Las Cruces-- 4 hours from Santa Fe.
I've never actually seen a real-world optical print except for my own beginner attempts.
MDC is the worst place to find reliable information on D-23.
Good practice with D-23 is to start with ID-11/D-76 times. I add 10%-15% to that time, as D-23 gives negatives with is a bit less contrast than the other two. I've noticed a slight speed loss with D-23, so I rate my film 1/3 stop slower.
Use one shot 1:1 dilution.
You can re-use the stock solution, up to a certain point, after which it's best to replenish with DK-25. Replenished D-23 is a great developer.
Now we need to discuss contact printing large format negatives on print out paper (POP) followed by toning with gold chloride.
Yikes. D23 sounds like a better next step.
Yikes it right. This has all turned into exactly the kind of thing OP should be avoiding. It never fails.
Now we need to discuss contact printing large format negatives on print out paper (POP) followed by toning with gold chloride.
Yikes. D23 sounds like a better next step.
You say that like it's a bad thing....
The second is Martin Levy's POTA formula: 30g anhydrous sodium sulfite, 1.5g phenidone, diluted to 1L.
... while POTA is a very low-contrast developer that requires long development times (and degrades quickly, intended for one-time use).
Alright. I've been reading about POTA and I think I'm up to speed.
It's an interesting, but definitely unusual developer. Shelf life of 1 hour, and most often associated with trying to use super high contrast technical films like Kodak Technical Pan for regular photography.
I've put a mental pin on the idea. I have a document where I keep notes and I added an entry about POTA with the recipe so I don't forget what I've learned. For the time being, I'm going to focus on "normal" developers. I can try POTA any time that I'm feeling adventurous.
I'm going to ask a dumb question. Thank you for being patient with me:
If I'm going to use D-23 at 1+1 dilution, should I add 10-15% to the time for D-76 stock or D-76 at 1+1 dilution? I'm guessing it's the latter, but I'd rather ask than lose a roll.
For now I'm going to use all developers "one shot" to remove one source of complexity.
POTA was formulated by Levy in an attempt to get as wide an exposure range as possible out of the emulsions of the day. It’s not a developer OP should bother messing with.
I agree partially with the advice above from Retina Restoration - up until the walk before you run part which can give one the impression say D-76 or Rodinal are things for beginners which should be learnt before moving on to the fancy, more sophisticated (or worse, “better”) stuff for the big boys. Really, really, very much the wrong interpretation.
My opinion is just one among many. Feel free to ignore that "advice".
I don't typically say that sort of thing to anyone, but the OP seemed to be a bit too eager to wander into the Land Of The Exotics, for no sound reason other than his fascination with the chemistry of B&W developing. As you yourself have just pointed out, POTA is a special purpose developer that is not something "OP should bother messing with", so all I intended was to suggest that OP spend more of his time and energy learning the essential aspects of B&W film processing and spend less chasing after the sophisticated stuff. Surely that's not bad advice?
POTA was formulated by Levy in an attempt to get as wide an exposure range as possible out of the emulsions of the day. It’s not a developer OP should bother messing with.
I agree partially with the advice above from Retina Restoration - up until the walk before you run part which can give one the impression say D-76 or Rodinal are things for beginners which should be learnt before moving on to the fancy, more sophisticated (or worse, “better”) stuff for the big boys. Really, really, very much the wrong interpretation.
I can see that you’re curious about photo chemistry and the “fringe” developers and techniques. That’s great, but I urge you to “learn to walk before you run” - ie: don’t be seduced by the exotic outliers when there’s so much to be learned within the realm of “normal” processes.
MP that's very much your interpretation....nowhere does RR imply that normal processes are inferior, or for beginners....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?