D-23 at 1:7 - Proof at Last - It Works Well

[dancqu]

Rather than the official D-23 the test was done with an
8 and 80 gram metol sodium sulfite Home Brew. Quite likely
an instrument would be needed to detect any difference twixt
the two. As some know D-23 is a much respected two ingredient
film developer. Formula 7.5 and 100 grams metol, sodium sulfite.

Film, Acros 100. Developer, 500ml of D-23 8-80 at 1:7.
Agitation, developer in and inversions to first minute.
There after 2 inversion every two minutes.
Out at 16 minutes. Temperature, 73F.

Zones 3 through 7 were exposed using a gray Sturdy Board
and blue sky. I double check zones 5 because of the usual
shutter speed change. In this case from 1/8 to 1/2 sec;
progressing from under to over exposure.

Zone densities are minus a fb+f of 0.14.

Z3, 0.42 - Z4, 0.56 - Z5, 0.66

Z5, 0.66 - Z6, 0.76 - Z7, 0.86

I thought I'd go zones 3 through 7 because by far the
greater portion of the image's content is within those 5
zones. Perhaps the curve is a little flat. A change in
agitation should do to improve. Good shadow area
contrast though. Dan

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Was this 120 or 35mm?

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Re-read what you did, maybe try 3 agits every 2 min. to help boost the midtones a touch up, without affecting that good shadow contrast you've seen.
Going to have try this one, now where's that roll of Acros in my camera bag?

 

[dancqu]

Re-read what you did, maybe try 3 agits every 2 min. to
help boost the midtones a touch up, without affecting that
good shadow contrast you've seen.
Going to have try this one, now where's that roll
of Acros in my camera bag?

That may do. I'd spread those 3 maybe 4 inversions out over
as much as 30 seconds. Another roll of that 120 Acros may be
tested by mid week. The soup that first roll went through was
half a 1 gram 10 gram batch. BTW that 8-80 formula plus 48
grams of sodium carbonate mono-hydrate makes for
a bunch of FX-1. Dan

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Yeah, that slow thing for the agits would work. I've found that the Fuji materials tend to respond well to delibrate, short, random agitations, with time to sit. Very 'tea ceremony' like, quite Japanese. With Rodinal high dilutions semi-stand, my processing of Neopan can look quite strange.

 

[PhotoSmith]

What characteristics does the 1:7 dilution give compared to stock D-23?

 

[dancqu]

What characteristics does the 1:7 dilution give
compared to stock D-23?

I really couldn't say. Very dilute chemistry used
one-shot is my ticket. At 1:7 D-23 or my very similar
8-80 version is a very low sulfite developer. The usual
characteristics of low over high sulfite levels would
apply; a more defined grain and with that a more
sharp image.

Acros is already a very fine grain film and overall likely
benefits from a low sulfite developer. Very dilute is a
characteristic of compensating developers. I think
I see that compensation in the curve my density
measurements provided.

It was a first test. I'll tighten up my procedure and
retest. I'm due for the woods and ought to know what
to expect. Dan

 

[PhotoSmith]

Let us know how your next tests work out. It would be great to see the characteristic curve.

I really couldn't say. Very dilute chemistry used
one-shot is my ticket. At 1:7 D-23 or my very similar
8-80 version is a very low sulfite developer. The usual
characteristics of low over high sulfite levels would
apply; a more defined grain and with that a more
sharp image.

Acros is already a very fine grain film and overall likely
benefits from a low sulfite developer. Very dilute is a
characteristic of compensating developers. I think
I see that compensation in the curve my density
measurements provided.

It was a first test. I'll tighten up my procedure and
retest. I'm due for the woods and ought to know what
to expect. Dan

 

[psvensson]

Aren't you getting low contrast here? Shouldn't Zone 7 density be more like 1.1 over fb+f?

 

[PhotoSmith]

OK, you made me curious about the affect of the higher dilution, so I did a little reading about it. Here is what I discovered:

Sodium Sulfite is a silver solvent and the action of it is dependent on the time it is in contact with the film during development. The longer the film is subjected to the Sodium Sulfite, the finer the grain structure appears. However the benefit of fine grain comes with reduced acutance (sharpness of the grain structure, and apparent sharpness of the photo).

So, the extended development times needed with your highly diluted developer may increase the edge softness of the grain structure even more, thus reducing acutance accordingly. You will have to test it to see if this is happening.

Apparently highly dilute developers behave the same as developer at normal strength if the time is extended sufficiently. But if agitation is less frequent with the highly dilute developer an additional amount of "compensating" effect may occur.

