D-23 two bath

[Alex Benjamin]

Very closely related to Divided D-23 is the Thornton 2 Bath variant, which I rely on heavily. It produces slightly better results (improved acutance) than Divided D-23 but is otherwise very similar. I get spectacular negatives using this on "classic emulsion" type films like Fomapan, Ilford HP5 and Adox CHS 100 II.

Interesting. It's been on my list of "things to try" but never got down to it. Is it worth it only when the subject brightness range is high, or does it also give good results when low?

I've had very good results doing semistand with D-23 1+9 adding 0.5g/l of lye to preserve alkalinity.
I agitate continuously for the first 2 min, and again for 10sec at 31min, pulling the film at 1 hour. I get razor sharp negatives, full film speed, great mid-tone contrast, and well controlled highlights this way.

This works well for larger formats but less well for 35mm where the increased acutance really pops the grain.

All the usual- and endlessly discussed cautions about low agitation development have to be observed to avoid bromide drag:

• The film needs to have minimal contact with it's support structure so as to not trap developer along the edges.
• The film needs to be well above the bottom of the tank to allow the byproducts to be pulled away by gravity.
• Temperature control needs to be reasonable around a nominal 68F.

For the record, if I follow those cautions, I've never had bromide drag with D-23.

For small formats you can do D-23 1+3 (no lye), using the above mechanism. This also yields beautifully controlled negatives with full shadow speed, it's just not quite as high acutance.

Highly original. It just got on my "things to try" list, especially since I'm hoping to hop back on the 4x5 wagon in the coming future.

 

[retina_restoration]

Interesting. It's been on my list of "things to try" but never got down to it. Is it worth it only when the subject brightness range is high, or does it also give good results when low?

It delivers great results whether used to compensate (compress) an extended brightness range or just normal/low contrast scenes.

 

[-chrille-]

Very closely related to Divided D-23 is the Thornton 2 Bath variant, which I rely on heavily. It produces slightly better results (improved acutance) than Divided D-23 but is otherwise very similar. I get spectacular negatives using this on "classic emulsion" type films like Fomapan, Ilford HP5 and Adox CHS 100 II.

I am interested in Thorntons 2-bath developer for Foma 200. Have you tried that combo? If so, what ASA are you shooting at and what time and dilution do you use in first and second bath?

 

[Corn_Zhou]

D-23 1+9 adding 0.5g/l of lye to preserve alkalinity.

That sound like Beutler formula to me. It is supposed to an accutance developer in that way

 

[chuckroast]

That sound like Beutler formula to me. It is supposed to an accutance developer in that way

It's similar, but Beutler uses sodium carbonate and a fair bit of it at that:

Part A:
1000 ml water
10 g metol
50 g sodium sulphite


Part B:
1000 ml water
50 g sodium carbonate (dry)


to use, mix 1 part A + 1 part B + 10 parts water.

(From: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...in-high-resolution-whats-the-down-side.18402/)

I believe that formulation is designed to be used with ordinary agitation, though I've never tried it myself. I use the 1+9+lye as a semistand developer for an hour.

 

[retina_restoration]

I am interested in Thorntons 2-bath developer for Foma 200. Have you tried that combo? If so, what ASA are you shooting at and what time and dilution do you use in first and second bath?

I have not used Fomapan 200, nope. I suggest rating the film at 100 ASA.
You do NOT dilute the developer components! Did you read the document I linked to? It's a 2 part developer which you use at full strength, and save to re-use for at least 10 rolls per liter. Do not dilute the A and B developer components!!!

Perhaps this would be a better tutorial on how to make and use Thornton.

 

[-chrille-]

I have not used Fomapan 200, nope. I suggest rating the film at 100 ASA.
You do NOT dilute the developer components! Did you read the document I linked to? It's a 2 part developer which you use at full strength, and save to re-use for at least 10 rolls per liter. Do not dilute the A and B developer components!!!

Perhaps this would be a better tutorial on how to make and use Thornton.

You are so right! I will give it a try with Foma 200 and experiment a bit. I am using Adonal but I have trouble to tame the high contrast. Judging by your photos on Flickr of the flower in vase Thornton 2-bath and Foma handles high contrast subjects with ease.

