D-23 two bath

[like2fiddle]

I bought some chemicals and made my own D-23 two bath developer. I found the recipe in one of Henry Horentstein's books. I just finished developing my first roll which happened to be APX -100 shot through a Yashica T4. I just hung the film to dry and the negatives look really good at first glance. We'll know more later, but my question is this... Horenstein wasn't specific about reuse of the D-23. Somewhere else I think I read that one can reuse the D-23 part A many times, but that the B part should be one use only. Does anybody know? Thanks in advance

 

[sanking]

You can definitely reuse divided D23 if you do so on the same day or within a week. I have developed as many as 30 rolls of 120 film in a liter of Solution A and B within a two day period, and I discarded it after that. I don't know if it can be saved for use several weeks down the road. I reused it once after a month or so and the results seemed weaker than I expected so I don't bother to work that way any more as it is very inexpensive by most standards even if you use it one-shot.

Sandy King

I bought some chemicals and made my own D-23 two bath developer. I found the recipe in one of Henry Horentstein's books. I just finished developing my first roll which happened to be APX -100 shot through a Yashica T4. I just hung the film to dry and the negatives look really good at first glance. We'll know more later, but my question is this... Horenstein wasn't specific about reuse of the D-23. Somewhere else I think I read that one can reuse the D-23 part A many times, but that the B part should be one use only. Does anybody know? Thanks in advance

 

[nickandre]

I don't know about the divided solution but my D23 has been going strong for about 6 months.

 

[Anscojohn]

I am led to believe that, so long as it does not become contaminated, the D23 may be used "indefinitly," just being topped off to make up for any carry out of the solution.

I have never seen any advantage to divided D23 which was worth the effort. I really like replenished D23.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

An old dataguide I have recommends replenishing single bath D23 with DK-25R.



Water. (125/52) 24oz(750cc)

Kodak Elon Developing Agent. 145 grains (10 grams)

Kodak Sodium Sulfite, dessicated. 3 oz and 145 grains (100 grams)

Kodalk. 290 grains (20 grams)

Add cold water to make. 32 oz (1 liter)



For d23, replenish with 3/4 ounce for each roll processed or 80 square inches (520 square cm) of film. After ed rolls you might have some loss of shadow so keep an eye on it.

 

[Joe Lipka]

I always used D-23 as a one shot developer because I was tray developing sheet film and it was incredibly cheap compared to other developers I had used. My developing times were all based on fresh developer, so with the expense of sheet film I figured I could afford to through out the cheapest part of my developing process rather than waste money (and more importantly) and hard won exposures on a partially exhausted developer.

 

[Anscojohn]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

An old dataguide I have recommends replenishing single bath D23 with DK-25R.


*********
I'm not sure O.P. would want to consider using replenisher with D23 when D23 is used as a first bath in a two bath procedure. It is believed very little (if any) development actually takes place in Bath A, so replenishment with DK:-25R at the normal rate would, it would seem, result in boosting the activity of Bath A rather than keeping the D23 at it's "normal" activity as would be the case if the D23 were to be used for the full development of the film.

 

[Terrence Brennan]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

An old dataguide I have recommends replenishing single bath D23 with DK-25R.



Water. (125/52) 24oz(750cc)

Kodak Elon Developing Agent. 145 grains (10 grams)

Kodak Sodium Sulfite, dessicated. 3 oz and 145 grains (100 grams)

Kodalk. 290 grains (20 grams)

Add cold water to make. 32 oz (1 liter)



For d23, replenish with 3/4 ounce for each roll processed or 80 square inches (520 square cm) of film. After ed rolls you might have some loss of shadow so keep an eye on it.

I do just that, and my last batch of D-23 was finally laid to rest after 3-1/2 years of use. I keep it in a brown glass bottle, filled to the brim, with no air space. My method for replenishing is to add the replenisher to the bottle, and then top with the used developer. If I think that I will come up short, usually due to spillage, then I will mix a pinch (like 150mL) of fresh D-23, add it to the bottle, add the replenisher, and top with the used solution. The excess is then dumped.

