D-23 and Stop Bath

[Pioneer]

I think I need to apologize. I just spent some time reviewing the technical literature from Adox, Kodak, Fomapan and Ilford for the films I commonly use right now. Each manufacturer recommends the use of either a short dip in an acid stop or a quick rinse in fresh water. None of the sheets I reviewed required their films to be rinsed more than once in fresh water to effectively stop the development action adequate enough to use the fix. It would appear that I can stop the films I use with a single, short, fresh water rinse. Based on that info I will probably discontinue using an acetic or citric acid stop bath. No sense spending any money on something that doesn't provide any benefit.

Learn something new every day!

BTW I have to credit the information provided by Chris Crawford on his CrawfordPhotoSchool.com page. His links meant I did not have to go searching all over to find the info.

 

[chuckroast]

I think I need to apologize. I just spent some time reviewing the technical literature from Adox, Kodak, Fomapan and Ilford for the films I commonly use right now. Each manufacturer recommends the use of either a short dip in an acid stop or a quick rinse in fresh water. None of the sheets I reviewed required their films to be rinsed more than once in fresh water to effectively stop the development action adequate enough to use the fix. It would appear that I can stop the films I use with a single, short, fresh water rinse. Based on that info I will probably discontinue using an acetic or citric acid stop bath. No sense spending any money on something that doesn't provide and benefit. Learn something new every day!

1. I do seem to recall reading the same thing back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, when I was first starting.

2. There is no need to apologize. This is a conversation among peers not debate club

 

[pentaxuser]

Pioneer, what you do may well have an advantage in terms of ease of use, especially if you do not have running water in darkroom and you have to prepare enough water and containers for both the water stop bath and then the final wash. The same acid stop can be used on multiple occasions as well However in the end both methods achieve the same end without the water stop bath having any quality drawbacks as I see it

pentaxuser

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Not necessarily, and arguably, the opposite. Using an alkaline fix without a stop bath carries the risk of dichroic fog. You'll probably get away with it most of the time. I do agree that the precise stopping action is not very relevant here, which is why I suggested a water 'stop' as an alternative. One or two water rinses instead of an acetic stop will also get the job done.

The benefits and/or drawbacks of an alkaline fixer for film are of course yet another point of debate and a possibly contentious topic.

Yes, acid stop bath is used for a reason!

 

[JWMster]

Pioneer: Ever watch Chris Crawford's youtube on agitation? I absolutely love Chris and especially love a guy who bases his agitation technique entirely on Ike and Tina Turner's "Proud Mary": "'Cause we never, ever do anything nice and easy... we always do everything nice and rough." At least he's clear that he was never, ever able to get gentle to work. Crawford's style is more like Bond's martinis "Shaken (hard) and not stirred."

I was in Chris's camp with those issues, but eventually bailed on hand agitation for rotary with a Jobo. Now I use the gentlest hand agitation I can manage for developers to control or resist adding agitation induced grain gain. See Steve Schaub's youtube video on his "Figital Revolution" jive youtube channel for a good discussion and demonstration of gentle. After that, it's rotary processing all the way to just get'er done. I'm using B's processor for rotary these days and sold off the Jobo gear. This combination seems to have cured inconsistencies and excessively grainy skies.

Recently I tried D23 at 1:3 with 30 seconds of initial agitation followed by 10-15 seconds every 3 minutes and loved the results. But D23 is such a s-l-o-w working developer used this way. Next up is Pyrocat-HD which I"m really really looking forward to using. Bought the Photo Formulary version in Glycol to avoid (most) handling issues.

Somewhere along the line, I dropped the water stop and instituted a citric acid stop with D23.... just to be more exact. This followed info from Kenneth Lee's website posts on D23 - before he switched to digital. If my processes have a definitive start and end, then in theory, I can understand the impact of the variables I'm using and make adjustments. At least that's my working hypothesis. But I sandwich Stop Bath in between two water baths. Frankly, I do that with everything to try to keep the chemistry uncontaminated - especially if it's reusable like Fixer and Hypowash. I like to use developers one-shot and use TF3 Fixer 'cause I can mix it up here. Recently, I've begun to test for clearing times on a regular basis to set fixing time and have a solid basis for when to dump the stuff.