 

[retina_restoration]

You are so right! I will give it a try with Foma 200 and experiment a bit. I am using Adonal but I have trouble to tame the high contrast. Judging by your photos on Flickr of the flower in vase Thornton 2-bath and Foma handles high contrast subjects with ease.

Adonal is brutal when used to develop high contrast scenes, or scenes that approach the limit of the film's latitude. Very unforgiving.

 

[snusmumriken]

I am interested in Thorntons 2-bath developer for Foma 200. Have you tried that combo? If so, what ASA are you shooting at and what time and dilution do you use in first and second bath?

For a decade or more I have used Thornton’s 2-bath exclusively, with FP4+, HP5+ and Double-X. This developer gives me full box speed for the Ilford films, so I would be inclined to use box speed for your first trial with Foma 200. But film speed is a personal thing depending on your equipment and metering habits.

Incidentally, now that this thread has been re-opened, I noticed that the highlights in Patrick Gainer’s photo (post #46) are blown out and featureless despite his tailor-made development. My experience with similar scenes is that this just doesn't happen with BT2B: the highlight detail is always there on the negative and can be burned in during printing, though it will be difficult to scan.

 

[-chrille-]

For a decade or more I have used Thornton’s 2-bath exclusively, with FP4+, HP5+ and Double-X. This developer gives me full box speed for the Ilford films, so I would be inclined to use box speed for your first trial with Foma 200. But film speed is a personal thing depending on your equipment and metering habits.

Incidentally, now that this thread has been re-opened, I noticed that the highlights in Patrick Gainer’s photo (post #46) are blown out and featureless despite his tailor-made development. My experience with similar scenes is that this just doesn't happen with BT2B: the highlight detail is always there on the negative and can be burned in during printing, though it will be difficult to scan.

I am using trays for development of 13x18cm sheet film. What is your experience regarding agitation method with Thorntons 2-bath developer?

In the link posted by retina_restoration http://grahamp.dotinthelandscape.org/photodata/thornton.html the density, if I interpret the text correctly, is highly dependent of agitation.

 

[snusmumriken]

I am using trays for development of 13x18cm sheet film. What is your experience regarding agitation method with Thorntons 2-bath developer?

In the link posted by retina_restoration http://grahamp.dotinthelandscape.org/photodata/thornton.html the density, if I interpret the text correctly, is highly dependent of agitation.

I have no experience with sheet film, only 35mm. My practice is continuous inversion agitation in Bath A, and inversions at 30sec, 1min, 2min and 3 min in Bath B.

 

[retina_restoration]

I am using trays for development of 13x18cm sheet film. What is your experience regarding agitation method with Thorntons 2-bath developer?

In the link posted by retina_restoration http://grahamp.dotinthelandscape.org/photodata/thornton.html the density, if I interpret the text correctly, is highly dependent of agitation.

I tray process sheet films in Thornton 2-bath often. Yes, agitation technique will affect your results, but not dramatically (unless you agitate constantly, for example, which is not recommended)

What I do.
This is important: no water pre-wash!!!

Slip the film into Bath A and agitate for approximately 30 seconds (up to 1 minute is fine), and agitate for 5-10 seconds every minute afterwards.

Remove the film after the desired duration (3-5 minutes, depending on the desired result), drain well and slip it into Bath B. Agitate for 5 seconds, and 5 seconds each minute afterwards. Compensation effects are greatest when the amount of agitation in Bath B is kept to a minimum. I've found 5 seconds per minute is just about ideal. YMMV of course.

The document you referred to includes a couple of graphs which show the effects of using Bath A alone, and Baths A and B at 3 minutes each, and 5 minutes each. Those graphs give an idea how the time in each bath affects the density/contrast of the result. As the article suggests, fast films (in the 400 ASA group) work well at 5 minutes in each bath, and slow films (100 ASA or slower) are good with 4 minutes in each bath.
Expect to have to experiment to find ideal times for your film choices and exposure techniques. You may find that to get optimal density negatives, you'll have to give the film up to one stop more exposure than you normally would. I've done tests where I did 2 (or more) sheets of film of a scene, and the Thornton negative is generally less dense overall than the negative developed in most any other developer I work with, so exposure compensation may be required.

