D76 Type Developers Part 5: Best Dilutions To Use

Sorry about the video title! This is actually part 5.
Today's video covers the various dilutions preferred by D76 type developer users. I look at stock vs. 1+1 vs. 1+3 (that is 1 part developer to 3 parts water).
Today's camera is a Pentax MX 35mm with the standard 50mm 1.7 Pentax lens.
I know which one I prefer, what about you?
Please support this channel through Patreon (address at the end of the video) or by buying my book from pictorialplanet.com.
Thank you!
John
www.pictorialplanet.com

[@a.j.fontana]

I'm not a D76 guy, HC-110 has been my go to. Although I did just order 510 Pyro today and your vids helped me with that decision so thank you so much! I'm amazed at how much better the 1+3 looks in terms of sharpness and detail. I figured it would be sharper but wasn't expecting that much difference. What also surprised me was that the grain didn't really increase in size. The resolution was definitely higher which is usually not the case with increased sharpness. Really appreciate the knowledge and effort you put into these videos.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thanks for your comment Andrew. You'll be pleased with the 510-pyro. The 1+3, with D76, did give good results. It became an acutance developer. The same thing happens with D23 too. These are quite versatile developers.

[@paolociccone]

Thank you again for showing the advantage of 1+3 dilution. I'm curious to try it now with my own film.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Go for it!

[@nunito66]

Great analysis and comparison, will definitely try 1+3 dilution, thanks for sharing this valuable revelation!

[@bluzizalright]

I've grown very fond of this series. I've been meaning to tell you that I am enjoying your book as well - like your videos, it's full of useful nuggets even for someone who has been doing film photography since my teenage years. Thank you and best of luck. - Renato

[@PictorialPlanet]

Renato, that's good to hear. Always feel motivated when one says such things! Best to you too and I'll see you in the next video, sort of :)

[@nanddis]

@@PictorialPlanet thank you for your answer. I did ask you because of the 20min development time. I did test and I like the result, but is hard to be watching for the dev. so long having a rotatory drum in the lab. 🤦‍♂️😅

[@PictorialPlanet]

🤣

[@node547]

This is an eye-opener for me and I will be testing as well. Looks like again quite some work went went into this. Thank you.

[@PictorialPlanet]

You’re welcome and thanks for the comment Koen!

[@paulstillwell]

I only discovered your channel in the past few weeks but I have rapidly gone through many of your videos and learned a lot! Thank-you for sharing and taking the time to create such easy to follow information and instruction. I truly appreciate what you are doing! Keep up the great work!

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thanks Paul!

[@jonathanhotopf1823]

Didn't know it would make so much difference to the sharpness and that the compensating effect would be so pronounced

[@PictorialPlanet]

Yes, remarkable!

[@helsingbergarcanjo8337]

That was amazing! Always looking forward to your videos. Thank you so much!

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thanks Helsingberg!

[@laugary8186]

You always have great test and video!thank you John.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thank you for your kind words Lau!

[@stephendeakin2714]

I am amazed by the quality obtained from altering dilution.

[@CarmineTavernaPhotography]

Bravo to your work on your channel...Home development of film for the past 48 years has taught me one thing..keep learning, keep improving my darkroom techniques..for sure 1+3 with D76 is magical. Peace from MANHATTAN NYC

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thank you Carmine! All the best in this holiday season 🙏

[@SNxr400r]

I will try 1+3 next time.. I wanted to thank you for writing such a good book....It's one of my favorite Darkroom books and appreciate you sharing your knowledge and years of experience with us...job well done!!!

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thank you for buying my book and for your kind words SNK!

[@martin-f5482]

absolutely well done and so good explained, many thanks!

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thanks Martin!

[@TrashTheLens]

Wow, another great video John. Thank you! I didn't expect the difference in sharpness to be that drastic. The edges between the roof and the white walls look almost as if an unsharp mask was applied to them. Are the effects of dilution universal across more classes of developers, or are they limited to the D76 family of developers? Also, doesn't using more dilute developers run higher risk of bromide drag and streaking?

