D-23 Spiked With Sodium Hydroxide

[Corn_Zhou]

I found it interesting that no one mentioned the yellow stain from the first roll I developed, which wiped off with my fingers. In the video comment section, a few people speculated on the cause, such as "Oxidation products of Metol in a low sulphite environment."

At 1+9 there is still 10g/L sulfite which is nowhere near "Low" low and could effectively remove oxidized Metol.
I'm guessing that the hydroxide and some metal ions from your tap water formed some yellowish scum (maybe ferric hydroxide) and adhered to the film.

 

[chuckroast]

Pre.soak is a bit self explaining but thanks!!

That should be a good idea... But have you tested it? ( With and without, 1 min, 2 min or 30min, running water? Destilled? Soda water? Or even spiked with sodium perborate??)
The idea that it prepares..., sooths the emulsion, more evenly receiveing the developer is probably just that, an idea. If there is water saturating the emulsion, when the developer comes (in a aqueous solution), then the process is not absortion but diffusion and the thing that you want to avoid is what you are doing, slowing initial development and maybe even uneven it.


Carbonate is way more manageable, best maybe even buffered... But if acutance is the goal: fx1 ( a beutler relative) or fx2 should be more useable without the alchemy shananigans and waste of time of stand development without a proper developer (fx2 or maybe pyrocat hd).

But you seem to have fun



The best!!

I have not personally tested the effects of prewashing but I have seen results from people who have (cannot recall the source) and it showed no significant difference.

 

[chuckroast]

I found it interesting that no one mentioned the yellow stain from the first roll I developed, which wiped off with my fingers. In the video comment section, a few people speculated on the cause, such as "Oxidation products of Metol in a low sulphite environment."

I meant to ask - are you using distilled water for mixing the developer?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I meant to ask - are you using distilled water for mixing the developer?

I use distilled water for some developers like Pyrocat-HD, but not D-23.

 

[chuckroast]

I use distilled water for some developers like Pyrocat-HD, but not D-23.

I'd recommend it for all active chemistry.

With tap water or ordinary bottled potable water, there is no good way to determine mineral and ionic content.

Using distilled avoids these concerns and gives you consistency. I started doing this years ago when I discovered that the place I was living had variability in water content over a given year that was giving me 1/2-1 stop differences in development results.

By "using it" I mean both to make stock and working solutions, BTW.

I think this is especially important when doing comparisons of various dilutions, developer formulae, and agitation techniques insofar as it eliminates yet another variable.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Noted. Thanks!

 

[John Wiegerink]

May I sugget the formula called Kalogen? It's basically Metol-Hydroquinone and Hydroxide and is quite similar to D23 spiked with Hydroxide

+1 Great developer to have on the shelf, and it lasts just like Rdinal that it was designed to replace.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Now I really have to try it!

 

[chuckroast]

I have made extensive use of D-23, D-76, DK-50, HC-110, PMK, and Pyrocat-HD using both standard and low agitation, stand type development with some of these.

I continue to look for good shadow speed, high acutance, pronounced edge effects, low grain, expanded mid tone contrast, and controlled highlights. Really, that's all I want

Is Beutler my next try, I wonder ...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Beutler is on my list, especially because it's a 2-bath.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Pre.soak is a bit self explaining but thanks!!

That should be a good idea... But have you tested it? ( With and without, 1 min, 2 min or 30min, running water? Destilled? Soda water? Or even spiked with sodium perborate??)
The idea that it prepares..., sooths the emulsion, more evenly receiveing the developer is probably just that, an idea. If there is water saturating the emulsion, when the developer comes (in a aqueous solution), then the process is not absortion but diffusion and the thing that you want to avoid is what you are doing, slowing initial development and maybe even uneven it.


Carbonate is way more manageable, best maybe even buffered... But if acutance is the goal: fx1 ( a beutler relative) or fx2 should be more useable without the alchemy shananigans and waste of time of stand development without a proper developer (fx2 or maybe pyrocat hd).

But you seem to have fun



The best!!

A poorly done pre-soak (and on the balance of meta-observation, that's most of them) is worse than none. Obsession with them usually tends to correlate to a lack of reasonable skepticism about the various silver-bullet developer formulae (especially the staining ones) bandied about.