So it sounds like the combination of the longer development time and reduced agitation should be giving you negatives with a "softer" feel and look to them, and the added benefit of greater separation of the shadow and mid-tone densities.

A certain amount of developer energy is required for a given film area. So, make sure you have enough stock solution in the quantity of developer used for development. This probably means you will need a very oversized tank to process your film to still have enough developer energy to complete the development. I have also read about people changing out the old developer with new half way through the process to replace the exhausted dilute developer.

Please let us know how your experiments are going with this. I really like D-23 developer, so I find it very interesting!

Another developer you might want to try is D-76H. I have not used this personaly, but the borax in the formula should produce a mild buffering effect that will maintain a constant degree of alkalinity during the course of the solution's life during development.

Formula for D-76H

Distilled water at 125º F . . . . . . . . . . 750 ml
Metol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 g
Sodium sulfite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 g
Borax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 g
Water to make . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 liter

 

[gainer]

There are three functions of sulfite in developers. In D-23, it serves as the sole alkali and in addition keeps up the activity of the developer by keeping the oxidixed Metol from inhibiting development. The least essential part it plays in D-23 is grain reduction. Its effectiveness at preventing loss of activity is reached at about 7 grams/liter, according to Mees & James "The Theory of the Photographic Process." At such low concentation, it will need help from another alkali to maintain suffifiently high pH. Borax is IMO ideal for this purpose, as its pH will stay at about 9.2 over a wide range of concentrations. You might try 7 grams of sulfite along with 10 or so grams of borax as a substitute for the large amount of sulfite in D-23. You can theorize about the effects this substitution will have on grain, gradation, sharpness, etc., but save conclusions till after you examine the results of experiments.

You could make it simple by using 8 grams each of Metol, sodium sulfite and borax per liter of working solution. Next, you could substitute sodium ascorbate for the sodium sulfite. It has the effects of antioxidant but instead of disabling oxidized Metol, it regenerates it. This effect is described in the same article of Mees & James,

 

[dancqu]

Aren't you getting low contrast here? Shouldn't Zone
7 density be more like 1.1 over fb+f?

I think it a little low. The four frames of other than
of the gray card, RB-67, do look quite printable. The
next roll will be processed with time starting at tank full;
three inversions then and three each two minutes over a
fifteen second period. Developer out at fifteen minutes.
The curve should steepen a little. Dan

 

[lee]

I thought the zone VII number was low also.

lee\c

 

[dancqu]

I thought the zone VII number was low also. lee\c

If the curve remained linear zone 9 would reach 1.06.
That is a mid point ES of a grade 2 paper. Perhaps
the contrast looks about correct to my eye is
my use of a condenser enlarger.

Next roll I think I'll use my 6x4.5 Bronica and shoot
all nine zones. Dan

 

[PhotoSmith]

There are three functions of sulfite in developers. In D-23, it serves as the sole alkali and in addition keeps up the activity of the developer by keeping the oxidixed Metol from inhibiting development. The least essential part it plays in D-23 is grain reduction. Its effectiveness at preventing loss of activity is reached at about 7 grams/liter, according to Mees & James "The Theory of the Photographic Process." At such low concentation, it will need help from another alkali to maintain suffifiently high pH. Borax is IMO ideal for this purpose, as its pH will stay at about 9.2 over a wide range of concentrations. You might try 7 grams of sulfite along with 10 or so grams of borax as a substitute for the large amount of sulfite in D-23. You can theorize about the effects this substitution will have on grain, gradation, sharpness, etc., but save conclusions till after you examine the results of experiments.

You could make it simple by using 8 grams each of Metol, sodium sulfite and borax per liter of working solution. Next, you could substitute sodium ascorbate for the sodium sulfite. It has the effects of antioxidant but instead of disabling oxidized Metol, it regenerates it. This effect is described in the same article of Mees & James,

Gainer, I realize the purpose of the sodium sulfite is to act as an accelerator for the Metol, but wouldn't it also affect the acutance?

You mentioned it has three purposes in developers. What is the third?

What do you think the affect of reducing the sodium sulfite would be to the characteristic curve of the film? Also, what is the affect if the Metol is reduced down to 2.5 grams and borax is added like it is in the D-76H formula? I really like the tonality of D-23 and I'm not sure how altering the formula is going to change the overall results of the developer.

Do you think the 1:7 dilution will give a better compensating effect than straight D-23, or split D-23 development with a second solution of borax?

We have gotten off on a tangent discussion here, but these are things I've been wondering about for awhile.

