D-23 two bath

[Anscojohn]

Hi John,

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.

*****
That is good for me to know what is happening. I remember the old lab rats saying that it takes a while for the "76" to "start gettin' gud." I guess that is the reason why Gene Smith and others would add a bit of used developer to the fresh one shot.

Since I generally just shoot "normal" contrast, straight D23 works for me. In those exteme contrast scenes, I just let things fall as they may and try to print the highlights down. I am not always successful. I read years ago where someone wrote about the genius of D23 when dealing with a roll of film containing "morse code" images--I think that was the term--some negs on the roll with lots of contrast, others kind of flat; but that because of the "semi-compensating" effect of D23, printable negs were easier to obtain with D23 than with any other film developer. I have found this to be the case.
Some of my better negs make prints which seem to have an almost three-dimensional effect whereby one feels as if it is not a flat surface one is viewing. It seems as if one can "reach around" behind the image on the paper. I surmize this is because of the good mid-tone separation. I do not know.
I know I am kind of set on D23 and refer to it ad nauseum, but I wish I had know about it in my early days. It just simplifies my printing so much.

 

[like2fiddle]

I just wanted to post an update of sorts regarding my experimenting with divided D-23:

I've now tried the two bath formula with bulk Tri-x, bulk HP-5, Arista Premium, and APX-100.
To my eyes, best results have been with the APX-100 rated at 100 (although I have not yet tried shooting it at any other speed)
HP-5 looks really good from 400 down to 100, a tad more shadow detail at 100 vs. 200 vs. 400. I still want to try it at 320 to compare to 200 and 400. Ok negatives at 800, 1600, and even something printable at 3200.
Trix and Arista Prem give good results below 400, but not as much tone variation as HP-5 or APX-100.

I was surprised at the high contrast in many of the negatives as I had read that a reduction in contrast was one of the hallmarks of this divided developer. The shadow detail is impressive though in the lower contrast negatives.

As to replenishment or not, etc. I am doing something a little different for now to see how it goes. I am sticking to the two-bath formula: bath one simply Metol and Sodium Sulfite, bath 2 Sodium Metaborate. I have mixed a second bottle of bath A that I use to replenish my "user" bottle of bath A at the rate of 20cc per film developed. My plan is to try to do this until the "replenish" bottle is used up, then probably discard my "user" bottle and begin again. Solution B I am using once then discarding.

I am very open to advice/criticism about these methods. I am learning about the properties of the various chemicals involved and still do not know much. For example, could bath B solution be reused and for how long/how many films. I am discarding it after one use based on the fact that most of the development theoretically is taking place in bath B so it must exhaust more quickly than A. Does that make sense? But how can Diafine just keep going and going?

 

[sanking]

I was surprised at the high contrast in many of the negatives as I had read that a reduction in contrast was one of the hallmarks of this divided developer. The shadow detail is impressive though in the lower contrast negatives.

If you want lower contrast you can substitute borax for the sodium metaborate. Formulas I have seen range from 2 gtsmd of borax per liter to 10-15 grams per liter of Solution B. Borax.

Sandy King

 

[john_s]

......I was surprised at the high contrast in many of the negatives as I had read that a reduction in contrast was one of the hallmarks of this divided developer. The shadow detail is impressive though in the lower contrast negatives..........................

As has been pointed out, this is not a true divided developer. If your results are uncomfortably contrasty, you are developing too long (in "bath A" which is a developer, not a divided developer).

You can't make valid comparisons between films or film/dev combinations until you get the contrast of each equal (or at least very close).

I'm not surprised that HP5 at ISO=100 gives good shadow detail!

 

[Bertil]

Roger, for the contrast issue, it would be interesting to know your developing times/temperature/agitation in solution A (=straight D-23), (but also B; having no experience of divided but some experience of straight D-23). Otherwise I agree with john_s -- you should have shadow detail if you overexpose HP5 two steps!!
//Bertil

 

[gainer]

It sometimes happens that we "test" a theory by seeing if it works, without comparing it with what it is supposed to replace. A long time ago in gog years, someone in the locasl camera club was proclaiming the virutes of divided D-23 2-bath. I tried it and it worked, in the sense that I got good negatives without worrying much about time or tempaeraute. Then I made myself a densitometer. (I was a NACA engineer, after all.) When I compared the results with those from plain D-23, I found no appreciable difference in characteristic curves, and certainly not in their shape. Was the inconvenience of having three evelpoing tanks (ideally, at least) worth the lack of difference? Every so often, I try another formula for 2-bath divided development, but haven't kept any.