I don't have my Photo Lab Index in front of me, but AFAIR, Kodak recommends no more than about 25 rolls per quart/litre be processed, with replenishment. The capacity, without replenishment, is 4 rolls per quart/litre. So, in a 4-litre bottle (and my 1-gallon bottle actually holds 4.06-litres), you can process 84 rolls, with replenishment, and another 16 rolls, without replenishment. You would need to have mixed 84 x 3/4-ounces of replenisher, or just shy of two quarts.

The rough rule of thumb for replenished, but non-monitored developers, is when the volume of replenisher added equals the original volume of developer, you can then use the developer to the limit of its non-replenished capacity, and dump it. I used to do that many years ago with Acufine; mix a quart of deveoper and replenisher, ad 3/4-ounce after each roll, and when the replenisher had all been added, you could develop four more rolls, before sewering the developer.

 

[like2fiddle]

Thank you all for your replies. Because I've mixed this as a two bath solution, the Kokalk (I used Sodium Metaborate) is only in the second solution. So, if I were to replenish, I would be replenishing both solutions? I recall a recipe for divided D-76 where the "A" solution is reused, but the "B" solution is discarded after each use.

 

[Anscojohn]

Thank you all for your replies. Because I've mixed this as a two bath solution, the Kokalk (I used Sodium Metaborate) is only in the second solution. So, if I were to replenish, I would be replenishing both solutions? I recall a recipe for divided D-76 where the "A" solution is reused, but the "B" solution is discarded after each use.

******
Bath A should just be topped off with fresh D23 to keep it to the original level. You should not add DK-25R replenisher unless you are actually developing the film in Bath A, which you are not.
Replenishing D23 with DK25R is strictly for using straight D23 and developing the film to it's completion in D23. In the divided development--which, by the way, I found to be not worth the effort--very little of the Bath A is actually "used" to develop the film--it just soaks into the emulsion. It is then activated to completion by the alkali in Bath B.
I have used D23 as my primary film developer for decades. I cannot say I have used the same liter of D23 for years as has previous poster; but I have sure used the same liter of D23 for many months in pretty much the same way that he uses it.
A lot of the old darkroom rats used to say that film developer "didn't start gettin' good" until it had been used for a while.

 

[like2fiddle]

John,
Thank you. I am planning to try the straight D-23 to compare to the two bath. Believe it or not, there's not much information about D-23 online (or I'm looking in the wrong places). I do think the shadow detail in the attached couple of photos developed in the two bath formula is pretty good though. Can't add them at the moment, I've got to get rid of a few older ones first - as soon as I figure out how to do that.

 

[Anscojohn]

John,
Thank you. I am planning to try the straight D-23 to compare to the two bath. Believe it or not, there's not much information about D-23 online (or I'm looking in the wrong places). I do think the shadow detail in the attached couple of photos developed in the two bath formula is pretty good though. Can't add them at the moment, I've got to get rid of a few older ones first - as soon as I figure out how to do that.

******
Roger,
In my opinion, D23 is the best-kept secret in the film developing world. You have already seen one of it's attributes--the amazing ability to give you shadow detail. It does that even without the folderal of two-bath development.

 

[sanking]

Divided D-23 is a good option when a wide range of subject brightness conditions are captured on the same roll of film because the mechanism of this type of development prevents the highlights from being blown out. Regardless of how long you develop the film in Solution B the contrast it reaches will be determined by how much of the reducer it was able to soak up in Solution A. You can also develop different types of film at the same time in the same bath and they will generally come out looking very much alike.

Divided D23 has also been popular with some sheet film users for pretty much the same reason, i.e. it automatically prevents the highlights from being blown out.

If possible I prefer to identify film in the field after exposure for the type of development it needs, and then develop in Pyrocat-HD by time and temperature. However, whenever I wind up exposing on the same roll of film subjects with a wide range of contrast I label this roll for divided development.


Sandy

 

[Terrence Brennan]

D-23 longevity

******
I have used D23 as my primary film developer for decades. I cannot say I have used the same liter of D23 for years as has previous poster; but I have sure used the same liter of D23 for many months in pretty much the same way that he uses it.