 

[lee]

If the curve remained linear zone 9 would reach 1.06.
That is a mid point ES of a grade 2 paper.
Dan

Dan,

in traditional zone system, zone IX has no real meaning. It should print as white. Zone I is used for finding your film speed and can be determined by measuring the zone I frame and finding .10 >FB+F. Zone XIII is the spot where development times are found. Most zone system practitioners will use 1.2 @ zone VIII after zone I film speed has been located. The 1.2 density is for photographers that use condenser enlargers. 1.3 is smack in the middle of zone VIII for cold lights and diffusion enlargers.

But...if it were me, I would go use what I have discovered and make some real photos and go print them. Straight prints no burning or dodging. If you are using 35mm I would aim my tests at grade 3. 120mm either one. If you like the results then your tests are done. I suspect you may need to expose another roll of film and increase your development time by about 15% to 25%.
It looks to me like what you found was N-1.

also remember that these densities are really zones so there is some room for movement on either side.
here is the info about zone I and zone VIII http://photography.cicada.com/zs/filmtests/
good luck,

lee\c

 

[PhotoSmith]

Dan,

in traditional zone system, zone IX has no real meaning. It should print as white. Zone I is used for finding your film speed and can be determined by measuring the zone I frame and finding .10 >FB+F. Zone XIII is the spot where development times are found. Most zone system practitioners will use 1.2 @ zone VIII after zone I film speed has been located. The 1.2 density is for photographers that use condenser enlargers. 1.3 is smack in the middle of zone VIII for cold lights and diffusion enlargers.

But...if it were me, I would go use what I have discovered and make some real photos and go print them. Straight prints no burning or dodging. If you are using 35mm I would aim my tests at grade 3. 120mm either one. If you like the results then your tests are done. I suspect you may need to expose another roll of film and increase your development time by about 15% to 25%.
It looks to me like what you found was N-1.

also remember that these densities are really zones so there is some room for movement on either side.
here is the info about zone I and zone VIII http://photography.cicada.com/zs/filmtests/
good luck,

lee\c

Lee,

I have used 1.3 for my zone VIII target when printing with a cold light head. I now want to start contact printing larger negatives instead of projection enlarging. Should I be using the same targets for contact printing?

 

[gainer]

Gainer, I realize the purpose of the sodium sulfite is to act as an accelerator for the Metol, but wouldn't it also affect the acutance?

You mentioned it has three purposes in developers. What is the third?

What do you think the affect of reducing the sodium sulfite would be to the characteristic curve of the film? Also, what is the affect if the Metol is reduced down to 2.5 grams and borax is added like it is in the D-76H formula? I really like the tonality of D-23 and I'm not sure how altering the formula is going to change the overall results of the developer.

Do you think the 1:7 dilution will give a better compensating effect than straight D-23, or split D-23 development with a second solution of borax?

We have gotten off on a tangent discussion here, but these are things I've been wondering about for awhile.

I mentioned all three. The oxidation products of Metol inhibit development. Sulfite inhibits the inhibition, but does not reduce oxidized Metol. Sulfite is the sole source of alkali in D-23. Sulfite in sufficient concentration and under proper conditions is a silver solvent which may reduce grain size but also may reduce sharpness. These are the three possible functions that we all talk about but seldom demonstrate conclusively to be acting in any given developer.

The first function varies with concentration up to about 0.05 molecular weights per liter, and remains essentially constant as concentration increases above that point. The pH of D-23 is dependent on sulfite concentration, and in D-23 IIRC is about the same as in D-76. The borax in D-76 does not make a lot of difference initially but serves to hold pH pretty constant.

As to grain, I think overdevelopment increases it more than sulfite can decrease it. As to sharpness and acutance, we should make use of the newly proposed Hicks's Law and the ancient adage about grains of salt.

I have tried the alternative solutions I proposed above. If I can find an effective way to compare them visually, I will post the results as attachments. It's going to be very difficult to demonstrate effects on grain and gradation.

 

[PhotoSmith]

I mentioned all three. The oxidation products of Metol inhibit development. Sulfite inhibits the inhibition, but does not reduce oxidized Metol. Sulfite is the sole source of alkali in D-23. Sulfite in sufficient concentration and under proper conditions is a silver solvent which may reduce grain size but also may reduce sharpness. These are the three possible functions that we all talk about but seldom demonstrate conclusively to be acting in any given developer.