 

[-chrille-]

I tray process sheet films in Thornton 2-bath often. Yes, agitation technique will affect your results, but not dramatically (unless you agitate constantly, for example, which is not recommended)

What I do.
This is important: no water pre-wash!!!

Slip the film into Bath A and agitate for approximately 30 seconds (up to 1 minute is fine), and agitate for 5-10 seconds every minute afterwards.

Remove the film after the desired duration (3-5 minutes, depending on the desired result), drain well and slip it into Bath B. Agitate for 5 seconds, and 5 seconds each minute afterwards. Compensation effects are greatest when the amount of agitation in Bath B is kept to a minimum. I've found 5 seconds per minute is just about ideal. YMMV of course.

The document you referred to includes a couple of graphs which show the effects of using Bath A alone, and Baths A and B at 3 minutes each, and 5 minutes each. Those graphs give an idea how the time in each bath affects the density/contrast of the result. As the article suggests, fast films (in the 400 ASA group) work well at 5 minutes in each bath, and slow films (100 ASA or slower) are good with 4 minutes in each bath.
Expect to have to experiment to find ideal times for your film choices and exposure techniques. You may find that to get optimal density negatives, you'll have to give the film up to one stop more exposure than you normally would. I've done tests where I did 2 (or more) sheets of film of a scene, and the Thornton negative is generally less dense overall than the negative developed in most any other developer I work with, so exposure compensation may be required.

Thank you I just order the chemicals needed and will do some tests myself.

 

[grahamp]

That graph being cited is mine - and most of that data is for a Jobo CPE2+ doing rotary agitation. That does not get the best from the compensation effect. Intermittent (inversion) agitation in bath B should give more compensation. With TTB I usually rate at half box speed. Just be careful to only vary one variable in testing!

 

[retina_restoration]

That graph being cited is mine - and most of that data is for a Jobo CPE2+ doing rotary agitation. That does not get the best from the compensation effect. Intermittent (inversion) agitation in bath B should give more compensation. With TTB I usually rate at half box speed. Just be careful to only vary one variable in testing!

Thank you for that input!

 

[-chrille-]

Thank you I just order the chemicals needed and will do some tests myself.

I got the chemicals today. Sodium metaborate is labeled with ”tetrahydrate”. Can I use the same amount as the recipes states, 12 grams, or do I have to modify the amount?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I got the chemicals today. Sodium metaborate is labeled with ”tetrahydrate”. Can I use the same amount as the recipes states, 12 grams, or do I have to modify the amount?

Funny, I also received mine today , from Photographer's Formulary, via B&H. Sticker on the plastic bottle just says Sodium metaborate, but SDS states Sodium metaborate tetrahydrate. You're fine.

@retina_restoration : how hot should the water be when mixing both baths?

 

[retina_restoration]

Funny, I also received mine today , from Photographer's Formulary, via B&H. Sticker on the plastic bottle just says Sodium metaborate, but SDS states Sodium metaborate tetrahydrate. You're fine.

@retina_restoration : how hot should the water be when mixing both baths?

Bath A only needs to be "warm" (100F or so) to dissolve the two components and Bath B doesn't need to be heated at all. (but can be if you feel you must)
IMPORTANT: when making any developer - this one included - always put a pinch of the sodium sulfite in the water BEFORE adding the Metol: it scavenges oxygen from the water and this helps prolong the shelf life.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Bath A only needs to be "warm" (100F or so) to dissolve the two components and Bath B doesn't need to be heated at all. (but can be if you feel you must)
IMPORTANT: when making any developer - this one included - always put a pinch of the sodium sulfite in the water BEFORE adding the Metol: it scavenges oxygen from the water and this helps prolong the shelf life.

Thanks !

 

[-chrille-]

What kind of stop bath are you using with Thorntons 2-bath developer?

 

[retina_restoration]

What kind of stop bath are you using with Thorntons 2-bath developer?

It doesn’t matter what you choose. Standard Kodak or Ilford stop is fine, or a tablespoon of vinegar in water, or a teaspoon of citric acid in 500 ml of water. Plain water wash is fine too. There is no “right” or ”wrong”.

 

[snusmumriken]

What kind of stop bath are you using with Thorntons 2-bath developer?