There is some good evidence that the major film manufacturers have been aware for decades that pH and acutance share a bell curve relationship with some degree of variance relative to specific ingredients - essentially it peaks at about the optimal carbonate buffering range, and by the time you're out at Rodinal pH, it's back down to about level with D-76/ D-23 etc. This also matches the microdensitometry results Richard Henry got (and strongly suggests that people misleadingly confuse more strongly apparent granularity as inherently meaning enhanced sharpness - which isn't the case).

Beutler is on my list, especially because it's a 2-bath.

It isn't meant to be used as a 2-bath. It is a very sharp working developer with a far more solid basis in imaging science (exhaustion effects of metol below 0.5g/l) than any staining developer, but there are other routes to the same end that allow for more effective balancing of speed, granularity, sharpness and highlight density control (this was a research focus within the major manufacturers, but a lot of the knowledge only seems to have been commercialised in a limited way) - if you have the laboratory and data resources necessary to do so.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

A poorly done pre-soak (and on the balance of meta-observation, that's most of them) is worse than none. Obsession with them usually tends to correlate to a lack of reasonable skepticism about the various silver-bullet developer formulae (especially the staining ones) bandied about.

There is some good evidence that the major film manufacturers have been aware for decades that pH and acutance share a bell curve relationship with some degree of variance relative to specific ingredients - essentially it peaks at about the optimal carbonate buffering range, and by the time you're out at Rodinal pH, it's back down to about level with D-76/ D-23 etc. This also matches the microdensitometry results Richard Henry got (and strongly suggests that people misleadingly confuse more strongly apparent granularity as inherently meaning enhanced sharpness - which isn't the case).



It isn't meant to be used as a 2-bath. It is a very sharp working developer with a far more solid basis in imaging science (exhaustion effects of metol below 0.5g/l) than any staining developer, but there are other routes to the same end that allow for more effective balancing of speed, granularity, sharpness and highlight density control (this was a research focus within the major manufacturers, but a lot of the knowledge only seems to have been commercialised in a limited way) - if you have the laboratory and data resources necessary to do so.

Yes, that's right! It's not a 2-bath, but a 2-part developer. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[chuckroast]

A poorly done pre-soak (and on the balance of meta-observation, that's most of them) is worse than none. Obsession with them usually tends to correlate to a lack of reasonable skepticism about the various silver-bullet developer formulae (especially the staining ones) bandied about.

So what is your understanding of what a properly done pre-soak might be?

There is some good evidence that the major film manufacturers have been aware for decades that pH and acutance share a bell curve relationship with some degree of variance relative to specific ingredients - essentially it peaks at about the optimal carbonate buffering range, and by the time you're out at Rodinal pH, it's back down to about level with D-76/ D-23 etc. This also matches the microdensitometry results Richard Henry got (and strongly suggests that people misleadingly confuse more strongly apparent granularity as inherently meaning enhanced sharpness - which isn't the case).

Do you have any pointers as to where one my find that accutanance = f(pH) curve? Either the actual curve or the analytic function that describes it would be great. I realize that it's likely an approximation, but I am curious what it looks like and how the other variables drive it.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You are basically making Beutler’s at that dilution, though with hydroxide in place of carbonate it is on steroids. I’ve often thought of using hydroxide with Beutler’s but I’ve never gotten around to it. After seeing all the results above I’ll have to try it for sure. I’ve used Beutler’s a ton over the years. It gives the sharpness of Rodinal (my most often used developer) but with more of a straight line response.

I don’t think adding more hydroxide will do all that much. One gram is already probably more than you need.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Now I really have to try it!

Andy,
If you are talking about Kalogen I think you really should give it a go. Gerald Koch (I really miss him) was a fan of Kalogen, and he never ever gave me bad advice. The nice thing about Kalogen is it can be used for slow films, fast films and paper too. I have a half full bottle that was made in 2016 that still works just fine. I actually like it better than Rodinal, but that's just me. I really don't know why folks here don't have this on the shelf as a backup in case they run out of their main brew.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andy,
If you are talking about Kalogen I think you really should give it a go. Gerald Koch (I really miss him) was a fan of Kalogen, and he never ever gave me bad advice. The nice thing about Kalogen is it can be used for slow films, fast films and paper too. I have a half full bottle that was made in 2016 that still works just fine. I actually like it better than Rodinal, but that's just me. I really don't know why folks here don't have this on the shelf as a backup in case they run out of their main brew.

Thanks John. I'll give it a go!

