D-23 Spiked With Sodium Hydroxide

[Andrew O'Neill]

I thought I would see how small additions of Sodium Hydroxide to dilute D-23, would effect images...

 

[ags2mikon]

As always, you produce some nice videos. Thank you for the time and effort.

 

[Ben 4]

That's something different. So many possibilities; I lost track of the variations and their effects towards the end!

 

[chuckroast]

I thought I would see how small additions of Sodium Hydroxide to dilute D-23, would effect images...

A guy over on the UK 5x4 made we aware of this several years ago. It produces really sharp negatives.

It's a great combo for larger formats, but it makes grain really visible on 35mm, though, unless you happen to like that look.

At 1+10, the akalinity of the developer is reduced thereby making it far less active. So the sodium hydroxide is added to restore this. I use 0.5g/l.

I semistand develop for an hour with this and use box speed for EI. I do a presoak, 2 min of initial agitation, 10 seconds at 31 min, and pull at 60 min.

I have also done D-23 this way without the sodium hydroxide. You get negatives with a low CI, which may be another approach to long SBR scenes to keep contrast under control.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

A guy over on the UK 5x4 made we aware of this several years ago. It produces really sharp negatives.

It's a great combo for larger formats, but it makes grain really visible on 35mm, though, unless you happen to like that look.

At 1+10, the akalinity of the developer is reduced thereby making it far less active. So the sodium hydroxide is added to restore this. I use 0.5g/l.

I semistand develop for an hour with this and use box speed for EI. I do a presoak, 2 min of initial agitation, 10 seconds at 31 min, and pull at 60 min.

I have also done D-23 this way without the sodium hydroxide. You get negatives with a low CI, which may be another approach to long SBR scenes to keep contrast under control.

Thanks! I've been using D-23 for decades, on and off. I use it exclusively for X-ray, as well as Pan f. You inspired me to give this spiked concoction a go. I've also tried stand with it. That video will go up next week. Cheers!

 

[Corn_Zhou]

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

 

[chuckroast]

Thanks! I've been using D-23 for decades, on and off. I use it exclusively for X-ray, as well as Pan f. You inspired me to give this spiked concoction a go. I've also tried stand with it. That video will go up next week. Cheers!

I'll be interested to see how your outcomes compare to mine. I think using this combo with regular agitation may well do strange thing to the contrast curve. Semistand seems to calm it considerably. I may go back and try 1g/l of sodium hydroxide since your evidence suggests even sharper negatives.

A couple of my own examples processed as described. Scans of prints. The first is 9x12 Fomapan 100 the second is Double-X 35mm:

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'll be interested to see how your outcomes compare to mine. I think using this combo with regular agitation may well do strange thing to the contrast curve. Semistand seems to calm it considerably. I may go back and try 1g/l of sodium hydroxide since your evidence suggests even sharper negatives.

A couple of my own examples processed as described. Scans of prints. The first is 9x12 Fomapan 100 the second is Double-X 35mm:

View attachment 374001
View attachment 374002

Those examples are interesting, particularly the logs. What was the luminance range?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

It's on my list of developers to try. Thanks!

 

[Alan Johnson]

This seems to continue the work of Altman & Henn from the 60s:

Photographic Science and Engineering May-June 1961: Vol 5 Iss 3 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Photographic Science and Engineering May-June 1961: Volume 5, Issue 3.Digitized from IA1630812-05.Previous issue:...

archive.org

 

[chuckroast]

Those examples are interesting, particularly the logs. What was the luminance range?

I don't recall exactly. It was late afternoon and the sun was striking the scene low over my left shoulder. From the very dark shadows in the crevices to the brightest illuminated log faces was probably something like 9-10 stops. Printing this does require burning the bright log surfaces, but that's where the compensation effect of D-23 comes into play as it preserved detail there.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

This seems to continue the work of Altman & Henn from the 60s:

Photographic Science and Engineering May-June 1961: Vol 5 Iss 3 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Photographic Science and Engineering May-June 1961: Volume 5, Issue 3.Digitized from IA1630812-05.Previous issue:...

archive.org

Thanks for posting that, Alan!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't recall exactly. It was late afternoon and the sun was striking the scene low over my left shoulder. From the very dark shadows in the crevices to the brightest illuminated log faces was probably something like 9-10 stops. Printing this does require burning the bright log surfaces, but that's where the compensation effect of D-23 comes into play as it preserved detail there.