I was a bit surprised at how long it lasted. Of course, I did take pains to keep as much air as possible out of the bottle.

I only dumped it because I had pushed some film, shot under street lamps and by candlelight. I developed the film for something like 20 minutes @100F, and when I was finished, the developer (and my stop bath and fix) were full of little bits of emulsion. I filtered the fix, which was new, and dumped everything else.

The film was then dunked (quickly!!) in a 6% bath of potassium alum, then washed and dried. I have since found that I can safely process this particular brand of film at 85F, with no physical damage.

 

[Bertil]

Have always just used straight D23. Very nice to control high contrast, especially when important to save shadow detail, and never really destroying anything not possible to compensate for, to a reasonable degree, in printing; in that way something of a "universal", and perhaps as Anscojohn says "D23 is the best-kept secret in the film developing world" - despite one of Ansel Adams favorites, at least in "The Negative"; perhaps to simple to make the right kind of noise!
Some questions:
1) What goes into Bath B in the two bath D-23? Understand that it is some alkali that works as a accelerator, but which substance and in which dilution; and roughly what times for "normal" developing in the two baths?
2) What's the main virtue supposed to be working with the two bath type compared with the straight type?
another one:
3) Anybody tried some antifog (some Potassium bromide, or...) in D-23? Do think it tends to fog a little bit compared to other formulas.

 

[sanking]

There are several versions of divided D23. Some use borax in Solution B, others sodium metaborate. There are also variations on Solution A. Either Solution A or Solution B can be adjusted to produce more or less contrast but don't do try this unless you understand how these solution work together.

I already addressed the major difference between straight D23 and divided D23 in a previous message.

Divided D23 has been very clean working in my experience and does not require more restrainer.

Sandy King

Have always just used straight D23. Very nice to control high contrast, especially when important to save shadow detail, and never really destroying anything not possible to compensate for, to a reasonable degree, in printing; in that way something of a "universal", and perhaps as Anscojohn says "D23 is the best-kept secret in the film developing world" - despite one of Ansel Adams favorites, at least in "The Negative"; perhaps to simple to make the right kind of noise!
Some questions:
1) What goes into Bath B in the two bath D-23? Understand that it is some alkali that works as a accelerator, but which substance and in which dilution; and roughly what times for "normal" developing in the two baths?
2) What's the main virtue supposed to be working with the two bath type compared with the straight type?
another one:
3) Anybody tried some antifog (some Potassium bromide, or...) in D-23? Do think it tends to fog a little bit compared to other formulas.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

A lot of the old darkroom rats used to say that film developer "didn't start gettin' good" until it had been used for a while.

Not an old darkroom rat, but replenishing your film developer will add to it and make it better. I started a 2 liter kit of replenished Xtol the other day after my success with replenished Edwal 12 (which I still keep, replenished, the same batch that I started back in November of 2008, and still works beautifully!).

What Sandy says about divided developing for a roll that has varying brightness ranges on the different frames makes a lot of sense!

- Thomas

 

[jim appleyard]

John,
Thank you. I am planning to try the straight D-23 to compare to the two bath. Believe it or not, there's not much information about D-23 online (or I'm looking in the wrong places)...QUOTE]

Actually, there is plenty of info on D-23/divided. while there isn't as much as D-76 or Rodinal, there's lots out there.

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

Plus, there was a thread here on APUG not too long ago about the wonders of D-23.

 

[Anscojohn]

Not an old darkroom rat, but replenishing your film developer will add to it and make it better. I started a 2 liter kit of replenished Xtol the other day after my success with replenished Edwal 12 (which I still keep, replenished, the same batch that I started back in November of 2008, and still works beautifully!).

What Sandy says about divided developing for a roll that has varying brightness ranges on the different frames makes a lot of sense!

- Thomas

******
Replenishment is necessary after having actually developed film in the soup. When the D23 has been "weakened" by actually developing film; and which has been slowed down by the build up of bromide from developing film in it.

With divided D23, it is my impression that no significant development takes place--just the imbibing of the developer in to the emulsion. So I see nought but danger in trying to add replenisher. Simply topping of with fresh D23 to make up for the carryout is all that is necessary. That is my understanding--but, as I have said, I do not use divided D23; just the D23, replenished with DK-25R.
.

