D-23 Required Amount of Chemistry?

[htstanley]

Inspired by Sandy King's VC Mag article, I'm now having fun with D-23, medium format for now. I've been developing 120 in stainless tanks on stainless reels. Now I want to move to rotary processing for MF and 4x5 using D-23, using some higher dilutions.

Question is: how much stock solution A (and B) is required for adequate chemistry for a 120 roll or sheet of 4x5, not counting the dilution liquid?

I think Sandy answered this once for Diafine, but I can't find anything for
D-23 dilutions for rotary processing.

HenryStanley

 

[BradS]

D-23 is normally used straight. Books used to even state categorically "Do Not Dilute"...but, that has changed. Some now say that it may be diluted as much as 1:3. I've used it quite a bit and always use it straight.

 

[T Hoskinson]

Inspired by Sandy King's VC Mag article, I'm now having fun with D-23, medium format for now. I've been developing 120 in stainless tanks on stainless reels. Now I want to move to rotary processing for MF and 4x5 using D-23, using some higher dilutions.

Question is: how much stock solution A (and B) is required for adequate chemistry for a 120 roll or sheet of 4x5, not counting the dilution liquid?

I think Sandy answered this once for Diafine, but I can't find anything for
D-23 dilutions for rotary processing.

HenryStanley

Since you talk about A and B solutions, Are you referring to Split D-23? AFAIK that's done by immersing the film in Kodak D-23 developer, followed by a 40g/L borax bath.

Kodak D-23 is a very simple developer:

KODAK D-23
Low to medium contrast film developer
Water, 125F/52C 750 ml
Metol 7.5 grams
Sodium Sulfite (anhydrous) 100 g
Water to make 1L
Mixing instructions: Add chemicals in specified sequence.
Dilution: Use undiluted
Starting point development time: 12 mins (tank), 10 mins (tray)

 

[Nick Zentena]

Ya normal D-23 is only one solution. Too simple for multiple baths.

D-23 1:3 is fairly similar to one of the Winchel developers.

 

[T Hoskinson]

D-23 is normally used straight. Books used to even state categorically "Do Not Dilute"...but, that has changed. Some now say that it may be diluted as much as 1:3. I've used it quite a bit and always use it straight.

I often used it in the past. I usually diluted it 1:3 with water and used it as a one shot. I used 500ml of working developer per roll of 120 roll film (or 2 rolls of 35mm film). I agitated intermittently (by inversion). I never tried rotation agitation with D-23.

I eventually stopped using D-23 and switched to Microdol-X.

 

[BradS]

It is the only dev I've found that can tame this California (mid-day) sun. I love HP5+ in D-23. Tri-X is nice in D-23 too...as is Fp4...hmmm, never found anything that didn't work well in D-23.

 

[htstanley]

I often used it in the past. I usually diluted it 1:3 with water and used it as a one shot. I used 500ml of working developer per roll of 120 roll film (or 2 rolls of 35mm film). I agitated intermittently (by inversion). I never tried rotation agitation with D-23.

I eventually stopped using D-23 and switched to Microdol-X.

Thanks - I've seen your earlier posts on D-23. Sandy's article on using D-23 for negatives to be scanned opened the door on rotary processing (1:1 dilution). You refer to 500 ml of "working solution" -- is that stock D-23 or the diluted mixture?

-- Henry

 

[PHOTOTONE]

You refer to 500 ml of "working solution" -- is that stock D-23 or the diluted mixture?

-- Henry

Working Solution always refers to a chemical diluted for use. Whether this is a straight, or diluted solution depends on the intent.

 

[Nick Zentena]

For actual D-23 I find you need at least 75ml of stock per 80sq inch. 100ml would be better.

Remember with rotary you've got two limits. The amount the tank needs to work well. The amount the developer needs to work well. You need to use a volume higher then either.

 

[htstanley]

"For actual D-23 I find you need at least 75ml of stock per 80sq inch. 100ml would be better. "

Thanks Nick -- that's exactly the information I needed. Greetings to bella Italia! -- Henry

 

[Joe Lipka]

How about this one. It's an oldie but a goodie...

From Ed Buffaloe's Unblinking Eye site.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.html

 

[sanking]

The D23 formula I used for the article in View Camera is known as the Ansel Adams D23, and I believe it is the same one you can find in Joe Lipka's article at the Unblinking Eye site.

Bath A is 7.5 grams of metol and 100 grams of sodium sulphite in water to make one liter. Bath B is 10 grams of sodiuim metaborate (Kodalk) in water to make one liter. These are the stock solutions.

For developing on reels in tank with intermittent agitation the stock solution is used straight. For rotary development I use a 1:1 dilution of each of the stock solutions with water. In testing I found that the developer diluted 1:1, and used with constant agitation, develops film to approximately the same average gradient as the stock solution with intermittent agitation.

For rotary development I would recommend a minimum of 40ml of stock solution plus 40 ml of water, or a total of 80ml of working solution, per 4X5 sheet of film. This amount works fine for me. Use this as a one-shot solution and discard after use.