For those of us who've come back to film AFTER digital, with the film service infrastructure mostly gone (or at least not so prevalent) there's been a lot involved in sorting through what works for you and what doesn't as it comes to B&W processing. Forums like this have been a godsend, but that involves sorting through often 30 different ways folks have found themselves and that can at times be confusing. All work. But translation without demonstration and oversight.... doing this self-taught effectively can prove something of a real handicap in that I think you're either lucky at the first, or you're going to have to be patient with yourself and pay careful attention to refining a process that gets it done to your satisfaction and then being relatively rigid in sticking with it. Compare this with C41 where it's a fixed, identical process.... and I think the art of B&W is comparatively more subtle and complex... in essence, it ain't easy baby.

 

[Pioneer]

Pioneer, what you do may well have an advantage in terms of ease of use, especially if you do not have running water in darkroom and you have to prepare enough water and containers for both the water stop bath and then the final wash. The same acid stop can be used on multiple occasions as well However in the end both methods achieve the same end without the water stop bath having any quality drawbacks as I see it

Thanks. There are probably almost as many variations of the techniques we practice in photography as there are people doing them but I do agree that some techniques may be more practical based on personal conditions. Like always, before I make any big changes I will do some experimenting with using a water stop to see if there are any drawbacks for how I work.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks, Dan. Let us know how you get on

pentaxuser

 

[PicklesFrog]

Recently I tried D23 at 1:3 with 30 seconds of initial agitation followed by 10-15 seconds every 3 minutes and loved the results. But D23 is such a s-l-o-w working developer used this way.

My 1:1 dilution agitation method currently is more than half straight agitation then every min 10 seconds. Im using d76 times so its at 14 mins. Negs have no agitation marks either

 

[pentaxuser]

My 1:1 dilution agitation method currently is more than half straight agitation then every min 10 seconds. Im using d76 times so its at 14 mins. Negs have no agitation marks either

So do I take it that "more than half straight agitation" means that if you develop for 14 mins you are agitation for more than 7 mins in total?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sounds like some of you are mixing your acetic acid stop bath unnecessarily strong. If you use it one-shot, even a 1/2% solution is plenty strong. Is your respiratory system so sensitive that it gets irritated just smelling ordinary oil n' vinegar salad dressing? Regardless, every darkroom needs proper ventilation.

 

[Pioneer]

Thanks Drew. The original poster was having a bit of a problem with his citric acid based fixer.

This led to a discussion regarding whether an acid based stop bath is necessary at all.

In my case I mix about 300 ml of white vinegar (which itself is about a 5% solution of acetic acid) with 700 ml of distilled water. To be truthful I don't smell my stop bath at all, but I do keep a small exhaust fan running all the time when I'm developing. But some people are more comfortable using a water bath for a stop bath. After some research I thought I might experiment with fresh water myself as it is one less thing to mix up. But because I have no running water in my darkroom it is a bit more challenging than just eliminating an acid stop.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Unfortunately, my use of D23 ended way back when relatively thick emulsion sheet films still existed. The ability of these to "soak up" solutions better than most films today facilitated tricks like two-tray D23 technique, or even 2-tray water bath processing. But that same characteristic meant that a real acid stop bath was absolutely necessary to avoid uneven or unpredictable results. You wanted a real Stop Sign or red light - a fast abrupt stop - and not an orange light. I've never trusted just a water rinse in lieu of an actual acid stop bath, especially with printing papers, but also with films in general. But I have tried it.

 

[Pioneer]

Unfortunately, my use of D23 ended way back when relatively thick emulsion sheet films still existed. The ability of these to "soak up" solutions better than most films today facilitated tricks like two-tray D23 technique, or even 2-tray water bath processing. But that same characteristic meant that a real acid stop bath was absolutely necessary to avoid uneven or unpredictable results. You wanted a real Stop Sign or red light - a fast abrupt stop - and not an orange light. I've never trusted just a water rinse in lieu of an actual acid stop bath, especially with printing papers, but also with films in general. But I have tried it.

Thanks Drew. That has to be why my old developing manual from 1972 was so insistent that an acid stop bath be used to immediately stop development.

 

[JWMster]

Ditto for what Drew said. Just cleaner. At only 15G's a liter, citirc acid is cheap and goes a long way. But... is mixing a pain? Sure.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Pioneer: Ever watch Chris Crawford's youtube on agitation? I absolutely love Chris and especially love a guy who bases his agitation technique entirely on Ike and Tina Turner's "Proud Mary": "'Cause we never, ever do anything nice and easy... we always do everything nice and rough." At least he's clear that he was never, ever able to get gentle to work. Crawford's style is more like Bond's martinis "Shaken (hard) and not stirred."