If you want to try a true divided developer, add enough ascorbic acid to the D-23 to make its pH about 7. Let the film soak a while and then soak it in a metaborate solution. If the theory is right, the emulsion should soak up enough of the first solution to give you development in the second.

Another possibility is to mix a batch of PC-TEA and use the concentrate for the first solution and plain water for the second. Leave e fair amount of drain time between A and B. That stuff is pretty thick.

 

[BradS]

... I tried it and it (divided D-23) worked, in the sense that I got good negatives without worrying much about time or temperature. Then I made myself a densitometer. (I was a NACA engineer, after all.) When I compared the results with those from plain D-23, I found no appreciable difference in characteristic curves, and certainly not in their shape....

I didn't use a densitometer but after many side-by-side comparisons, I came to the same conclusion. Two bath D-23 has no advantage over plain old D-23 with modern emulsions.

 

[Anscojohn]

[When I compared the results with those from plain D-23, I found no appreciable difference in characteristic curves, and certainly not in their shape. Was the inconvenience of having three evelpoing tanks (ideally, at least) worth the lack of difference?
*******
I never thought the difference was worth it after trying Divided D23 about forty years back.

I have a neg shot at Torrey Pines park north of Sand Diego of a white washed building in very strong, very direct, very contrasty light. Souped my TXP 220 in straight D-23. I have to burn the whitest parts of the building down a bit; and the detail in the shadows of the deepset windows is far more than actually needed. But if straight D23 handled a scene like that; I see no need for any two bath legerdermain. KISS!

 

[sanking]

I think some of you may be missing the point about why one would use divided D23 instead of straight D23. No one is saying that the results are finer but there is one characteristics of divided D23 that regular D23 does not have and that is the fact that it is impossible to blow out the highlights, assuming you limit time in Solution A and B to the recommended times. With regular D23 it is possible to over-develop and get a negative with a very high CI. With divided D23 the CI is always about the same.

Sandy King

 

[gainer]

I never thought the difference was worth it after trying Divided D23 about forty years back.

KISS![/QUOTE]

I got there about 15 years earlier. By 1960 I was taking pictures at dress rehearsals from my seat as first oboist of the Norfolk symphony, now known as the Virginia Symphony. If divided D-23 had been worth it, I certainly would have used it. Stage lighting is very contrasty. I exposed to put the deepest shadow at about Zone I. If I had used auto exposure, I would have been thrown off by the music stand. You live and you learn.

(Yes, I really did also work as a GS-13 at Langley Research Laboratory. I believed in having fun. As proof, my wife and I had 6 kids in 8 years.)

 

[sanking]

I can not explain why divided D23 (or another divided developer) would not work for you in that situation. These developers will definitely limit the CI and keep it from blowing out the highlights if used correctly.

Sandy

I never thought the difference was worth it after trying Divided D23 about forty years back.

KISS!

I got there about 15 years earlier. By 1960 I was taking pictures at dress rehearsals from my seat as first oboist of the Norfolk symphony, now known as the Virginia Symphony. If divided D-23 had been worth it, I certainly would have used it. Stage lighting is very contrasty. I exposed to put the deepest shadow at about Zone I. If I had used auto exposure, I would have been thrown off by the music stand. You live and you learn.

(Yes, I really did also work as a GS-13 at Langley Research Laboratory. I believed in having fun. As proof, my wife and I had 6 kids in 8 years.)[/QUOTE]

 

[BradS]

I think some of you may be missing the point about why one would use divided D23 instead of straight D23. No one is saying that the results are finer but there is one characteristics of divided D23 that regular D23 does not have and that is the fact that it is impossible to blow out the highlights, assuming you limit time in Solution A and B to the recommended times. With regular D23 it is possible to over-develop and get a negative with a very high CI. With divided D23 the CI is always about the same.

Sandy King

Again, in my own side-by-side examination of the two, I found no practical advatage. I agree that in theory, it is possible to develop to a higher CI with straight D-23 but, in practice, one would really have to try hard to do so. There maybe some theroretical advantage therefore but, not really of any practical significance.