If you use the stock solution as the working solution it is possible to re-use the solution to develop several rolls of film if this is done on the same day. For example, if you use 32 ounces of stock A and B to develop two rolls of 120 film you can safely re-use the stock solution three or four times. However, the used solutions will lose strength with time so don't save them for use several days later.

In any event, for maximum consistency one shot and discard is recommended, regardless of whether the stock solutions are diluted or not.

Sandy King

 

[Anscojohn]

It is the only dev I've found that can tame this California (mid-day) sun. I love HP5+ in D-23. Tri-X is nice in D-23 too...as is Fp4...hmmm, never found anything that didn't work well in D-23.

IIIIIII
I agree, Brad. And AA once wrote that a totally acceptable (to him) 8x10 could be made from a 35mm negative shot on a film like Panatomic-X and developed in D23.

 

[htstanley]

" The D23 formula I used for the article in View Camera is known as the Ansel Adams D23, and I believe it is the same one you can find in Joe Lipka's article at the Unblinking Eye site.
Bath A is 7.5 grams of metol and 100 grams of sodium sulphite in water to make one liter. Bath B is 10 grams of sodiuim metaborate (Kodalk) in water to make one liter. These are the stock solutions.
For developing on reels in tank with intermittent agitation the stock solution is used straight. For rotary development I use a 1:1 dilution of each of the stock solutions with water. In testing I found that the developer diluted 1:1, and used with constant agitation, develops film to approximately the same average gradient as the stock solution with intermittent agitation.
For rotary development I would recommend a minimum of 40ml of stock solution plus 40 ml of water, or a total of 80ml of working solution, per 4X5 sheet of film. This amount works fine for me. Use this as a one-shot solution and discard after use... -- Sandy King "

Thanks Sandy. I started using your (AA's) formula and desired a slightly less dense/contrasty negative, so I have switched to a roughly half-way position between AA's and Barry Thornton's. (A Solution: Metol -7g, Sod.Sulfite 90g; B solution: 10g (AA)). I have kept agitation in A fairly gentle, but with the your repetition schedule, but for B I rap the tank once for bubbles at the begining and one very gentle inversion/rotation midway. Four minutes in A; 3 minutes in B. Negs scan with hardly a modification needed, with a touch of curves and levels.

Thanks for the necessary chemistry requirement quantities for tank and rotary versions of processing. That was what I needed to know. D-23 has totally solved my scanning requirements for digital printing, Next step is to follow your procedures for Pyrocat-Hd for 8x10 and alternative printing. Looking forward to it. Thanks for sharing your experience.

You should write another VC article on how you handle overseas travel with your 5x7 in order to get those gorgeous carbon prints!

-- Henry

 

[htstanley]

I might add that I shoot TMAX400 at E.I 200 ( to allow for the approx N-2 development), but I also make sure I have plenty of exposure in zone III. The highlights are nicely controlled. This is 120 shot on a Hblad, but with D-23's excellent grain and adequate sharpness, I'm getting beautiful prints on this format. --Henry

 

[Jean Noire]

I was considering trying D23 but is there need to use Sol A and B? Could one use just D23 sol A Stock or 1:1? Is there any noticeable difference in the neg/print if Sol B is replaced with a water soak?
Regards,
John.

 

[sanking]

John,

Here is what Ed Buffaloe says about this. This is found attached at the end of the article that Joe Lipka mentioned earlier.

"Solution B is where the compensation comes in. In solution B the developing agent quickly exhausts itself in the high values where the greatest density lies, while the low values continue to develop. So, essentially, you develop in solution A until your high values are almost where you want them, then you place the film in solution B and develop until the shadow values are where you want them. If you are not experienced at development by inspection, you may have to do a little experimenting to get the times just right."


Sandy King

I was considering trying D23 but is there need to use Sol A and B? Could one use just D23 sol A Stock or 1:1? Is there any noticeable difference in the neg/print if Sol B is replaced with a water soak?
Regards,
John.

 

[sanking]

Henry,

Much of the secret is in the fact that I use a remarkably light and compact 5X7 camera, a Nagaoka. It folds to about 7.5" X 7.5" X 2.75" and weighs less than three pounds. Then, I travel with only two or three relatively small lenses, and limit the backpack to five holders. And the light weight of the camera allows me to use a small tripod.

Some say the Nagaoka is too fragile for serious work but in my experience when set up it is as rigid, or more, than some modern 5X7 cameras. And it is very easy to open and close.


Sandy King

"
You should write another VC article on how you handle overseas travel with your 5x7 in order to get those gorgeous carbon prints!

-- Henry

 

[Jean Noire]

John,

Here is what Ed Buffaloe says about this. This is found attached at the end of the article that Joe Lipka mentioned earlier.

"Solution B is where the compensation comes in. In solution B the developing agent quickly exhausts itself in the high values where the greatest density lies, while the low values continue to develop. So, essentially, you develop in solution A until your high values are almost where you want them, then you place the film in solution B and develop until the shadow values are where you want them. If you are not experienced at development by inspection, you may have to do a little experimenting to get the times just right."


