Rodinal vs Kodak D76 Vs D96 with Double X (5222) | The Darkroom Knight

[@bisaillion]

I could be wrong, but I think you can reuse a stock 1:1 D76 and D96 for as long as the solution hasn't expired. So you can develop as many rolls of film within that timeframe as you like. If you're operating a business developing other people's film, the powder chemistry is by far the most economical for this reason.

[@joeltunnah]

D76 and D96 are solvent developers, so yes they have less grain because they dissolve the silver away. Rodinal is a non-solvent developer, so it gives you the full film grain - it doesn’t add grain as some mistakingly say. That’s why it’s also one of the sharpest developers, with great edge detail. And it’s “compensating” meaning it exhausts itself in the highlights quickly, but keeps developing in the shadows so you get more detail. This effect is increased dramatically at 1+50, and so much at 1+100 with stand development that your film essentially becomes ISO invariant. That means you can shoot your double X at ISO 200, 400, and 800 all on the same roll, and after an hour with no agitation they will all turn out with essentially normal exposure. It’s pretty magical.🧙‍♂️ Before I switched completely to stand development, I developed Eastman 5222 in Rodinal 1:50 for 9 minutes, agitation 10s each minute. Wonderful film. Grain is good.

[@AzrielKnight]

Thanks for the tips :)

[@terrymartin9642]

I agree with the higher dilutions and longer times. The D76/D96 'fine' grain just looks lumpy and fuzzy to me in my Minox and 16mm cameras. And I can do other things while stand/semi-stand development. Terry

[@julescannify]

Regarding powder developers. After initial mixing of stock solution I store it in a glass amber bottle and use the VacVin system to ensure a vacuum in the bottle. The pump and stoppers are very cheap, and work perfectly. My last bottle of Perceptol was still fresh after two years, when I used it to develop another film. Perfect result.

[@laugary8186]

Great comparison Video.D76 and D96 very close.Thank you .

[@AzrielKnight]

Thanks Lau!

[@weebz666]

On the note of cost, another thing to keep in mind is that you can do 'replenishment' with D76. Basically you use undiluted stock solution, and dump a small amount for each roll and top off(replenish) with fresh chemistry. Example of how I do it, I use XTOL, but the same process works for D76accordion style bottles to help limit the amount of air as it gets used. When you develop, you use the full volume from the working stock, say 500ml for 2 rolls of 35mm. After your done, you will add 140ml(70ml/roll) of the replenisher back into the working stock bottle, and top off with chemistry from the tank with the leftover 140~ml going down the drain. This is both more cost effective, and extends the life of your chemistry. My current working stock was first mixed in 2017 and since we are adding fresh chemistry to it each time can go on almost forever. TL;DR: Look into replenishment. Once you have replenishment set up you're only using about 70ml of chemistry a roll. This comes out to about 18¢/roll USD for D76, or 16¢/roll for XTOL.

[@AzrielKnight]

I've read that, and also heard of D76R which is a slightly different formula. Can you provide links to back up your numbers, I'd be curious to look into it.

[@weebz666]

@@AzrielKnight It seems I was mistaken on the D76 front. There used to be a dedicated D76 replenisher(D76-R), but Kodak no longer makes it. I've always used XTOL and had been told D76 was the same process, I guess they were wrong. The little Googling I did seems to point people over to XTOL that where doing replenished D76. As far as my numbers for XTOL, in the US a 5L mix of Xtol is $12. This mix would give about 72 rounds of replenishment, so 72 rolls. Which comes out to a little over 16¢/roll. Theres a bit in tech sheet J-109 about XTOL replenishment, bottom of pg 4 imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/J-109_Feb_2018.pdf A conversation about the XTOL replenishment process on Photrio www.photrio.com/forum/threads/replenishing-xtol-developer.17903/

[@SinaFarhat]

Great job with the comparison! I would go with d76 as it is already my favourite developer and none of my personal film photos are that important where I would need a special developer in order to get the most out of the roll! Also, I go with the attitude that if I need photos that are critical for my job then the DSLR is the solution, my film photos is my hobby! Keep up the good work!

[@AzrielKnight]

Thanks Sina!

[@pioni2]

My experience with crystallized R09 has been blank negatives. I don't know if it matters who made the bottle of Rodinal, but the Fomadon R09 does not have the shelf life associated with Rodinal.

[@AzrielKnight]

That really sucks Toni.