By the end of the second bath, there is not much active developer left, so plain water is adequate from the POV of stopping development. An acid stop might help you get more life out of your fixer; but if you drain the tank well after the water bath, the carry-over of contaminants into the fixer will be very minor. I make up a litre each of Bath A, Bath B and working strength rapid fixer, and use all three the same number of times (about fifteen 35mm rolls, by which time a year has usually elapsed). Then I chuck all three and start afresh.

Bath A only needs to be "warm" (100F or so) to dissolve the two components and Bath B doesn't need to be heated at all. (but can be if you feel you must)

I think dissolving Bath B is exothermic, so it warms itself!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Slip the film into Bath A and agitate for approximately 30 seconds (up to 1 minute is fine), and agitate for 5-10 seconds every minute afterwards.

Remove the film after the desired duration (3-5 minutes, depending on the desired result), drain well and slip it into Bath B. Agitate for 5 seconds, and 5 seconds each minute afterwards. Compensation effects are greatest when the amount of agitation in Bath B is kept to a minimum. I've found 5 seconds per minute is just about ideal. YMMV of course.

John Finch advocates the same agitation scheme for bath B. Thornton, however, recommended no agitation at all, safe for 35mm films: "...pour in Bath B, and after a quick rap of the tank on a hard surface to dislodge any air bells, let the tank stand still with no agitation for three minutes or so when all development has ceased. Note, though, that while no agitation is ideal, and usually works well for unsprocketed roll film (120/220), there can be streamers from 35mm sprocket holes. This seems to vary with different kinds of tanks, different films, and the local water characteristics. Do your own experiments to determine the minimum agitation you can achieve without streaking before committing a crucial film to the process. Perhaps try one minute intervals to start with."

Have you tried both with and without agitation?

 

[retina_restoration]

John Finch advocates the same agitation scheme for bath B. Thornton, however, recommended no agitation at all, safe for 35mm films: "...pour in Bath B, and after a quick rap of the tank on a hard surface to dislodge any air bells, let the tank stand still with no agitation for three minutes or so when all development has ceased. Note, though, that while no agitation is ideal, and usually works well for unsprocketed roll film (120/220), there can be streamers from 35mm sprocket holes. This seems to vary with different kinds of tanks, different films, and the local water characteristics. Do your own experiments to determine the minimum agitation you can achieve without streaking before committing a crucial film to the process. Perhaps try one minute intervals to start with."

Have you tried both with and without agitation?

I disagree with the “no agitation in bath B“ approach. With 35mm films, you WILL get sprocket hole streaks, and with 120 films, odds are very high that you’ll have a hot edge on the side of the film at the bottom of the tank.

Troop and Anchell state it very clearly in the Film Cookbook that some amount of agitation is essential in bath B to avoid streaking/uneven development. Almost all documents detailing a two-bath developer advocate for some amount of agitation in both A and B baths. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by eliminating agitation in B, but much to risk.

In this document on Finch’s site, he says agitation is to be used in both Aand B: http://www.pictorialplanet.com/advanced_photography/barry_thornton_two_bath_etc.html and most other practitioners also advocate for some amount of agitation in B. I suggest you stick with that approach.
I suspect that in the time since Thornton first offered his version of a 2 bath developer, folks have learned that no agitation. isn't the best option, so modern documents all include an agitation scheme.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I disagree with the “no agitation in bath B“ approach. With 35mm films, you WILL get sprocket hole streaks, and with 120 films, odds are very high that you’ll have a hot edge on the side of the film at the bottom of the tank.

Troop and Anchell state it very clearly in the Film Cookbook that some amount of agitation is essential in bath B to avoid streaking/uneven development. Almost all documents detailing a two-bath developer advocate for some amount of agitation in both A and B baths. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by eliminating agitation in B, but much to risk.

In this document on Finch’s site, he says agitation is to be used in both Aand B: http://www.pictorialplanet.com/advanced_photography/barry_thornton_two_bath_etc.html and most other practitioners also advocate for some amount of agitation in B. I suggest you stick with that approach.
I suspect that in the time since Thornton first offered his version of a 2 bath developer, folks have learned that no agitation. isn't the best option, so modern documents all include an agitation scheme.

Thanks for the answer. Don't worry, I wasn't going to try the no-agitation scheme on my first attempts at using this developer.

I was just curious to know if you, or any other TTB users, had done it the Thornton way, and what the differences might have been.