I was in Chris's camp with those issues, but eventually bailed on hand agitation for rotary with a Jobo. Now I use the gentlest hand agitation I can manage for developers to control or resist adding agitation induced grain gain. See Steve Schaub's youtube video on his "Figital Revolution" jive youtube channel for a good discussion and demonstration of gentle. After that, it's rotary processing all the way to just get'er done. I'm using B's processor for rotary these days and sold off the Jobo gear. This combination seems to have cured inconsistencies and excessively grainy skies.

Recently I tried D23 at 1:3 with 30 seconds of initial agitation followed by 10-15 seconds every 3 minutes and loved the results. But D23 is such a s-l-o-w working developer used this way. Next up is Pyrocat-HD which I"m really really looking forward to using. Bought the Photo Formulary version in Glycol to avoid (most) handling issues.

Somewhere along the line, I dropped the water stop and instituted a citric acid stop with D23.... just to be more exact. This followed info from Kenneth Lee's website posts on D23 - before he switched to digital. If my processes have a definitive start and end, then in theory, I can understand the impact of the variables I'm using and make adjustments. At least that's my working hypothesis. But I sandwich Stop Bath in between two water baths. Frankly, I do that with everything to try to keep the chemistry uncontaminated - especially if it's reusable like Fixer and Hypowash. I like to use developers one-shot and use TF3 Fixer 'cause I can mix it up here. Recently, I've begun to test for clearing times on a regular basis to set fixing time and have a solid basis for when to dump the stuff.

For those of us who've come back to film AFTER digital, with the film service infrastructure mostly gone (or at least not so prevalent) there's been a lot involved in sorting through what works for you and what doesn't as it comes to B&W processing. Forums like this have been a godsend, but that involves sorting through often 30 different ways folks have found themselves and that can at times be confusing. All work. But translation without demonstration and oversight.... doing this self-taught effectively can prove something of a real handicap in that I think you're either lucky at the first, or you're going to have to be patient with yourself and pay careful attention to refining a process that gets it done to your satisfaction and then being relatively rigid in sticking with it. Compare this with C41 where it's a fixed, identical process.... and I think the art of B&W is comparatively more subtle and complex... in essence, it ain't easy baby.

I recommend filling tanks almost to the top, as this prevents excessive sloshing of developer. This should be emphasized more by the mfrs. I invert twice in immediate succession, with twisting, once per minute. If you don't fill the tank, you will get surge marks regardless of how gently you agitate. "Just enough to cover the reel" is not good!

 

[JWMster]

Augustus Caesar: Agreed. Yes, I learned THAT the hard way, too. So many of the things we learn self-taught we learn the hard way. I'm jealous of those who had the benefit of a formal course where the training took. More often I hear..... "Yeah.... I took a course in high school.... " meaning it didn't take. Similarly, so many details in Ansel Adams, Bruce Birnbaum and books of others are easy to read over lightly. Re-reading, a lot becomes more clear. Whenever we say there are many ways and you'll figure out your own, often what gets missed is that you really do need some sort of bullet proof routine as a way to start. Maybe in the end, it's no different for others, but I've l,earned more from my mistakes pushing me to find a solution.... because there really was no other option.

But yes, FILL the tank until the thing runneth over if you're hand agitating. Use a cheap developer if you have to, but use plenty of it. Size your supply to the maximum your developing tank will hold.

By the way.... looks like you slipped past Brutus, Cassius and the crew this year. Good thing.

 

[PicklesFrog]

So do I take it that "more than half straight agitation" means that if you develop for 14 mins you are agitation for more than 7 mins in total?

Thanks

pentaxuser

I do 9 minutes. Negatives came out fine. I have a 2-reel paterson tank and I agitate gentlely inverting and tilting the tank.

 

[koraks]

If you don't fill the tank, you will get surge marks regardless of how gently you agitate.

Incorrect, as demonstrated on a daily basis by hordes of photographers worldwide, as has been the case for about a century.

 

[JWMster]

FWIW, I fill the tank to assure even contact with the film while standing between agitations akin to sitting in a tray. Though I'm not a student of surge marks, I suppose that they can involve a combination of factors. FWIW, with a full tank and gentle-as-I-can-make-it agitation of the developer, I've not had unwanted marks.