[@PictorialPlanet]

The effect of dilution is most obvious with metol based developers such as D23, D76, Perceptol, etc. This is because of the metol and the way it works at higher dilutions and the way bromide effects it. For instance, phenidone developers like ID68 and Microphen are much more tolerant of bromide and so don’t give the same acutance with dilution (not to say they’re not sharp because they are). Pyro developers give high acutance but for a different reason, that of tanning of the emulsion lessoning the movement of developer and silver. Your question about bromide drag is a good one. I’ve found it much worse with strong solutions of developer such as stock D76. Lower dilutions are generally safer.

[@artsandcraftscreations3492]

Great video. Thank you for putting this together!

[@PictorialPlanet]

You’re very welcome!

[@tarasb7425]

Really liked this D-76 series John. Would be nice to have a similar comparison across a few common developer families (e.g. D-76, Rodinal, HC-110, Pyro) at your favourite dilutions.

[@arsmale1]

Hi John Great Video and great series. I've been making a developer that is referred to as a D76H formula. 2.5g metol 100g Sodium Sulphite 2g Borax 1000ml water It works well with HP5 plus as a 1+1. I've not used the 1+3 but will give it a try. The 1+1 is really sharp. Thanks Andy

[@PictorialPlanet]

This is a good developer indeed. Try the 1+3 and see what you think.

[@drewh79]

This was such an eye opener. I always thought using pure stock would give you the best results. When I develop tonight I'll use the 3-1 method. Cheers mate

[@PictorialPlanet]

That's great Drew!

[@drewh79]

@@PictorialPlanet I used the 3-1 method for my last roll. I have to say, the results were so amazing and have really changed the way I do developing. Cheers for the great advice,

[@PictorialPlanet]

Excellent news!

[@olebuckranch2782]

Very interesting video...I've always been a stock solution guy but I am definitely going to try 1:3. Subscribed.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thanks!

[@kenblair2538]

Great video. I'm very impressed. I am using Legacy Pro powder L76 , which is supposed to be camera formula as D76. Next roll of Forma 100, I'm going to try this with 1+3. Thanks.

[@PictorialPlanet]

You're welcome Ken.

[@melody3741]

I use the exact same trick with a self-timer, it works really well. Especially because the camera can still be moved by a cables especially if you don't hold them correctly or if they are really short.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Good job, M (I'll be careful how I pronounce your name). Cables are useful when precise shutter firing is required, otherwise self timers are great (all said in a British accent).

[@davyboyo]

John as always very well put together and ever so useful to all of us who are less experienced. I saw an interesting video that pretty much turned me onto d76 (which I had previously, stupidly, believed to be a sub-par developer). It was Borut Peterlin's channel and he also compares the dilutions of d76, his impressions were that stock solution gave the most subtle variations in tonality due to the solvent action. I'd be interested to hear if you had noticed anything in that regard. Worth a watch anyway I thought. Cheers 😁

[@PictorialPlanet]

Hi Dav. I agree with Borut. Everything's a compromise between grain, speed of film, sharpness, and tonality. Finding what serves you best can be challenging at first. Some developers offer multiple methods of use, D76 being a great example, where you can change the dilution for different benefits. If you like D76 try FX15 which is even better.

[@davyboyo]

@@PictorialPlanet I'll definitely have a look into fx-15 for a possible new developer to try. I'm brewing up and using replenished d23 mostly, with some rodinal and d76 thrown in when my mood changes. Cheers mate, hope 2023 is good to you.

[@PictorialPlanet]

I live D23 Replenished! The FX15 could replace the D76. The Rodinal, well that's unique !

[@donr8191]

Another very informative video...Thanks !! How would the D-76 at 1:3 compare to the D-23 you did a few videos about?

[@PictorialPlanet]

I like D-23 very much and would use it before I’d use D-76. It also works at 1+1 and 1+3 with similar properties to D-76. I much rather use it replenished though where I get finer grain, the same compensation, and sharper images.

[@nevilleholmes1324]

Useful and an enjoyable video. In my view FP4 goes a little "muddy" at 1+3, highlight detail at the loss of shaddow detail? I have only scanned. Have yet to try split grade printing in the darkroom which may bring the contrast back to the shaddows. The grass looked passed mid grey? Do you have any views on the ID11 derivitives, Perceptol and Microphen at different dilutions? Also can my current favourite FX55, can that be diluted to increase acutance.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Barry Thornton enjoyed Perceptol at 1+2, it was one of his favourite developers at this dilution. I haven't used Microphen much to have an opinion but it's a phenidone based developer and will probably display different properties than metol based developers, less effected by bromide by-products. FX55 is already a wonderfully sharp developer. I've not tried it diluted.

