>
> For me, its not a question of cost but one of: convenience and consistancy.
>
> D76, is an excellent *classic* developer that has withstood the test of
> time. But, if you want to use D76 then you have to start from powder. For
> health reasons, I've been avoiding mixing up chemicals from powder *if* a
> liquid alternative is available. Even if you are careful it's hard to
> avoid some dust escaping that will react with your negatives and lungs. Why
> take the chance if it is unecessary? A very good friend of mine can't even
> visit the darkroom anymore since she has developed contact dermatitis from
> sloshing around too much in Dektol (I've suggested that she take up
> Platinum printing since there is no HQ or Metol). I find working with the
> liquid concentrates to be faster as well. This leaves me a little more of
> my precious time for the creative aspects of image making
.
Your friend may find that working with phenidone based developers that
eliminate the metol would allow her back into the darkroom.
>
> The other problem with D76 is consistancy. Unless you are developing a
> *lot* of negatives and are using your concentrate up right away, you will
> find after a month or so that your D76 will gradually become more active!
> This was studied by some chemists at Kodak a number of years back. Maybe
> someone will recall a reference to it (maybe Camera and Dar
kroom 5 years ago).
We found a measurable pH increase in stock D-76 three days after mixing
it. It is notoriously unstable. Kodak actually put out a new recipe that
they called D-76D which was a buffered formula to stabilize the pH
increase, but I don't think it was ever offered as a product.
>
> I buy the large container of T-Max developer concentrate and process all my
> B&W film (TMax and FP4 plus) with this developer in my Jobo. I go through
> a large container of concentrate yearly and I find that it is "good to the
> last drop". I am using the ordinary T-max developer (not the RS version
> --never had the dichroic fog problem) in my Jobo processor with totally
> predictable results. I still make bad negatives but the problems are not
> from pr
ocessing anymore.
Maybe it is the altitude here in Taos, but I have been very happy with
the results I have been getting with T-Max 100 and the RS version of the
developer. It is the only replenishment system I know of that uses itself
as the replenisher rather than a more powerful version of the original
developer. This means that you cannot overreplenish, and unlike other
systems don't need to monitor the developers activity with control strips.
And I really like the way my prints look, which of course is the most
important consideration. BTW, I have been replenishing the same half
gallon of T-Max RS for two years now. That seems stable enough for me.
>
> All things considered, I'm finding that I'm spending a lot more money on
> film and archival negative sheets than on my chemicals.
>
> Robert Hudyma, Semi-Tech Corporation, 131 McNabb Street,
> Markham Ontario, Canada L3R 5V7. Fax: (905) 475-3652
> Email: rhudyma@netcom.ca (or rhudyma@aol.com when travelling).
>
> If you're not living on the edge, then you're taking up too much space.
>
Thanks for your comments, I'm with ya.
John