Another Dumb D23 Thread

[pentaxuser]

Just my thought but I have used Perceptol at 1+3 in a 250ml tank so that was only 62ml of stock and the prints were fine. I thought they all looked sharp but as I have never used Perceptol at stock solution I am not in a position to compare

I simply mention my experience with Perceptol as it may be similar to D23 so maybe a similar stock amount of D23 will suffice. In John Finch's video he has a comments section which is a Qand A and in response to the question: "Is Perceptol a fancy D23 formula" he says simply "Yes" j

Mind you some might say that to get away with 62ml I had to be in league with the Devil. Sometimes it pays to keep the wrong company

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Just my thought but I have used Perceptol at 1+3 in a 250ml tank so that was only 62ml of stock and the prints were fine.

But was there any bright near white English beach scenes in your shots ?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

We have a vacation trip coming up. I will bring HP5+ and FP4+ in 35mm as well as PanF in 120. This will all be processed in full-strength, replenished D23 with constant roller agitation. There will of course be bright sun, cloudy days, and maybe some attempts at indoor architecture. I'm pretty new to D23, and just so I can thoroughly confuse myself, what Exposure Index would you recommend for each of these.

If a roll includes direct sunlight scenes, full strength developer and constant agitation are far from optimal. Fine for overcast.
PanF at EI25 means tripod. FP4+ at EI64 very shallow depth of field if handheld. HP5+ EI250 is OK for good light.
You could pick one single camera for sun, and with that camera you can do overcast and indoors scenes too without problem, with a soft development for sun control. Other camera(s) for soft light and no high contrast scenes, so you can develop those rolls as you said... Sunny scenes will be only a minority, so that'll be easy to do with more attention when you're back.
Enjoy your trip!

 

[pentaxuser]

But was there any bright near white English beach scenes in your shots ?

What bright near white English beaches?

pentaxuser

 

[pbromaghin]

And now for some results. I chose to go with HP5, FP4 and PanF at 1/2 box speed and process in D23 1+1 intermittent agitation. Here is the first roll of PanF through the Voigtlander Bessa 1 6x9 with the Color Skopar. It turned out to have the dreaded Ilford Snow defect. These, at least, were in pretty good mid-morning sunny light.

1)

 

[pbromaghin]

2)

 

[pbromaghin]

3)

 

[pbromaghin]

4

 

[ags2mikon]

Was that old film? I have had the same problem with old Pan F.

 

[pbromaghin]

Was that old film? I have had the same problem with old Pan F.

It was the oldest one of the three I shot. I don’t remember exactly if it was expired or not. I’ve never shot panf in 120 before so they are all of fairly recent vintage. This roll was in the best light and looks to me to be the most well done so it is a pretty big disappointment.

More results to come with the other 2 and 15 rolls of Surfing on hp5.

 

[removedacct1]

The only time I've ever seen negative mottling on Pan F is when its expired and/or stored at room temperature for a long time.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have a stash in my freezer. I probably should start using it... Mind you, it's still within its expiry date.

 

[ags2mikon]

@pbromaghin, your images have lovely tones. I can understand why you are disappointed. I have used a lot of Pan-F over the years and developed it in Perceptol, and it is basically D-23 with a little salt added. I have had Pan-F that was old do the snow thing too. Pan-F in perceptol or D-23 is a great combination.

 

[pentaxuser]

I can see to a greater extent in some than in the other shots what I think you are referring to as snow but none in the first one. However other than that the PanF and D23 @ 1+1 looks like a very good combo


pentaxuser

 

[pbromaghin]

I can see to a greater extent in some than in the other shots what I think you are referring to as snow but none in the first one. However other than that the PanF and D23 @ 1+1 looks like a very good combo


pentaxuser

oh, it's there and just as bad as the others. Only a little bit of magnification will make it abundantly apparent in the sky.

I took Analogue Andy's recommendation to shoot at 1/2 instead of box speed and to use the 1+1/intermittent agitation instead of full-strength and constant on the roller. I have no PanF to compare with from before, but am interested to see how the Hp5 compares. I thought the grain looked pretty muddy in my earlier try and was close to calling it a failed experiment and going back to D76.

 

[pbromaghin]

The other 2 rolls of Panf were in fine shape, but I really don't like the lighting. It was at the old Pt Loma lighthouse. Again, I shot at ISO 25 and processed in D23 1+1 with intermittent agitation.

 

[pbromaghin]

 

[pbromaghin]

 

[Donald Qualls]

I think that's the agitation Pan F+ likes in that developer, anyway.

 

[pbromaghin]

I have been wondering if anybody knows what effect there might be by using straight D23 Replenisher at 1+1 - Metol, Sodium Sulfite and a pinch of Sodium metaborate? Sort of Thornton's 2-bath, but in a single bath. I still have several tolls of Hp5 and Fp4 in 35mm from this trip, all shot at 1/2 speed in anticipation of using D23.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Mmm likely extra grain and probably unintended contrast/density. With that San Diego light if you need more pop, I suggest a batch of Adox Borax M-Q, which is what I've moved towards after a good spell of D-23.

 

[ags2mikon]

I'm not sure what your question is, but I'll try. I have used D23 1:1 and mixed the replenisher DK25r also 1:1 and replenished at 22cc per roll. The first 2 L batch died at 20 rolls. The second 2 L batch died at 14 rolls so I stopped. I now just use it 1:1 or 1:3 one shot. If your contrast is to low you need to increase the time. What works for Perceptol / Microdol x works for D23.

 

[retina_restoration]

There is no advantage to using the replenisher as a developer, rather than just using D-23. For one, you'd have to do a lot of testing to measure results and calibrate to achieve reproducibility and a Gamma that fits your process.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

No one can give you a definitive answer to your question since your own, individual E.I. will depend on your equipment, metering techniques, etc. You'll never really know unless you test yourself to find your best E.I..

That said, rating your film 2/3 stop slower than box speed is usually a good starting point for testing. If I had to work with untested film, I'd likely expose it there; a bit of overexposure is no problem, but underexposure is.

As far as using roll film in situations with substantially different subject brightness ranges, you just have to be very careful metering and compensating for very contrasty situations. If you are spot metering and basing your exposure on a shadow value, then there are no problems, but if you are using an in-camera averaging/matrix meter, the camera will tend to underexpose of contrasty scenes. Add a stop of extra exposure with your exposure compensation or whatever to compensate.

Best,

Doremus

ditto

 

[Donald Qualls]

DK-25R has slightly less metol than D-23, but the metaborate produces a somewhat lower pH -- end result, it ought to work at about the same speed as D-23 at the same dilution and produce similar results (hence being a useful replenisher), but costs more to make. On that basis alone I don't see an advantage over D-23 either stock or 1+1 -- but you could say that about a bunch of popular developers and formulae...