[@MrPetermc199]

This video reminded me of when I started in photography in the 90's where we used Tri-x in D76. I have just ordered a D76 to try it once again, However I skipped the Tri-x due to the price, and I think nowadyas I find the Tri-x look a bit too contrasty...

[@gabrielsilvaz4199]

I noticed that the stock solution was picking up more shadow detail, although the 1+3 dilution does look pleasant to look at not so faded, or light, looking like the stock solution.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Yes, two different looks from one developer.

[@craigfouche]

Very interesting, thank you

[@PictorialPlanet]

You're welcome Craig!

[@AnthonyGrisier]

Fantastic and enlightening information once again, John. Does this also translate to D23?

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thank you! Yes it does, exactly.

[@kevinbrowne3089]

Great content here. Wow.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thanks, Kevin!

[@TheMintytea]

Thank you for your videos! You're a talented teacher. I love shooting tri-x at 1600. Will for sure try 1+3 next time. Can you do a video on XTOL?

[@PictorialPlanet]

I tend to only do videos on things you can make yourself. I show that you don't need to buy xtol and that you can make equally good developers at home like FX55. No one can take FX55 away from you so it makes sense to me to stick with that. Hope you understand.

[@cowboyyoga]

Thank you! As usual, your videos are very helpful and enjoyable! ))) Can we use D76 also to develop an image on paper in the darkroom?

[@PictorialPlanet]

I'm afraid not, Gary. Paper developer is a much more contrasty animal than film developer.

[@nanddis]

Thank you for the video. I would like to know if continuous agitation will affect the negative. I suppose that I should reduce the processing time. Please keep making videos. Regards from Spain.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Yes, reduce development time . Try 20% to start with. Personally, I think continuous agitation reduces acutance too so less sharpness in your negatives.

[@jessejack7829]

Another great video! Does XTOL behave in a similar way?

[@PictorialPlanet]

I don't use xtol, sorry.

[@OskarFilms]

Another great tutorial, John. I'm sold on D76 1 + 3. I'm seeing a lot of photographers pull FP4 1/3 of a stop to ISO 100. Any particular reason(s) for that?

[@PictorialPlanet]

The developer doesn't give full box speed and so the shadows get blocked up. If you choose to use the developer it's worth doing a proper film speed test if you can. I did a video on it called Matching your Film to your Developer. kzbin.info/www/bejne/a3e5dWpsZtWIbdE

[@charlygielen8843]

Thank you very much

[@PictorialPlanet]

You’re welcome my friend!

[@richardstollar4291]

WOW! Just tried my first sheets of 8x10 at 1+3 dilution and I can say that the difference is obvious. Never going back! I actually thought this would lead to more developer being used overall but it doesn't. Typically I developed 7 sheets of 8x10 with 1 Ltr stock (adding 10% dev time per sheet) but I can get 8 sheets per Ltr now as I use 500ml per sheet.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Awesome!

[@lensman5762]

Very interesting and well explained, even for an old timer like me. I am , however concerned about the volume of the developing tank. The Patterson type tanks, take about 450 ml of solution, where Nikor type tanks take about 250~275 for the 135 roll. Wouldn't the effect of the dilution be altered by the type of tank used? This is more crucial at the time of agitation I believe. Your thoughts on this matter are appreciated.

[@PictorialPlanet]

This is a great comment, Lensman. I use Paterson tanks and even my 35mm takes 500ml with plenty of space for good agitation. You're right that if there's not enough developer your negatives will come out thin. Definitely use the Paterson for this kind of dilute development, including Rodinal 1+200, 510-pyro 1+200plus and so on. Thanks again.

[@johngskewes]

Thank you - I really enjoyed this D76 series. Question; do use the 1:3 as a one shot?

[@PictorialPlanet]

Glad you enjoyed the series, John. And, yes, one shot only, same with the 1+1. What would you like more of in the future?