As I am always fighting with extreme scene brightness ratios, I would have gladly accepted the added burden of a divided developer but, there really is no practical advantage to be gained in this case.

 

[Anscojohn]

I can not explain why divided D23 (or another divided developer) would not work for you in that situation. These developers will definitely limit the CI and keep it from blowing out the highlights if used correctly.

Sandy
*********
One of the old standbys for contrasty stage lighting was a very dilute metol/sulfite developer. Were I doing it, and were I concerned about excess contrast if using my straight, replenished D23, I probably would have mixed up some fresh D23 and souped the film in D23 diluted 1:3.







I

 

[dancqu]

I agree that in theory, it is possible to develop to a higher
CI with straight D-23 but, in practice, one would really
have to try hard to do so.
As I am always fighting with extreme scene brightness ratios
I would have gladly accepted the added burden of a divided
developer but, there really is no practical advantage to be
gained in this case.

Much exposed areas require much developer and be
renewed of it. Both divided and very dilute developers
restrain the supply of developer. Very dilute examples
are FX-1, Beutler's, Rodinal, and my invention,
D-23 at a 1:7.

Agitation plays a part. Less agitation leaves the dense
areas short of developer. Density builds slowly in the
dense areas while the thin areas, needing little
developer, fully develop.

Combine very dilute with infrequent agitation for
great compensation. From my reading of posts this
NG that is what is done, and to an extreme, by those
who practice stand development. Dan

 

[Anscojohn]

[ From my reading of posts this
NG that is what is done, and to an extreme, by those
who practice stand development. Dan[/QUOTE]

******
What means "NG?"

 

[sanking]

Again, in my own side-by-side examination of the two, I found no practical advatage. I agree that in theory, it is possible to develop to a higher CI with straight D-23 but, in practice, one would really have to try hard to do so. There maybe some theroretical advantage therefore but, not really of any practical significance.

I don't know the details of your side by side examination so can not comment. However, I know for a fact that it is possible to develop film to a relatively high CI in straight D23 and that simply is not possible with divided D23 because of the limitation as to how much reducer can be absorbed by the emiulsion in Solution A.

Depending on the extremes of brightness range in the kind of photography one does the advantage of divided D23 to keep highlight contrast down may or may not be an important consideration. However, if one is working with scenes of very bright contrast, say SBR of 12 or more, there is absolutely no question but that divided D23 offers a clear advantage over straight D23 used at normal dilution.

Divided developers, whether D23, D76 or Diafine do not offer the only path to restraining highlight density. Diluting many developers to 1/2 or 1/4 of their normal strength in combination with longer development times and reduced agitaiton will also keep highlight density in control. This is the path many follow with developers like Rodinal, Pyrodat-HD and HC-110. However, the drawback is that you need to do testing ahead of time because even these methods can give blown out highlights if development times are too long.

BTW, keeping highlight densities low is as important for those scanning and printing digitally as it is for folks sprinting in the darkroom on silver papers because the one thing most consumer scanners don't do well is capture very high silver densities.

Sandy King

 

[BetterSense]

For those that use non-divided D23:

It sounds like development time is somewhat less critical with non-divided D23 than with other developers, due to this developer's tendency to preserve the highlights.

Do you always soup everything for the same amount of time, or do you vary development time? It almost seems as if souping everything at a fixed time, and using EI to control contrast (Like I do with Diafine) would be a reasonable idea.

 

[sanking]

It sounds like development time is somewhat less critical with non-divided D23 than with other developers, due to this developer's tendency to preserve the highlights.

I think if your run some sensitometry tests and compare straight D23 to D76 you will find that with most films D23 is slower working, i.e. you have to develop longer to get the same CI. However, if you adjust development time to give the same CI with both developrs ultimately the curve shape of both is going to be almost identical. Neither is a compensating developer so that what is meant by controlling the highlights is achieved by developing to a low CI, not by compressing the shoulder as we normally associate with compensation type develoment. Divided D23 is not a compensating type developer either as it produces like regular D23 a long stright line curve.

Compensating type developers are designed to exhaust, sometimes in combination with reduced agitation. It is possible that some dilution of D23 in combination with minimal or semi-stand type agiation, but I have not personally used D23 this wayl.