Yet I cannot resist loving the thought of Gengis Khan, photographer for the UPI. FWIW, I think the papparazzi and White House Press Corp are the only "hordes of photographers" I've ever seen... leaving a similar trail of devastation in their path.

 

[koraks]

I fill the tank to assure even contact with the film while standing between agitations

Evidently, in an intermittent agitation process, the developer needs to cover the film. However, it doesn't need a huge margin; e.g. as many can attest to, a regular Paterson System 4 tank needs about 300ml to cover a single reel with a 135 film on it, and this turns out to be perfectly adequate to process a film with perfectly even results as long as sufficient agitation is given. This agitation can be very vigorous or somewhat more subdued; as long as it's sufficiently frequent, the film will develop evenly.

the only "hordes of photographers" I've ever seen

I'm not sure if I would recommend signing up for the next outing of your local camera club, but it might just be the opportunity to see a (modest) horde of photographers being unleashed at a bridge or building of particular photographic interest.

 

[snusmumriken]

Evidently, in an intermittent agitation process, the developer needs to cover the film. However, it doesn't need a huge margin; e.g. as many can attest to, a regular Paterson System 4 tank needs about 300ml to cover a single reel with a 135 film on it, and this turns out to be perfectly adequate to process a film with perfectly even results as long as sufficient agitation is given. This agitation can be very vigorous or somewhat more subdued; as long as it's sufficiently frequent, the film will develop evenly.

Hear, hear. My lifetime experience amounts to only about 250 35mm rolls, but most of those have been developed one at a time in a two-reel Paterson tank using 300ml of solution. I have experienced streaks just once, because I got into a day-dream and forgot to agitate. Nowadays I practise minimal agitation (15sec, 30sec, then every 60sec) in Bath B of Thornton's 2-bath developer, but that has not introduced any issues.

I've heard of single Paterson reels shifting along the 2-reel centre column so that they lodge part-way out of the solution. It has never happened to me, but if concerned a precaution would be always to use two reels, even if one is empty.

 

[JWMster]

Koraks: Good point. Particularly relevant with expensive developers - which D23 is not (currently). For now as someone relatively new in substituting hand agitation in the developer stage for rotary processing, I've erred in assuring myself the tank is full with the visual confirmation in the funnel part of the Paterson tank. You're right that I don't actually NEED this and can reduce to simply covering the reels. I'll get there, and that will ease the cost of more expensive developers (like Pyrocat HD which I'm buying premixed in Glycol). So thank you for your notes.

As to group photo tours: Been there, done that. Prefer to shoot with a friend or two rather than an army.

 

[koraks]

For now as someone relatively new in substituting hand agitation in the developer stage for rotary processing, I've erred in assuring myself the tank is full with the visual confirmation in the funnel part of the Paterson tank. You're right that I don't actually NEED this and can reduce to simply covering the reels.

If you're doing continuous rotary processing, you don't actually need to cover the reels. With the tank in a horizontal position, you only need to fill up to the center column or thereabouts.

 

[Pioneer]

Hear, hear. My lifetime experience amounts to only about 250 35mm rolls, but most of those have been developed one at a time in a two-reel Paterson tank using 300ml of solution. I have experienced streaks just once, because I got into a day-dream and forgot to agitate. Nowadays I practise minimal agitation (15sec, 30sec, then every 60sec) in Bath B of Thornton's 2-bath developer, but that has not introduced any issues.

I've heard of single Paterson reels shifting along the 2-reel centre column so that they lodge part-way out of the solution. It has never happened to me, but if concerned a precaution would be always to use two reels, even if one is empty.

I have long been an advocate of the Chris Crawford school of agitation so I have had the reel move up the center column before. Since then I make sure all the reels are in the tank whether or not they all have film in them.

Now I use rotary agitation more often than not but I still put all the reels in the tank. I like to see ALL my negatives when the reel comes out of the tank so some lessons I do not need to learn a second time.

 

[pentaxuser]

I do 9 minutes. Negatives came out fine. I have a 2-reel paterson tank and I agitate gentlely inverting and tilting the tank.

Sorry I am stíll puzzling over your quote above: Is 9 mins the development time you use? If so how much of that time does the agitation last? When I mentioned 14 mins I just plucked that figure out of the air for the sake of trying to find out what "more than half straight agitation "was

Do you gently invert and tilt the tank once at each chosen interval and if so what time intervals do you use ie. once every 30 seconds, once every minute or some other interval

Thanks

pentaxuser