[@johngskewes]

@@PictorialPlanet Thanks - well I'm not sure, often the best information is about questions you haven't asked. But this weekend I made pinhole camera from a old cash-box. I got a 0.2mm laser cut lens. The result is an f/512 lens and an 8X10 paper negative - used Ilford MG Dev @ 1:16. Came out very well. My attempt at direct printing was lackluster. The test strips just looked fogged. (I used the glass salvaged from an old HP fax/scanner) My enlarger was set to f/2.8 with 2.5 second steps. Perhaps a look into direct printing? I did however scan the negative and the results are very nice. Thank you!

[@PictorialPlanet]

Unfortunately I don’t do contact printing :(

[@igaluitchannel6644]

Very helpful! The1:3 seems a little dull in comparison, though. It's also difficult to maintain temperatures at long development times. Of course, maybe in the darkroom there is more advantage in using the 1:3 n3gative.

[@PictorialPlanet]

I think you're right, that there's more contrast with less dilution. The mid tones start to muddy up a bit. It's sharper but less nuanced. Because I like sharpness and long tonality I use a pyrocatechin based developer. Another good developer for sharpness and tonality is FX15 or FX55.

[@igaluitchannel6644]

@@PictorialPlanet i've never tried those developers, but from what I gather from watching your videos, you now have to make these from scratch. The Crawley formula looked good for 35mm. I guess that's the FX-15. How does one get your book, by the way?

[@ML-rm3vk]

Sir one fine video great insight on my favorite film than you .a yank peace

[@PictorialPlanet]

Cheers ML although I think autocorrect got involved?

[@nickfanzo]

1:3 dilution looks really good. How do you feel about 1:3 on 400 speed films. Would you consider the grain too apparent for those speeds? I’m going to give it a shot, I usually go with 1:1

[@PictorialPlanet]

The grain will be apparent and sharp, which might suit some photographs.

[@ccoppola82]

Interesting. It almost looks like the 1+3 lost 1/2 stop on the shadows. Have you ever considered doing a variation of the Vestal divided D76 and reduce the sulfite and replacing the borax with something like sodium Carbonate? It might boost sharpness and contrast while also acting as a compensating developer due to its 2 bath nature. I

[@PictorialPlanet]

For two bath I recommend Thornton’s metol two bath. Check out that video.

[@ccoppola82]

@@PictorialPlanet I use that as well usually but I bump the metaborate to get a bit higher contrast. I print on a diffuser enlarger and it helps a bit I think.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Good to know. I did some tests on Thornton’s idea of changing the metaborate level for higher and lower contrast. It’s an interesting idea. One can also increase time in the A bath because development is actually happening (just as D23 develops with just sulphite as the accelerator).

[@ccoppola82]

@@PictorialPlanet do you think extended time in bath A might boost mid tone contrast while increased metaborate in bath b might increase overall contrast? The d23 like bath A is slow working…so I feel like it isn’t impacting highlight density as much as it is letting the mid tones slowly building density. Interesting concept. May have to play with that.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Have a play and see what you can get.

[@martinjones1390]

Hi John, when I've used D-76 / ID11 recently it has always been at 1+1 dilution. This is because way back in 1980 I processed a roll of HP5 in ID11 at 1+3 and got very grainy results which put me off the 1+3 dilution. (Didn't help that I developed it for 23 mins at 20C; how's that for note keeping). At that time I didn't know that the concentration of Sodium Sulphite had an impact on grain size through solvent activity. Bearing in mind that 400ml of working strength D-76 at 1+3 has 10g of Sulphite compared to 40g Sulphite in stock solution and 20g Sulphite in 1+1, would it be worthwhile boosting the amount of sulphite in the 1+3 working solution, by 5g, to assist in taming the grain. I like the increased acutance and compensating properties of the 1+3 dilution but would be keen to try and keep the grain under control. Would it be practicable to add and dissolve 5g Sodium Sulphite to the 1+3 working developer just prior to processing? I'd like to have my cake and eat it, as it were.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thanks for this Martin! 1. You are a great note keeper! 2. There's a limit of 80-85g per litre (or less) sulphite for sharpness with Barry Thornton 2-bath, ANSCO 17, MQ Borax and more being good examples. Above that amount, the image sharpness is degraded through re-plating of the silver. 3. Love that you want to try adding sulphite. Try it, you might well perfect a better developer!