Sandy King

 

[gainer]

I used to use a lot of stabilization paper, which had developing agents in the emulsion. For sreious work, I develped it in a tray of carbonate solution, fixed and washed it. This was fiber based, and quite a good paper.

My problem with stage lighting was not so much the SBR as it was the fact that the soloist was, from my viewpoint, against a very dark background with a white music stand in the foreground. Exposure automation of the time was of little use. I settled on 1/60 at 2.8 with Tri-X. My developer was a home brew of Phenidone, hydroquinone and sulfite, which gave about the tonality of D-23 with a trifle more film speed and a sort of self replenishment, which I reckoned to be the result of the low sensitivity to bromide, low pH, and high ratio of hydroquinone to Phenidone. I'll see if I can dig up one of my photos to illustrate.

 

[dancqu]

[From my reading of posts this
NG that is what is done, and to an extreme, by those
who practice stand development. Dan

******
What means "NG?"[/QUOTE]

NG? News Group. APUG. NG, perhaps archaic. Dan

 

[gainer]

Stage lighting inside out.

I don't know if I ever sent this before. If so, here it is again. Alicia De Larrocha discussing a point of interpretation with NSO's conductor Russell Stanger.

 

[Vaidotas]

Hi John,

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.

*****
That is good for me to know what is happening. I remember the old lab rats saying that it takes a while for the "76" to "start gettin' gud." I guess that is the reason why Gene Smith and others would add a bit of used developer to the fresh one shot.

Since I generally just shoot "normal" contrast, straight D23 works for me. In those exteme contrast scenes, I just let things fall as they may and try to print the highlights down. I am not always successful. I read years ago where someone wrote about the genius of D23 when dealing with a roll of film containing "morse code" images--I think that was the term--some negs on the roll with lots of contrast, others kind of flat; but that because of the "semi-compensating" effect of D23, printable negs were easier to obtain with D23 than with any other film developer. I have found this to be the case.
Some of my better negs make prints which seem to have an almost three-dimensional effect whereby one feels as if it is not a flat surface one is viewing. It seems as if one can "reach around" behind the image on the paper. I surmize this is because of the good mid-tone separation. I do not know.
I know I am kind of set on D23 and refer to it ad nauseum, but I wish I had know about it in my early days. It just simplifies my printing so much.

Interesting.
I was told about D23 “seasoning” by putting a bunch of unexposed sheets in to it (5 liter buckets were in use as minimum capacity and film in sheets were all around). Sounds as pure blasphemy now.
Mistery solved.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Interesting.
I was told about D23 “seasoning” by putting a bunch of unexposed sheets in to it (5 liter buckets were in use as minimum capacity and film in sheets were all around). Sounds as pure blasphemy now.
Mistery solved.

John Finch has something about quicker seasoning in his Pictorial Planet blog on replenished D-23: "After 30 films I discard 3/4 of the stock developer and top up the bottle with fresh made stock. Then just carry on replenishing, no need to develop the three films first." I'm about to do just that as I'm close to the 20 film mark.

Thanks for reviving this old thread. I've recently made D-23 my main developer, but have yet to try divided D-23. Sandy King's informations on its effect on highlights are very interesting. Wish these guys were still around, I'd have tons of questions.

 

[retina_restoration]

John Finch has something about quicker seasoning in his Pictorial Planet blog on replenished D-23: "After 30 films I discard 3/4 of the stock developer and top up the bottle with fresh made stock. Then just carry on replenishing, no need to develop the three films first." I'm about to do just that as I'm close to the 20 film mark.

Thanks for reviving this old thread. I've recently made D-23 my main developer, but have yet to try divided D-23. Sandy King's informations on its effect on highlights are very interesting. Wish these guys were still around, I'd have tons of questions.

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.

 

[chuckroast]

John Finch has something about quicker seasoning in his Pictorial Planet blog on replenished D-23: "After 30 films I discard 3/4 of the stock developer and top up the bottle with fresh made stock. Then just carry on replenishing, no need to develop the three films first." I'm about to do just that as I'm close to the 20 film mark.

Thanks for reviving this old thread. I've recently made D-23 my main developer, but have yet to try divided D-23. Sandy King's informations on its effect on highlights are very interesting. Wish these guys were still around, I'd have tons of questions.

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.