[@iainmc9859]

Okay, after a couple of years of self-developing (yes, I've realised I'm a very shallow person) I've eventually had to come to the decision that shelf life is my key factor. I'm developing colour and b&w in equal measure, about one roll per fortnight on average. Chem's just don't last long enough to get the full value of them. Thus one shot developer, bleach and fix looks like the most cost efficient route (its pronounced 'root', honestly ;-). Any recommendations for either colour or b&w? I shoot a variety of film in a variety of cameras so I'm looking for chem's that do a good all round job, rather than specific to film, speed or make. I'm also strongly considering making my own chem's in small quantities from scratch from dry ingredients. Any advice in this department? I'm just sick of pouring a litre of chem's down the sink after only having got five rolls out of it and my last development having failed. Are there any others suffering from this quandary and how did they get around it?

[@AzrielKnight]

Sorry, I've usually ended up with extra chems at the end myself. Closest I come is D76, developing stock. I develop between 4 to 6 rolls of film per month. I've never mixed my own chems, so I can't help you there.

[@lloydgarland4667]

Always loved D76/ID11 with FP4 or TriX, my developer of choice to be honest.

[@AzrielKnight]

Thanks for the comment Lloyd, always enjoy your input.

[@lloydgarland4667]

@@AzrielKnight Nice of you to say sir, stay safe :)

[@IRK-pd7lc]

Was staring at the grains in the comparison scene for like 3 entire minutes before I realized I was looking at Calgary.

[@AzrielKnight]

lol, priorities.

[@alexfromthebar2420]

Very interesting topic have you ever used monobaths? Keep up the great content.

[@AzrielKnight]

I have never used a monobath but would like to.

[@alexfromthebar2420]

@@AzrielKnight have heard good things about df96 get supposedly 16 films out of it.

[@srfurley]

Of course, 5222 and d-96 are normally used in continuous automatic processors, I’m not sure what temperature these normally run at? This is quite different in terms of agitation to processing a short length of film in a small tank. In motion picture laboratories the developer would be continuously monitored and replenished, not used on a one-shot basis. How much difference do you think this would make? I believe that D-76 and ID-11 were also originally designed for motion picture use where a fine grain developer was required due to the small negative size compared to typical still camera formats of the time. These developers have been around for a long time; I’m not sure if when they were introduced continuous processors were in use or if motion picture film was still being developed by winding it around pins in a board and dunking the whole think in a tank of developer, which would be closer to the, way that you are developing your film.

[@AzrielKnight]

Based on experiments I have done in the past, continuous agitation would give higher contrast. Beyond that I am not sure.

[@JefferyAHoward]

Great Video. Rodinal always seems to do at least a decent job, and it does so very easily, consistently and cheaply. I have used other developers from time to time, but Rodinal is the old reliable.

[@AzrielKnight]

Agreed!

[@lilkngstr]

D76 and D96 are in the same family, the difference is in the ratios of the 4 main ingredients and the addition of a restrainer (KBr) in D96. My understanding is that the KBr is what results in the better midtones/flesh tones, which is why it replaced D76 back in the day for cinema. For stills, I like that there are different looks with different developers, but for people shots, I liked the Cs D96 look enough, that I bought the ingredients and mixed my own D96 with replenisher. Mixing your own chemicals is like bulk loading. You come up with lots of excuses on why not to do it, but once you do it, you kick yourself for not doing it sooner.

[@Uwe_Ludolf]

I think ID-11 is my second favourite, after Ilford Ilfosol 3. This developer has the disadvantage of a quite short shelf life, so you need to develop quite some roles to use it all. (At 1+14, 30 rolls of 120). So because the powder lasts forever and 1L stock is just 8 rolls, (1+3 120) ID-11 is the developer in which I souped most of my rolls, and I like it with my most used films: FP4+ and HP5+. Sometimes you need to treat yourself so last week I bought 5 rolls Acros II and a bottle Ilfosol. I didn't use Ilfosol in a while but I must say that I don't miss the 20 minutes developing time of ID-11. I never used Xtol, but I bought a pack of Adox XT-3 which is like Xtol but without quality issues. I'll give it a try once the Ilfosol is finished.

[@kstrohmeier]

I like to shoot and develop B&W film, but I don't shoot enough to not waste d76 developer when I mix up a batch. I use Rodinal but I don't always want the grain. Have you ever tried mixing up a smaller portion of the powder and storing the unused powder? With modern digital scales I think it would be relatively easy to do the math and mix up a 25% batch.

[@AzrielKnight]

I've heard people measuring out their D76 or whatnot but the issue is the chems are "loose" it's not just a bag of D76 for example, if that makes sense, so you may end up with lopsided proportions.

[@donaldjr1969]

I personally would recommend that rather than you trying to measure out smaller proportions of a bag of D76, mix up the gallon at once but pour it into four 1quart bottles. If your using plastic bottles, squeeze them until the liquid comes to the very top, and them cap it. Keep the other three in a cool place and then work with the other quart. You’ll get more life from that. If all you want is 1qt at a time, why not find the recipe, buy the bulk chemicals, and measure out the right amount for 1qt.