[@martinjones1390]

@@PictorialPlanet Thanks John, I'm currently using pre-packaged developers but have been enjoying all of your videos and I think it's about time I started making my own developers. I'm particularly keen on replenished D23 and Perceptol clones. (I like fine grain and a long tonal range in my negs.) The pyro developer are attractive but I'm concerned about the toxicity of pyragallol / pyrocachetin. I'll get my feet wet first with the simpler formulas.

[@gerardodalchielelueiro6818]

Excelent and usefull your video I ask you about How calculate the time, how many percent applied over the times sugested for films on D76 stok or 1+1 ?? Best regards from ARGENTINA

[@PictorialPlanet]

Good question and one I have no answer to but you might be able to calculate it from my FP4+ experience. Stock = 8.5mins, 1+1 = 11 mins, 1+3 = 20 mins.

[@timothyberkeley]

As I am about to try and find my personal film speed for HP5 would you suggest 1+3 as the developer. I seem to remember that compensating developers were not recommended for the zone system.

[@PictorialPlanet]

You can find your personal film speed with 1+3 no problem but as you point out it’s harder to use with the zone system. If you want to use the zone system stick with 1+1 or 1+2 or better still try a pyro developer like 510 and use at 1+100 or pyrocat at 1+1+100 - both are excellent for zone system work with fine grain and high acutance.

[@timothyberkeley]

@@PictorialPlanet Thanks so much for your reply. Really enjoying your book and would like to try different developers. As I am new to this I wanted to keep things simple so went with ID11 / HP5. I am using the original formula and is all I have chemicals for. However as long as I am consistent, I don't see why I shouldn't just start this zone system project with a pyro dev and HP5.

[@dbw]

Quite surprised at the difference between all three John. Would you expect to see simialr results with D23 at 1+3 ?

[@PictorialPlanet]

Yes, D23 acts in a very similar way, maybe even a little more acutance at 1+3.

[@dbw]

@@PictorialPlanet Thanks John, I shall try D23 at 1+3 today

[@dbw]

John, if developing a single roll of 35mm in a peterson tank, at 1+3 you would use 100ml of D76 and 300ml of water. Is 100ml of D76 enough?. I thought there was a minimum amount of developer required.

[@PictorialPlanet]

It’s plenty, I’ve done it many times and had beautiful negs.

[@firstwitness5735]

The main disadvantage of diluted D76 is a lack of tonality . Especially visible after making darkroom print. Borut Peterlin showed it on his channel.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Yes, with metol developers sharpness and contrast can be increased but there’s a loss of soft long tonality. However, I’ve found pyro as well as vit. C developers seem to give the best of both worlds.

[@OrelRussia]

@@PictorialPlanet how would you rank the BT2B developer in terms of a soft long tonality?

[@PictorialPlanet]

BT2B is a lovely D23 type two bath developer. Good tonality and pretty sharp.

[@OrelRussia]

@@PictorialPlanet thank you, John!

[@PictorialPlanet]

Yes, recommended!

[@ksdanny1]

Thank you, would the same apply with ID-11?

[@PictorialPlanet]

Yes it would.

[@MD-en3zm]

Is it possible to dilute D76 (or other solvent developers like xtol), but add some sulfite to the diluted developer so as to soften the grain? I’d prefer more of a compensating developer than stock gives, but sometimes, depending on the film, I might want to minimize the grain.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Never tried doing that. Why not give it a go and see. Let's us all know if your results 👍

[@MD-en3zm]

@@PictorialPlanet Any idea for a rough amount to start with for testing? Just a guess to get me started. Would sodium sulfite be the best option? Also I was reading about the history of microdol-x, and apparently in some cases, adding salt can actually reduce grain (regular NaCl) - so that’s another thing to try. Not sure if it’s the Na or Cl ions that have that effect.

[@PictorialPlanet]

I don't know how much you might try but it's an interesting experiment.

[@richardstollar4291]

Does the 1+3 then become a single-shot developer?

[@PictorialPlanet]

Yes, any dilution of this developer makes it one shot.

[@tmstone835]

I'm concerned about the accuracy of your comparison. The scanned negatives at stock and 1:1 appear to have approximately the same exposure or a comparable ISO. The 1:3 image appears to have less exposure or less effective ISO because of the higher dilution. I think your highlights in the latter aren't blown out because of the lower effective exposure. All of the foreground is darker, too. The sharpness comparisons are accurate as far as I can tell.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Good observations. The darkness of the foreground I think is because of mid tone compression that this dilution exacerbates. The less sky exposure is because of developer exhaustion (aka compensation) at the high dilution. There could be a light decrease in EI too.