 

[chuckroast]

Well, I made up some Buetler's late today and went and shot a short roll of Fomapan 200 exposed at EI 200. Now washing in the sink.

I used 50:50:400, processed for 10 minutes, agitating 10 seconds each minute.

Upon inspection, they look quite good but perhaps a bit too high a CI - we'll see when I enlarge.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I look forward to seeing your results.

 

[chuckroast]

Beutler discussion moved here:

First Beutler Results

(Moving this discussion from here as it is a shift in topic: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/d-23-spiked-with-sodium-hydroxide.207894/post-2811988) Shot and processed some 35mm Fomapan 200 on a Leica M2 with a 50mm f/2 Summicron V3 Metered at ASA 200 (box speed) Processed in Beutler...

www.photrio.com

 

[Lachlan Young]

what a properly done pre-soak might be

One that respects whether there might be components within the emulsion intended to regulate/ speed up developer access that could be accidentally removed/ changed via a pre-soak. Not using one will not hurt any emulsion today, but using one wrongly might send your sensitometric results off by varying degrees from where they should be in different layers - and in colour, for example, that could be a real problem.

I realize that it's likely an approximation

Not really, it was done by Kodak people with Kodak equipment - the fact it made it even halfway into the public domain essentially states that 'everyone in the industry knows this'.

 

[chuckroast]

One that respects whether there might be components within the emulsion intended to regulate/ speed up developer access that could be accidentally removed/ changed via a pre-soak. Not using one will not hurt any emulsion today, but using one wrongly might send your sensitometric results off by varying degrees from where they should be in different layers - and in colour, for example, that could be a real problem.

I could see where this could mess up the diffusion rates through the various layers of colour films since these are effectively chemical timers.

I am still at a loss to understand a mechanism of harm when doing this with monochrome films. I'm not saying there is no such harm, I'm just saying I can't imagine what it would be. This is likely a me problem.

 

[Lachlan Young]

a mechanism of harm when doing this with monochrome films.

There's various components, including those that may be intended to interact specifically with the developer to accelerate initial development stages, enhance emulsion access by the developer, or simply to ensure even development, that may simply be washed away with the pre-rinse - and they may vary from batch to batch as they can be used to minimise inconsistencies over different batches (or to make a product competitive in terms of development time with a market leader) - this might not be a problem for some, but if you are expecting one result, and get one that's 10-15% different (or produces less even development), that's a bit of a problem. I think that Ilford's warning about pre-rinses may be because they use (used?) development accelerators in some products, whereas Kodak possibly didn't (or used ones that weren't vulnerable to a pre-rinse).

 

[pentaxuser]

I think that Ilford's warning about pre-rinses may be because they use (used?) development accelerators in some products, whereas Kodak possibly didn't (or used ones that weren't vulnerable to a pre-rinse).

However hasn't Ilford or a representative of it said on Photrio that its view on pre-rinses is that it does no harm but doesn't add to the process of film development

My reading of what I think Ilford has said on Photrio about pre-rinses is that what it issued was not a warning - at least not in terms of my definition of a warning.

I take it that in this context pre-rinses, pre-washes, pre-soak all mean the same thing?

pentaxuser

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I have made extensive use of D-23, D-76, DK-50, HC-110, PMK, and Pyrocat-HD using both standard and low agitation, stand type development with some of these.

I continue to look for good shadow speed, high acutance, pronounced edge effects, low grain, expanded mid tone contrast, and controlled highlights. Really, that's all I want

Is Beutler my next try, I wonder ...

What you want is FX-21.

All weights in grammes per litre. For T-Max 400, use 1+9 for 11 minutes. For slower films (FP4+, T-Max 100, Delta 100), dilute more (1+14). For Pan-F, dilute 1+19, try 8 minutes to start.

For 15x concentrate:

Component​	Amount in grammes​
Metol​	2.1495​
Sodium Sulfite​	30.0​
Hydroquinone​	1.0995​
Phenidone​	0.1245​
Sodium Metabisulfite​	6.15​
Potassium Carbonate (monohydrated)​	22.035​
Sodium Bicarbonate​	3.9​
Sodium Citrate​	3.9​
Potassium Iodide​	0.0825​
Potassium Bromide​	0.33​
Sodium Hydroxide​	5.0​

 

[ruilourosa]

Yes! You need to start to weight 0.0825 grams of iodide and forget useless steps!

Magic bullets (not a *****.)
{Moderator note about deletion of politics - please don't go there!}