[@kstrohmeier]

@@donaldjr1969 That is a very interesting idea. Fun homework ahead!

[@thedondeluxe6941]

Very interesting!

[@AzrielKnight]

Thanks Don!

[@Socrates...]

Thank you so much

[@AzrielKnight]

you're welcome :)

[@berkeleygang1834]

US (B&H) vs. Canadian prices: Kodak D76, 1 G/3.8l = $9.95US vs. $13CAD (as stated) Cinestill D96 1l = $5.99. Not sure what brand D96 you used/have available in Canada, $10CAD Rodinal: Adox Adonal 500ml = $11.49US vs. Blazinol (Couldn't find in US) 500ml = $24.87CAD The difference in price skews the price per roll, "which is left as an exercise to the student" (as my many professors used to taunt us). :) Great job with the comparison. I wish Double X was available in 120. I might have to do a similar comparison between Photographer's Formulary Divided D76 (my current go-to) and Cinestill Df96 (monobath version of D96).

[@AzrielKnight]

Converting your numbers so it's all in CAD Kodak D76, 1 G/3.8l = $12.44 vs. $13 Cinestill D96 1l = $7.49. Not sure what brand D96 you used/have available in Canada, $10CAD Rodinal: Adox Adonal $14.37vs. $24.87CAD As I mentioned you'll find a better deal the more you shop. to be fair you didn't account for shipping from cinestill, which would shoot that price over $10 in most cases, depending on how much you order. I also wish it came in 120 :)

[@berkeleygang1834]

@@AzrielKnight I usually fill up my orders from B&H with film to achieve free shipping. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[@lvikng57]

I didn't like doubleX until I used rodinal, something about the grain on it doesn't look good to me until rodinal makes it more exaggerated 😂

[@AzrielKnight]

Thanks for the comment :)

[@Shanesshiit]

Maybe D96 is more consistent when your actually using it for motion picture and not single frame? I can hardly tell the difference. I think I also need to stop using one shot dev, I didn't realize it made it clumpier..

[@AzrielKnight]

I'm not sure Shane, that is a good question. Someone else mentioned it was done in constant agitation which would be a higher contrast image.

[@terrymartin9642]

Wasn't 76 derived from D96? Terry

[@AzrielKnight]

Not sure, actually. But I wouldn't be surprised.

[@toomuchrose]

No. D76 was formulated for movie films first, D96 didn't appear until a few years later. The problem with D76 is that it becomes more active over time and it has a tendency to blow highlights. D96 is a lower contrast version of D76 that doesn't increase in activity over time that is designed to be used in large movie film processors that use constant agitation. Using it in small tanks without constant agitation will not give the best results. When movie film is shot and developed the requirement is for a negative that can be copied to produce a positive. When you copy a negative onto another film the contast level always be slightly higher, so a lower contrast original is preferred. Remember also that movie film is designed to be copied onto another film to make a positive and that positive frame size, for normal widescreen aspect ratio 2.35:1, is only 0.866 inches x 0.732 inches. This is then projected onto a screen over a thousand times bigger. If you project a single frame that size obviously the film grain would be very visible, but because movie flm is projected at 24 frames per second the grain becomes almost invisible because the movement of the image smooths out the grain.

[@totalrecone]

It's the Rodinal for me. Blacks that are denser than Cledus the Slack-Jawed Yokel and a sharpness that will take your arm off. I'm also biased (a bit)

[@AzrielKnight]

lol, yup, it all comes down to taste :)

[@8andre3]

Can you make a video on Fomapan200? It's really cheap and so underrrated

[@AzrielKnight]

I will def get around to it, I've heard good things.

[@8andre3]

@@AzrielKnight The 100 version has similar tone with a slightly finer grain, but I prefer the 200 contrasti

[@markuslarjomaa3122]

@@8andre3 Fomapan 100 and 200 are radically different type of films, the difference is absolutely not just one stop ISO :)

[@8andre3]

@@markuslarjomaa3122 I shot 1 roll of Foma 100 and had really similar results when compared to the 200. Both developed at Rodinal, both shot in a sunny day

[@poniatowski3547]

I’ve started making d76 from scratch, makes it cheaper again. Can’t beat HC for quick and simple though.

[@AzrielKnight]

I've considered it but taking my time into account it's not cheaper, for me.

[@julescannify]

Rodinal is an acutance developer whereas D76 is a fine grain developer. Very different animals.

[@AzrielKnight]

Yes!

[@alanhuntley55]

The cost of D96 can be significantly reduced, if you mix it yourself.

[@AzrielKnight]

Possibly, but many people don't account for their time, which to me is more valuable.