in until they are used and the developing tank sits in there as well in between agitation periods.  If there is a decent quantity of water in the tray at 68 F it will stay there for long enough to finish developing without significant changes. Good luck with your film!

[glen_h]

Depending on how exact you are with your exposure and such, you can worry more or less about how well you follow the capacity rules.

D-76 was one of my first developers.  (After a few Tri-chem packs.)

Not so much later, I switched to Diafine, though.

 

With simple cameras, you are lucky to get within a stop or two of the right exposure.

Getting the time down to the seconds isn't so important.

(The Kodak times are rounded to the nearest 1/4 minute.)

 

On the other hand, accurate timing is good practice for color development,

which is more sensitive to time and temperature.  (Variations can cause color

shifts which are more noticeable)

 

The proper timing is from when you start to pour one bath, until you start to

pour the following bath.  (Film keeps developing after you pour out, with what

is left in the emulsion, at least for some seconds.)

 

After using Diafine for a while, I got out of the habit of good time and

temperature treatment.

 

 

 

[rodeo_joe1]

On 11/15/2022 at 9:28 PM, jimnorwood said:

I thought it easier to develop at room temperature which resulted in a chemicals temperature of 19 degrees, ensuring temperature consistency throughout the process rather than mess around with warming to 20 and perhaps risking a temperature drop.

As AJG already mentioned, just handling the tank can change the temperature. But a colder starting temperature is more susceptible to hand warming than one that's closer to skin temperature. 

TBH I wouldn't worry about it too much. Most digital thermometers straight out of the box can easily be inaccurate by +/- a good fraction of a degree C. And liquid-in-capilliary thermometers should be immersed to a certain depth in order to be strictly accurate. I suspect not many photographers either know that or bother to practice it. And who can pour developer in and out of a tank in zero time?

Consistency is more important than absolute accuracy. 

If you find your negatives are too thick in the highlights, then reduce your development time. If too thin increase the time. Simple.

Your ideal time may not be the same as another photographer's, but there are so many variables (agitation technique, use of a stop bath, etc.) that complete standardisation is near impossible with hand developing. 

[rodeo_joe1]

On 11/15/2022 at 5:10 PM, Bettendorf said:

Well Joe, You were certainly correct and I was wrong.  (see above post)

I'm sorry for my keyboard assault on you for no reason.  Have a good day. 

No worries. 

At least you have the grace and good character to admit an error and apologise. I thank you for that. 

Some posters here (naming no names) would just stick to their erroneous guns and swear that black was white while spouting ad hominem insults. 

Edited November 19, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[Bettendorf]

9 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

No worries. 

At least you have the grace and good character to admit an error and apologise. I thank you for that. 

Some posters here (naming no names) would just stick to their erroneous guns and swear that black was white while spouting ad hominem insults. 

Thanks Joe, I appreciate that.

[jimnorwood]

Thanks to all who replied. I have developed my second ever roll of film ! Both were shot using a Leica M2 + Leica Elmar 50mm 2.8 and developed in D76 1:1 for 9:45 min. Scans are using an Epsom V600. Next time I will add the extra development time that has been suggested above.

Generally I'm happy with the results but believe that I am under and over exposing too many shots because I am not using the light meter correctly. Perhaps not exposing for the shadows ?

I post these examples hoping for some helpful suggestions for improvement.  I'm interested to know if I'm evaluating the negatives correctly. Please go easy on me I'm new to this !!!

Almost all images needed adjustment after scanning using the V600 usually to brighten. I've included a picture of the original scan (tiff) which was scanned with all auto improve options off. 

Ok so I understand that if I can find one frame that is well exposed and developed then the whole roll is well developed and I can forget about the processing end. Apologies for the bad quality photos of the negatives. Would you agree that this photo is properly exposed and developed ?

 

Image 1 33.tif

Edited November 20, 2022 by jimnorwood

[jimnorwood]

If the roll is well developed then this is an example of under exposure / a thin negative ? This is at our dining room table with only the table light as a light source. I took an incident light reading with the white sphere facing the camera lens ? Should I have metered differently ?

Edited November 20, 2022 by jimnorwood

[jimnorwood]

Now possible over exposure / thick negatives ? These shots are grainy and lacking in detail

Edited November 20, 2022 by jimnorwood

[jimnorwood]

Finally two shots of the famous door that John Lennon stood in Hamburg that was used for the Rock & Roll album cover. Here I took 1 shot at ISO 200 and one at 400. Personally I prefer the look of the first one shot at 400. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by jimnorwood

[rodeo_joe1]

Hmm. Those doorway 'prints' (scans?) show the exact opposite effect of increasing exposure, which should result in a lighter image with better shadow detail. 

The picture of the little girl, from the appearance of the negative, has almost perfect exposure but looks to be slightly over developed, with slightly too dense highlights. Nothing that shouldn't prevent a good print though. 

Same for the lady leaning on the table. There appears to be absolutely no reason why the face couldn't be a lot brighter in the print/scan. There's very obvious detail in the background of the negative, but no such detail in the positive image. 

The hotel sign shot is definitely overexposed and the shot of the benches, hedge and sea is underexposed. 

So I'd pretty much leave your developing technique as it is, or cut the developing time slightly, and concentrate on getting better exposure control.

As for the weird and gross discrepancy between the two doorway pictures: No way is that simply due to a one stop variation in exposure. That must be down to inconsistent printing/scanning.

4 hours ago, jimnorwood said:

Here I took 1 shot at ISO 200 and one at 400.

FWIW, you cannot alter the ISO of film. That's baked in during manufacture. You can rate a 400 ISO film at EI 200, or a 200 ISO film at EI 400, but whatever you do with the exposure or developing, the sensitivity of the film to light stays exactly the same. 

Changes in developing time/temperature/dilution alter the contrast of the negative (the slope of its density curve), while exposure changes alter where on that slope the subject brightness range is placed.

Thus a large subject brightness range (high subject contrast) can be compensated for by reducing the development, and a short subject brightness range (low subject contrast) can be compensated by extending development.

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[glen_h]

On 11/19/2022 at 1:59 AM, rodeo_joe1 said:

 

(snip)

And who can pour developer in and out of a tank in zero time?

(snip)

As well as I know, it is from when you start pouring one step until you start the next one.

That is what I learned when I was doing color processing. 

 

For black and white, and especially using Diafine, I don't worry so much about it.

If you pour uniformly, always at the same rate, and it fills from the bottom, it should

be pretty close to the same time for each spot of film.  I am not so sure that all tanks

fill that way, but it usually works.

 

Enough chemical stays in the film, that it keeps going until the next one comes along.

 

[JDMvW]

The bags for D-76 make so much developer that it usually goes bad before I use it up, so (though I always mean to do 1:1) I just use it straight. I scan after development anyhow, so adjustments are usually easier and better in digital.

Developing is pretty much routine for me after all these years. I had been shooting C41 color (or monochrome) but that's no longer locally available and my facilities for temperature control etc. are nil, so I need to stock up on B&W films...

Edited November 23, 2022 by JDMvW