Could plain D-23 still be good choice?

[Usagi]

I am long term D-76 and later XTOL user, but as I have moved towards to tray and tank development (with 4x5) which requires larger volumes of developer, I am thinking to mixing developer myself. It should cut costs.


Why D-23? Because it was formulated for replacing D-76 which wasn't robust enough for big commercial labs (according to Anchell&Troop: The Film Developing Cookbook). D-23 is also perhaps easiest developer to mix and it's activity doesn't change during storage.

I have used D-23 only as two bath so far, so I don't know practically anything about it's performance as single bath developer - diluted to 1+1 or 1+2.
By the searching this forum, I found out the long developing times (shouldn't be problem as I have to develop on 24 degree celsius).

Is there something else that makes D-23 significantly worse when compared to D-76 or XTOL?

(perhaps Rodinal would be cheapest option, but I just can't get even results with rodinal and tank development).

 

[John Wiegerink]

My experience with D-23 is not much different than yours and lately have only been using it divided. Many years ago our college instructor gave us our "what to buy" list and the only developer on it was HC110 so that's what almost all of us bought. He said HC110 and Tri-X were made for each other. Then he tells us about D-23 and how to make it. He told that it has a slight advantage for holding the highlights in a scene(we were studying the zone system at the time), but also said that he only used it for his 4x5 work and we were shooting 35mm. We would have a weekly critique with all our 8x10's on the table. Even at the first critique I noticed the difference in some pictures by a certain young lady. The first one was of a young man, nude, in a huge oak tree on a fairly bright sunny day. It had a certain look to it that was different and I liked it. I first thought that maybe it was the camera/lens, but nope, as she used your everyday Minolta srt101 with a 50mm f1.4(maybe 55mm I can't remember). After about three critique's I got the nerve to ask her what she was doing differently and she told me she was using D-23. I then tried it, but didn't seem to get results that were like hers(she was a very smart student),. When I look back at my procedure I do believe I was slightly over developing my negatives and that could be why. Cost wise, I don't think you will find a cheaper developer for mixing yourself. I also use Rodinal, 1:100 for 120 film, but haven't used it for 4x5. Diluted 1:100 makes it very cheap also and it keeps almost forever. Maybe you should mix a little D-23 up and some Rodinal(say 1:50 or so) and try a couple of sheets of 4x5. I can't speak to the part where D-23 might be better or worse than XTOL simply because I have never used XTOL. JohnW

 

[Ian Grant]

I am long term D-76 and later XTOL user, but as I have moved towards to tray and tank development (with 4x5) which requires larger volumes of developer, I am thinking to mixing developer myself. It should cut costs.


Why D-23? Because it was formulated for replacing D-76 which wasn't robust enough for big commercial labs (according to Anchell&Troop: The Film Developing Cookbook). D-23 is also perhaps easiest developer to mix and it's activity doesn't change during storage.

I have used D-23 only as two bath so far, so I don't know practically anything about it's performance as single bath developer - diluted to 1+1 or 1+2.
By the searching this forum, I found out the long developing times (shouldn't be problem as I have to develop on 24 degree celsius).

Is there something else that makes D-23 significantly worse when compared to D-76 or XTOL?

(perhaps Rodinal would be cheapest option, but I just can't get even results with rodinal and tank development).

D23 was never designed to replace D76, it's not as stable and was never used in commercial processing where D76/ID-11 remained dominant until the 1950's.

Kodak spent many years improving D76 which is why there are quite a number of variants, D76 a, b, c, d, h and many more, essentially they were improving the buffering capabilities for use in large scale processing machines.

Ilford also made a PQ variant of D76/ID-11 and again tried different buffering before releasing the Axford & Kendal PQ Fine Grain developer, later sold as Autophen, a photofinishing developer. This had even greater stability & robustness than D76/ID-11.

Kodak stated that D23 doesn't give quite as fine grain as D76 and they never sold it commercially, it was one of the steps in Kodak's research into super fine grain developers like D25 then Microdol and Microdol-X.

IMHO D32 isn't that good a choice, but then the grain is inherent in modern films and choice of developer has less effect than 40/50 years ago so it does give reasonable results.

Ian

 

[Jim Noel]

IN the 1940's I worked in a photo store darkroom. We used D-23 in a huge deep tank for total development of roll film. The tank held about 100 rolls. We also use D-23 for custom development of sheet film. The major advantages were: no need to replenish or replace, all films were printable unless totally fogged by the photographer, or almost totally lacking in exposure.