[@kendesantis7319]

Another great video! I’ll have to give 1+3 a try but I think the times will make me stick with 1+1. On a side note the bagpipe music you have for the intro/outro is a little loud. I find myself turning the sound down for that then back up for the rest of the video.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thanks Ken, I’ll lower the music. Much appreciated my friend,

[@nickfanzo]

Any videos on rodinal?

[@PictorialPlanet]

No, although I make and use it a lot. But it's all in my book.

[@nickfanzo]

@@PictorialPlanet I use it a lot too. Like to experiment with it and I use fp4 at 800 iso with it

[@zhijiawang9007]

I believe I saw a Pelikan in the video.

[@PictorialPlanet]

I bet you did!

[@vinyljunkie07]

You don't mention developer capacity. I've used ID11 for years (it's pretty much the same as D76 no?) and never paid attention to this as I don't think it's mentioned but having flicked through the Kodak D76 data sheet more recently they say you need a minimum of 236ml of stock solution per roll of film.. So aprox 500ml for one roll at 1+1 and 1L at 1+3 for one roll

[@PictorialPlanet]

I, like you, used ID11 and Perceptol for many years and there was never a mention of minimum amounts per film and I've always had sterling results with no hint of underdevelopment if the correct development time is given. I don't know why Kodak thought this but other manufacturers didn't. Geoffrey Crawley, too, never mentioned a minimum in his public domain developers, certainly none that I can remember reading. I'm sure Crawley and Ilford will have done exhaustive testing.

[@vinyljunkie07]

@@PictorialPlanet Yea I agree unless there is something we don't know about :/ Ilford's own HP5 data sheet is also a bit weird giving different times for ID11 and D76 yet other films sharing the same times. I questioned them about it and got a very ohh that was done a long time ago answer lol This is what they said; "Yes ID11 and D76 are essentially the same thing, however there are some differences and of course formulations can change / diverge over time as they are modified to suit legislation, changing raw material supply etc... ID11 is a two part developer D76 formulated as single part. Our times are based on our own internal testing, they were mostly done many years ago! "

[@shamikchoudhury5924]

To me 1+1 works best for me.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Excellent!

[@martin-f5482]

btw. what's about HC 110?

[@PictorialPlanet]

Not a bad developer at all but I like to talk about developers one can make at home for my channel.

[@martin-f5482]

@@PictorialPlanet understood, thanks

[@andyvan5692]

nice video, BUT you don't tell us what format the negatives were, as a reference to the images, as larger negatives would make a diference, as there is more grain, and silver to develop, and would be presumably sharper.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thanks Andy and I'm sorry to have missed that point. They were 35mm. I used my Pentax MX with Pentax 50mm 1.7 lens.

[@andyvan5692]

@@PictorialPlanet Yes, you have mentioned in video 3 of this series, but not before, and as the camera shooting the "experiment" was soo far away, couldn't see what the camera was on the tripod.

[@nevilleholmes1324]

@@PictorialPlanet A perfect combination for 35mm, in my biased opinion!

[@raybeaumont7670]

I've always preferred ID11 to D76 as it seems to be slightly softer working. The 1+3 dilution is my goto - 14mins for FP4+ in my local Welsh Water.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Thanks for the comment, Ray. That's very interesting. There's always been some speculation around the difference between the two, as sold now.

[@raybeaumont7670]

@@PictorialPlanet I've used ID11 for years - since Johnsons Unitol bit the dust. I was always under the impression that ID11 uses Tetraborate while D76 uses Metaborate. ??

[@PictorialPlanet]

According to the D-76 SDS it contains tetraborate also (www.freestylephoto.biz/static/pdf/msds/kodak/Kodak_Alaris_SDS_US_English_-_D76_Developer_1058270.pdf)

[@raybeaumont7670]

@@PictorialPlanet Damn! I'm getting a "page not found" message from your link John.

[@PictorialPlanet]

Try this: uwaterloo.ca/fine-arts/sites/ca.fine-arts/files/uploads/files/kodak_d-76_developer_cat1230937.pdf