 

[Bertil]

Thank you Sandy for your response. Sorry, I didn't understand the full significance of your former description of divided D-23, took for granted that not blocking highlights, but full shadow details, was the main virtue of Straight D-23; as I understand your point now this feature, at least, is even better in the divided type. Good! Perhaps worth trying.
//Bertil

 

[Bertil]

With the help of Google, yes a lot of Divided D-23 information! The following site seems quite relevant to the discussion: [http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.html].

According Ed Buffaloe in his part of the article on this site: "So when films are in the above solution A’s, they aren’t just absorbing developing agent and waiting for solution B to provide enough alkalinity to begin development--they are developing the film. But 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 this is roughly correct for DD-23 processing, then after all replenishing Bath A is perhaps not to be excluded, or at least relative to time in Bath A (which after all is ordinary D-23) - but perhaps it should not be replenished for some other reasons.
//Bertil

 

[Nathan Potter]

Well if you are after tight control and reproducibility using a divided developer don't use a replenisher. Better to use A and B solutions as one shot chemistry in a drum. You really should go thru a zone system type calibration of the film and developer sequence prior to committing to actual image making.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

 

[like2fiddle]

Some questions:
1) What goes into Bath B in the two bath D-23? Understand that it is some alkali that works as a accelerator, but which substance and in which dilution; and roughly what times for "normal" developing in the two baths?
2) What's the main virtue supposed to be working with the two bath type compared with the straight type?
another one:
3) Anybody tried some antifog (some Potassium bromide, or...) in D-23? Do think it tends to fog a little bit compared to other formulas.

The recipe I used called for 15 grams of Borax or Kodalk (I used Sodium Metaborate) in one liter of water for bath B. Bath A consists simply of 7.5 grams of Metol plus 100 grams of Sodium Sulfite in one liter of water.

My understanding is that it works as you and others wrote earlier: Bath A soaks into the emulsion and little development takes place. In bath B the highlights develop quickly but the shadows continue to develop throughout the time in bath B. I have read that it is important to agitate very minimally in bath B in order to enhance the shadow development and prevent streaking.

I am brand new to D-23 and have not experienced fogging yet.

 

[Bertil]

Roger, fogging is really not a problem with straight D-23; it's just that I like very clean negatives, especially when contact printing sheet film. Just looked at some of my D-23 negatives compared to some other developers (like Rodinal) and came to the conclusion: forget it, fogging no problem! But I think I will make some experiments with a restrainer just to figure out how it influence the developing process.

I agree with Ancojohn that straight D-23 is a very useful and a "forgiving" developer (to use his term i another thread) and very good for normal to high contrast subjects. DD-23 seems to have a VERY compensating effect and useful for very extreme hight contrast subjects, and for situations like the ones Sandy suggests above, very interesting to know.

After all: welcome to the world of straight D-23 (replenished with DK-25R, as John suggests); but I'm happy that you opened my eyes for the "Divided World" which I was quite ignorant about: I'll definitely try it for extreme situations.
//Bertil

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Not an old darkroom rat, but replenishing your film developer will add to it and make it better. I started a 2 liter kit of replenished Xtol the other day after my success with replenished Edwal 12 (which I still keep, replenished, the same batch that I started back in November of 2008, and still works beautifully!).

******
Originally Posted by AnscoJohn
Replenishment is necessary after having actually developed film in the soup. When the D23 has been "weakened" by actually developing film; and which has been slowed down by the build up of bromide from developing film in it.

~-~-~-~-~-~-

Hi John,

That's of course true. I was comparing to single shot use of developers. Single shot is how I've used all developers up until I started using Edwal 12, and I did not put that in perspective when I commented above. Sorry to leave that detail out, I live inside my own head a little bit too much sometimes.

I do believe, though, that the build up of a level of bromide is what's having a good effect on the results of the film processing. After the developer was seasoned, I saw nicer gradations in the highlights especially, more beautiful modulation right at the top end of the brightness range.

Thanks for clarifying, John.

- Thomas