Although I commonly use other developers today, I do keep D-23 mixed for occasions when I need to have very careful control of contrast. It is used undiluted as a single bath as well as a 2 bath developer.

 

[whlogan]

D23 is one of the best when used as a 2 bath... 5 min in D23 and 5 min (@ 70 deg F) in a Borax solution(Yes, old 20 Mule team will do just fine).... I've used it for years on all sorts of films with splendid results. A variant is to make D23G which adds about 15 - 30 mg of Glycin to the D23.... my own adjustment. try it and see if you like it... I do...
Logan

 

[CBG]

And there is D-23 diluted 1 to 1, 1 to 2, 1 to 3 etc.

I would guess heavily diluted (like 1 to 3) D-23 would start acting as an acutance developer, but have not yet tried it myself since I am using larger film and issues of grain and acutance aren't as urgent.

 

[removed account4]

where's Anscojohn ?
d23 from what i can remember
is his developer of choice and he has
been using it for decades ..
i hope he chimes in ...

 

[bsdunek]

Maybe my memory is off, but it seems that Ansel favored D-23 - water bath developing. I'd have to go dig out 'The Negative' to be sure. I know my brother used D-23-water bath on 35mm back in the 60's and got some very good results.

 

[dancqu]

Or 1:7

- diluted to 1+1 or 1+2.

Works nicely at 1:7. Try it one-shot. May
be quick enough at 24 C. For starters
say 16 minutes. Dan

 

[Usagi]

As I use 4x5 film, the grain is really not issue. My biggest consern is the tonality. Will the D-23 be much different from the D-76 and XTOL?

Two bath version is very compensating developer but how is the single bath?

 

[Harry Lime]

I'm a big fan of Barry Thornton's 2-bath, which I think is a variation on divided D23 and Stoekler 2-bath. Great developers for anything up to 400asa.

 

[2F/2F]

I have been using D-23 off and on lately after discovering it recently. My conclusions so far are that it is a great simple, cheap, and versatile homebrew that makes an outstanding standard developer. It is both supportive of the low tones and won't go crazy on the high tones, so it helps to give easily printable negatives when you have a roll full of compositions with widely varied brightness ranges. It is cheap and easy to make, and can be made just 1 L at a time if you so choose. It works at many dilutions. I have tried it at 1:7, 1:3, 1:1, and straight, and they all work just fine. It may not give the exact look you want for every picture. (It excels in high-contrast light, IMO, while I prefer HC-110 for low and medium contrast light, as the HC drops the tone of the shadows a bit and gives more "bite" in the middle and high tones.) However, as a standard developer, it does its job by helping to provide very forgiving negs that will give you many options in printing. I would say that in this respect, it is better than both D-76 and HC-110, especially for roll film. I actually find X-Tol to be pretty similar to D-23 in terms of its general look, though I think X-tol gives less graininess and a bit more bite.

 

[nworth]

I've used D-23 a fair amount. I've only used it undiluted, and I usually use a batch for a single session. It is a quite good developer. It has somewhat more compensating action than D-76 undiluted, and some negatives will be a quite a bit different. That may not be quite to the liking of someone who is used to D-76, but the negatives are still quite printable and may be favored by some. The developer has about the same grain properties and as D-76 but is slightly less sharp. Dilution can correct the sharpness to some extent, but it increases the compensating effect, and some negatives may become hard to print.

 

[BetterSense]

I use replenished D23 tons for roll film. In Texas sunlight it really gives nice glowy prints, with particularly fine grain. I use it whenever I don't need maximum speed, because I find it sacrifices some shadow speed. Since I expose roll film rather generously it's not a problem, but I will switch to a different developer if I have underexposed.

It's very easy to mix; I use teaspoons, but there are cheaper homebrews for one-shot use. Metol is expensive. I replenish mine so cost drops to pennies per roll.

 

[Terrence Brennan]

D-23

I find it excellent for taming high contrast situations. It is also excellent for pushing film, and tends to not blow the highlights off the top end of the scale.

I replenish it with DK-25R, and my last batch lasted 3-1/2 years in a full-to-the-brim, tightly stoppered bottle. I only replaced it because I pushed several rolls of HP5+ for 20 minutes @ 100°F, and there were little bits of emulsion floating around in it. Rather than filtering it, I decided that It's Time Had Come.

(The development time should have been more like 20 minutes @ 85°F or 40 minutes @ 70°F--D'OH!!)