Sandy King

Thanks for the reply. I had read this part and noted that this was true of development by inspection. What if D23 were used for M/F in small tanks ? I wondered what kind of result could be expected without Sol. B, or possibly some testing would need to be carried out.

Regards,
John.

 

[BradS]

Thanks for the reply. I had read this part and noted that this was true of development by inspection. What if D23 were used for M/F in small tanks ? I wondered what kind of result could be expected without Sol. B, or possibly some testing would need to be carried out.

Regards,
John.

John,

Solution A is D-23. This two part method is properly described as D-23 with a borax afterbath. I've used this technique quite a bit with both inversion and continuous rotary (eg Jobo) agitation schedules and found that the effect is subtle but real. It is worth experimenting with if you are often faced with very contrasty scenes. Ultimately, I am not convinced that the effect is significant enough to be worth the effort - especially when continuous rotary agitation is used. I've since gone back to straight D-23 or D-76 (1+1) in the Jobo. These comments pertain to FP4+ and 320TXP sheet film.

 

[MikeSeb]

What kind of film-speed losses are you guys seeing with D-23 of whatever variant, especially done in a Jobo?

 

[sanking]

John,

Virtually anything you can do with a two-bath developer can be achieved with some other method. But the primary advantage of two-bath development is that you get maximum shadow detail without having to worry about blowing out the highlights. With any other method, including very dilute solutions with minimal agitation, it is always possible to develop too long and blow out the highlights. The mechanics of development make this impossible with two-bath development.

The advantages of two-bath development, as I see it, are. This is repeated from my article in VC.

1. No loss of emulsion speed. Long toe films like TRI-X 320 that normally must be rated about a stop slower than box speed can be rated at box speed with two-bath development.
2. Compensation with high contrast scenes.
3. Most films developed in two-bath developers have a very long straight line in the curve, with short toe and shoulder. This spread the compensation over the entire curve, not just the shoulder, as is the case with most compensating type developers.
4. Surface development, which results in higher sharpness.
5. Very economical.
6. Exhaustion of the developer enhances adjacency effects, which increases apparent sharpness.

I would add that with two-bath development there is no need to take notes in the field for future development strategy. One just exposes for the desired shadow values and the mechanics of development controls highlight density.

There is definitely more control with time and temperature development using Zone or BTZS methodology but sometimes this degree of precision is not needed, as for example when one plans to scan the negatives.

Sandy King

Thanks for the reply. I had read this part and noted that this was true of development by inspection. What if D23 were used for M/F in small tanks ? I wondered what kind of result could be expected without Sol. B, or possibly some testing would need to be carried out.

Regards,
John.

 

[sanking]

In my tests I did not find any loss of film speed with divided D23 or Diafine, whether using intermittent agitation or rotary. All of the films I tested gave box speed.

Sandy

What kind of film-speed losses are you guys seeing with D-23 of whatever variant, especially done in a Jobo?

 

[Jean Noire]

John,

Virtually anything you can do with a two-bath developer can be achieved with some other method. But the primary advantage of two-bath development is that you get maximum shadow detail without having to worry about blowing out the highlights. With any other method, including very dilute solutions with minimal agitation, it is always possible to develop too long and blow out the highlights. The mechanics of development make this impossible with two-bath development.

The advantages of two-bath development, as I see it, are. This is repeated from my article in VC.

1. No loss of emulsion speed. Long toe films like TRI-X 320 that normally must be rated about a stop slower than box speed can be rated at box speed with two-bath development.
2. Compensation with high contrast scenes.
3. Most films developed in two-bath developers have a very long straight line in the curve, with short toe and shoulder. This spread the compensation over the entire curve, not just the shoulder, as is the case with most compensating type developers.
4. Surface development, which results in higher sharpness.
5. Very economical.
6. Exhaustion of the developer enhances adjacency effects, which increases apparent sharpness.

I would add that with two-bath development there is no need to take notes in the field for future development strategy. One just exposes for the desired shadow values and the mechanics of development controls highlight density.

There is definitely more control with time and temperature development using Zone or BTZS methodology but sometimes this degree of precision is not needed, as for example when one plans to scan the negatives.

Sandy King

Sandy, thank you for the advice and info. I will try and get some Kodalk (Sodium Metaborate ?) and do a few trials. I would welcome some guidelines for developing FP4 M/F film using the two bath method with intermittent agitation in a small tank. I print on fixed G3 using cold light usually. A ballpark time in each solution would suffice.
Regards,
John.

 

[sanking]

I would suggest about 5+5 at 75F for Ilford FP4 if the negatives are to be printed with a cold light. If the negatives are too weak, increase temperature to 80F, if too strong, drop to 70F.

Sandy King

Sandy, thank you for the advice and info. I will try and get some Kodalk (Sodium Metaborate ?) and do a few trials. I would welcome some guidelines for developing FP4 M/F film using the two bath method with intermittent agitation in a small tank. I print on fixed G3 using cold light usually. A ballpark time in each solution would suffice.
Regards,
John.