Thank you!

 

[chuckroast]

This seems to continue the work of Altman & Henn from the 60s:

Photographic Science and Engineering May-June 1961: Vol 5 Iss 3 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Photographic Science and Engineering May-June 1961: Volume 5, Issue 3.Digitized from IA1630812-05.Previous issue:...

archive.org

There's nothing really new, I guess Great post though.

 

[pentaxuser]

I don't recall exactly. It was late afternoon and the sun was striking the scene low over my left shoulder. From the very dark shadows in the crevices to the brightest illuminated log faces was probably something like 9-10 stops. Printing this does require burning the bright log surfaces, but that's where the compensation effect of D-23 comes into play as it preserved detail there.

Is this your D23 at 1+9 using semi-stand?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[chuckroast]

Is this your D23 at 1+9 using semi-stand?

Thanks

pentaxuser

That's correct. To be specific:

D-23 1+9
Sodium Hydroxide (Lye) 0.5g/l
2 liter open tank processing
3 min prewash (I now only use 1 min, though)
2 min continuous agitation
10 sec agitation at 31 min
Pull at 60 min
Continuous running water stop for 30-60 sec
5 min fix in TF-45
25 min final wash

With sheet film, I suspend the sheet horizontally well off the bottom of the tank using a minimal contact pinch hanger (Kodak #6).

For roll films and 35mm, I use only Nikor style stainless reels because the walls of the spiral are small and well spaced to discourage developer trapping. I invert a small funnel and place the reel on it with the lift rod threaded through the whole business before dropping it into the open tank. This keeps the film off the bottom of the tank.

I have found that these two factors - minimal film contact with the support system, and raising it off the bottom of the tank - seem to be the critical ones in avoiding bromide drag.

 

[pentaxuser]

Interesting video, Andrew, so thanks and it looks a "work in progress" sítuation

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply, chuckroast

pentaxuser

 

[chuckroast]

Thanks for the reply, chuckroast

pentaxuser

As always, take care with sodium hydroxide (aka Lye). It is exothermic, so it produces heat when added to water. In the quantities we're discussing here this shouldn't be a big deal but if you accidentally dump too much into solution it can get HOT.

Also, lye is severely caustic and will give you bad chemical skin burns and destroy eye tissue.

For these reasons I recommend:

1. A good lab coat
2. Eye protection
3. Nitrile gloves
4. Never stand over the open container you are pouring into
5. Never eat, drink, or smoke in the darkroom and keep your mitts outta yer mouth

Mostly this is just common sense chemical handling, but I mention it here in case someone reading this hasn't been acquainted with good lab discipline.

I've used all manner of chemicals without an issue for years by following these rules.

P.S. The guy I worked for 50 years ago as an assistant was a heavy smoker. Beyond the clinging smell and gross ashtrays he routinely smoked while film was drying in the other room and so forth. It was ... not great.

 

[ruilourosa]

You lost me @ 3 min pre soak...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

He presoaks in water for 3 min (actually 1 min), before development.

 

[chuckroast]

You lost me @ 3 min pre soak...

A "presoak" involves putting the film in water that is the same temperature as the developer, before actually putting it in developer.

I don't do 3 min any longer. It's almost certainly unnecessary. I do 1 min only.

This is a matter of some religious debate in the community. The manufacturers never recommended this, but the old timers almost always did it to swell the emulsion to better and more evenly receive the developer. The empirical tests I've seen show little or no difference with- or without presoak. As a matter of old habits and to not change my workflow I just do 1 min as I have for decades.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

My opinion is that sodium carbonate would be easier to manage. It then becomes similar to Beutler formula.

See:

Beutler Formula

Beutler 105 divided developer

www.pictorialplanet.com

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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."

 

[ruilourosa]

A "presoak" involves putting the film in water that is the same temperature as the developer, before actually putting it in developer.

I don't do 3 min any longer. It's almost certainly unnecessary. I do 1 min only.

This is a matter of some religious debate in the community. The manufacturers never recommended this, but the old timers almost always did it to swell the emulsion to better and more evenly receive the developer. The empirical tests I've seen show little or no difference with- or without presoak. As a matter of old habits and to not change my workflow I just do 1 min as I have for decades.

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!!