D-23 1:3 speed loss

[Ulophot]

I use HP5 virtually exclusively (simplicity), and D-23 1:1 is my standard film developer. Combined with David Kachel's SLIMT technique for very long illuminance-range subjects, it's all I use. Testing it against D-23 1:3 some years back, before I switched to SLIMT, I found that 1:3 gave sparkling highlight separation with lovely, tight grain, but at the cost of nearly a stop of speed. I would prefer it for some 35mm work, because, contrary to others' reports, I have found that SLIMT, for some reason, does not yield quite the fine grain and sharpness of D-23 1:3. This is not an issue at all for me with 4x5 or 120, the effect is subtle enough to be unnoticeable except with the smaller format.

I'm just wondering if others here have had the same experience with the 1:3 speed loss. Perhaps I just need to revisit my development time and agitation.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Even D-23 stock solution is generally accepted as losing 1/3 stop. I wouldn't think it surprising that 1:3 loses more than that. That said, the only way I've used D-23 is as replenished stock, so I can't speak from experience with diluted use.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yup. That is what I witness with D-23 at 1+3 and HP5. I prefer it at 1+1 with this film. I use 1+3 with Pan F, but have to shoot it at EI 20 at that dilution.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Something I'd suggest trying with the high dilution -- I used to do this with Parodinal 1:50 and 1:100 -- is to extend development (I'd go double the Massive Dev Chart time) and reduce agitation to every 3rd minute. With Parodinal (also well known to give a speed loss comparable to that with D-23) I'd get back the loss and up to 2/3 stop on top of that (= net 1/3 to 2/3 top gain) at the cost of waiting a little longer for my negatives.

 

[pentaxuser]

Even D-23 stock solution is generally accepted as losing 1/3 stop. I wouldn't think it surprising that 1:3 loses more than that.

Yet in the case of Perceptol which as I understand things is the same developer from the aspect of speed loss is rated in the case of HP5+ at 320 at 1+3 and at 1+1 whereas at stock is rated at a lower speed?

I had always thought that if dilutions such as 1+3 did anything to speed it was at worst to leave it unchanged and at best to improve it

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yet in the case of Perceptol which as I understand things is the same developer from the aspect of speed loss is rated in the case of HP5+ at 320 at 1+3 and at 1+1 whereas at stock is rated at a lower speed?

I had always thought that if dilutions such as 1+3 did anything to speed it was at worst to leave it unchanged and at best to improve it

pentaxuser

Perceptol is one developer that I've wanted to try with HP5, but have been unable to get my paws on it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Perceptol is a great develper, but it won't win any speed contest. I almost never use it full strength and find 1+2 or 1+3 more to my liking. This might seem funny, but I seem to get a little more "speed" out of it when it's di;uted 1+2 or 1+3. Not much, but just a little. It's very nice with HP5+ and shanghai GP3. My last two rolls of Delta 100 in 35mm were with Perceptol 1+2 and they came out very nice. There is grain, but it's sharp and uniformed, which is to my liking. I have made my own Perceptol, but my last batch was good old Ilford. Very nice tonal range with both. If you have Metol, sodium sulfite and pickling salt you can make your own Perceptol.
Metol 5g
SS 100g
pickling salt 30g

 

[Donald Qualls]

I had always thought that if dilutions such as 1+3 did anything to speed it was at worst to leave it unchanged and at best to improve it

There are more variables at work than dilution -- the main thing gained by high dilutions (Rodinal 1:100, D-23 1+2, Xtol 1+2) is compensating effect, which translates into speed gain IFF development is extended to regain normal contrast (in other words, you get one or the other: compensation or speed gain). Hence my experience with extended development, high dilution, and reduced agitation giving around 2/3 stop gain over same developer in more conventional process.

 

[Murray Kelly]

Ulophot doesn't tell us what time increase he gives the 1+3 dilution. I would suggest a x1.5 of his 1+1 time he is used to.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Metol 5g
SS 100g
pickling salt 30g

That's closer to Microdol-X than to D-23 (I think).

 

[pentaxuser]

That's closer to Microdol-X than to D-23 (I think).

Yes, I think I read somewhere that the difference between Perceptol and D23 was the addition of sodium chloride but I have no idea qualities that changes compared to those of D23. Again I have no idea if Microdol-X and Perceptol are effectively the same developer with different names

pentaxuser

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, I think I read somewhere that the difference between Perceptol and D23 was the addition of sodium chloride but I have no idea qualities that changes compared to those of D23. Again I have no idea if Microdol-X and Perceptol are effectively the same developer with different names

pentaxuser

The true Perceptol formula called for Sodium Tripolyphosphate in addition to Metol, SS and pickling salt. PE said the Sodium Tripolyphosphate was only used to as a sequestering agent for hard water and had nothing to do with the actual developer so it could be omitted. He also informed me that Microdol-X and Perceptol were not the same as far as makeup goes. In my experience home-made Perceptol worked just as well as boughten Perceptol. JohnW

 

[Ulophot]

Greetings, and my apologies for not replying sooner. Thanks to all.

My Normal devel with 1:1 is 9 min at 20/68 C/F. Normal for 1:3 in my tests came to 15 min.

What I failed to mention, foolishly, is that my intention for using 1:3 is for compensating development, N-1 and N-2. As indicated, I achieve these with lovely grain and highlights (using les agitation as suggested by Qualls above) but significant speed loss (more than a 1/2 stop).

The SLIMT technique, for those unfamiliar, is a pre-bleaching process, detailed on Kachel's website. In short, a ridiculously dilute bleach, prior to development, most greatly affects areas of greatest exposure, and one uses (typically) one's Normal development time, which supports speed and middle-value separation. In these regards, I find it excellent, and, since the core of my interest is LF, natural light, location portraiture, often indoors, I need all the speed I can get, with shutter speed quickly becoming a limiting factor.

(Why SLIMT affects the grain is a question mark; Kachel and others have no explanation, and it's really only an issue for smaller formats, as far as my work is concerned.)

Anyway, I shall keep the times I have for 1:3 and reserve its use only for situations in which low-value areas are small and detail in them insignificant.

Thanks again for your replies.