The first function varies with concentration up to about 0.05 molecular weights per liter, and remains essentially constant as concentration increases above that point. The pH of D-23 is dependent on sulfite concentration, and in D-23 IIRC is about the same as in D-76. The borax in D-76 does not make a lot of difference initially but serves to hold pH pretty constant.

As to grain, I think overdevelopment increases it more than sulfite can decrease it. As to sharpness and acutance, we should make use of the newly proposed Hicks's Law and the ancient adage about grains of salt.

I have tried the alternative solutions I proposed above. If I can find an effective way to compare them visually, I will post the results as attachments. It's going to be very difficult to demonstrate effects on grain and gradation.

Thanks. I'd like to see the results if you can find a way.

 

[lee]

Lee,

I have used 1.3 for my zone VIII target when printing with a cold light head. I now want to start contact printing larger negatives instead of projection enlarging. Should I be using the same targets for contact printing?

HI PhotoSmith, I would use the same targets. Both are considered a diffused light source. Good luck. As always a quick simple test to make sure the new larger emulsion is responding to your exposure and development info is really all you need to do.

lee\c

 

[PhotoSmith]

HI PhotoSmith, I would use the same targets. Both are considered a diffused light source. Good luck. As always a quick simple test to make sure the new larger emulsion is responding to your exposure and development info is really all you need to do.

lee\c

Thanks Lee.

 

[gainer]

Thanks. I'd like to see the results if you can find a way.

I have prepared a sort of ring around using Arista 400 EDU exposed normally, 1 stop under and 1 stop over exposed by use of the automatic bracketting function of my Canon EOS and developed in each of the three variations of D-23 we have discussed for 8 minutes at 70 F. What I can show here in the limited resolution of the allowable file size is that all the conditions contain essentially the same information. I think you can get a pretty good idea of the gradations and the exposure latitude.

I am not trying to prove any virtue of any of the three formulae, but that there is more than one way to skin a cat and whichever one is most convenient or cheapest is the one to use. I used D-23 years ago. I ran out of sulfite, and the nearest photo shop was 50 miles away and wanted $5 a pound. The sulfite was actually the most expensive part of D-23. Now what I can show or you can find out for yourself is that 8 grams of sulfite and 8 or more grams of good old cheap borax will do as well as 80 or more grams of sulfite. Also, if it is easier to get, 10 grams of sodium ascorbate and 10 or more grams of borax can equal the results obtained with lots of sulfite.

I am also attaching a detail from an 8x10 photographic print of the normal MCB negative. You can see my watchfrog and a bit of ivy. I think someone draped a floor mat on the stone under him.

 

[PhotoSmith]

Thanks for sharing your ring-a-round test. The results are pretty interesting.

 

[dancqu]

I can show or you can find out for yourself is that 8 grams
of sulfite and 8 or more grams of good old cheap borax will
do as well as 80 or more grams of sulfite.

Just a reminder. The 8-80 gram metol-sulfite formula for the
test was used at a 1:7 dilution. That is 1 gram metol and 10
grams of sulfite per liter working strength. I have pointed out
that the addition of 6 grams of sodium carbonate to that liter
of working strength makes a liter of FX-1 of that other wise
very similar D-23.

FX-1 is a high acutance compensating developer. Dan

 

[gainer]

Just a reminder. The 8-80 gram metol-sulfite formula for the
test was used at a 1:7 dilution. That is 1 gram metol and 10
grams of sulfite per liter working strength. I have pointed out
that the addition of 6 grams of sodium carbonate to that liter
of working strength makes a liter of FX-1 of that other wise
very similar D-23.

FX-1 is a high acutance compensating developer. Dan

Are you saying that none of the three developers I tested are high acutance compensating developers?

If that is what FX-1 is claimed to be, then there must be a way to prove it. How should we prove it? I could see nothing wrong with the acutance of any of the developers I tested, though the only illustration I have is the extreme enlargement of the portion I presented. That degree of enlargement would be sufficient to make a 13x19 print from the whole 35 mm negative. As for compensation, the fact that the -1 stop exposure produced satisfactory shadow detail and printable contrast indicates what many call compensation. Now if someone is willing to compare FX-1 or its approximation experimentally with any of the three and be able to point out the differences, I would be impressed.

I hate to say it, but acutance and compensation are examples of what used to be called at NACA-NASA "weasel words" that are not or cannot be defined exactly by measurements. It was a common acusation in editorial meetings. Even friends used it on friends in search of the most accurate reports.

Just because we are accustomed to assuming that highly diluted high pH developers are high acutance compensating developers does not mean that it is absolutely the case, nor that developers not meeting those specs are not high acutance compensators.