D-23 where to buy?

[norm123]

Hi

I read a lot of good things about this develloper but I don't know where to buy it. I was thinking that it was obsolete since a lot of time.

Are there some equivalent?

Thank you

 

[BradS]

I'm not sure it has ever been available commercially. It is easy to make...just 2 teaspoons of metol and four tablespoons of sodium sulfite dissolved in a quart (or a liter, doesn't really matter) of warm water.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Hi

I read a lot of good things about this develloper but I don't know where to buy it. I was thinking that it was obsolete since a lot of time.

Are there some equivalent?

Thank you

You either have to mix your own (very simple with just Metol and Sodium Sulfite) or buy it from Photograhers' Formulary as "Film developer 23".

 

[baachitraka]

If you are based in Europe, try Saban Suvatlar.

I got chemicals for Barry Thornton Two Bath from Saban...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi

I read a lot of good things about this develloper but I don't know where to buy it. I was thinking that it was obsolete since a lot of time.

Are there some equivalent?

Thank you

D23 is one of the esiest to make yourself;good one to get started with photo chemistry

 

[norm123]

You either have to mix your own (very simple with just Metol and Sodium Sulfite) or buy it from Photograhers' Formulary as "Film developer 23".

Thank you for tips

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Saban was my #1raw chemical supplier while I lived in Germany.He's a great resource. Keep'm in business. while you still can.

 

[norm123]

If you are based in Europe, try Saban Suvatlar.

I got chemicals for Barry Thornton Two Bath from Saban...

I'm in Canada. But US market is OK for me

 

[Xmas]

micro scales with 0.01gm resolution are cheap.

book of developer options or web for formula.

D23 and eg POTA are low contrast developers you can web all the gory details and try the most applicable to your needs.

ID 11 and D76 are fine grain, the prepackaged kits different from the original formula to improve life as stock solution.

D23 is markedly different.

the cyclic hydrocarbons are nitrite gloves safety glasses and face mask hazchm keep in bathroom no kids never kitchen.

I use ID68 cause I have skin problems, POTA ocassionally ditto for choice.

 

[wildbill]

adorama's got free shipping right now on formulary metol Dead Link Removed

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Hi

I read a lot of good things about this develloper but I don't know where to buy it. I was thinking that it was obsolete since a lot of time.

Are there some equivalent?

Thank you

Lots of good tips already. It's super easy to mix having only two ingredients... I'm using it exclusively now. After mixing it try using it straight and diluted 1+1 and 1+3 with water, see what flavor you like best.

P.S. I have made it using a scale as well as the teaspoon / tablespoon formula BradS mentioned and did not see a difference in my negatives / prints.

 

[baachitraka]

Never tried D-23 personally, but I am very happy with Barry Thornton Two Bath for ISO 400 films.

 

[mgb74]

Xmas:

1) D-23 is not a low contrast developer and is not like POTA at all

2) D-23 was formulated by Henn to essentially be a substitute for D-76. The working characteristics are very close. D-23 is said to give slightly finer grain with slightly less film speed

As I understand, D-23 was a Kodak commercial offering. So why did Kodak discontinue D-23 and keep D-76 and HC-110? That's not a challenge to your comment, but a question. I.E. why should I buy D-76 when I can mix D-23 so easily?

 

[Xmas]

Xmas:

1) D-23 is not a low contrast developer and is not like POTA at all

2) D-23 was formulated by Henn to essentially be a substitute for D-76. The working characteristics are very close. D-23 is said to give slightly finer grain with slightly less film speed

POTA is more extreme than D23 eg for extracting spectrography lines out of starlight... but the massive dev chart has D23 as a low contrast dev...
and

Anchell ' says'
"... it would seem that the best developers to use are those that exhibit superadditive characteristics. Most general-purpose developers fall into this category. However, there is a flip side. Most developers that utilize this effect tend to yield greater high-value density than those that rely on one developing agent. A developer of the semi-compensating type using either metol or pyro alone in a solution of relatively low pH, is capable of producing brilliant high values, full-scale mid-tones and shadows (e.g. Kodak D-23 and Kodak D-1, ABC Pyro, especially Edward Weston's variation)." - pp 42

"Kodak D-23 This is a semi-compensating developer that produces fine shadow values while retaining a high emulsion speed... Note: This developer produces negatives of speed and graininess comparable to Kodak D-76, without D-76's tendency to block highlights. " - pp. 150

Have you tried D23?

Noel

 

[BradS]

D23 maybe thought of as "semi-compensating"...but it is really not correct to call it low contrast. It is or can be very similar to D76 in use and produces similar results.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

D23 maybe thought of as "semi-compensating"...but it is really not correct to call it low contrast. It is or can be very similar to D76 in use and produces similar results.

I agree, it is definitely capable of N+ development even diluted 1+3 and I find the local contrast to be exceptional.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I have done business with the following company several times and have always been satisfied with the service and products.

Dead Link Removed

Kodak D-23 has never really gone out of favor. It is a general purpose developer producing clean negatives. It is best used for higher than normal contrast scenes or films like Ilford Pan F which tend to be contrasty by nature.

By mixing your own you are privy to a whole range of developer formulas which can be very convenient and also save money. For example add borax to the two chemicals used in D-23 and you have D-76H.

 

[railwayman3]

I'm not sure it has ever been available commercially. It is easy to make...just 2 teaspoons of metol and four tablespoons of sodium sulfite dissolved in a quart (or a liter, doesn't really matter) of warm water.

Many years ago, I recall a talk at our school camera club by a very elderly gentleman whose speciality was architectural and church photography, and I can still remember his prints, never seen any better of similar subjects since.

I remember he used Ilford glass plates and D23...his formula was similar, "teaspoon of Metol and handful of sodium sulphite in a pint of water"

 

[PhotoJim]

I'm not sure it has ever been available commercially. It is easy to make...just 2 teaspoons of metol and four tablespoons of sodium sulfite dissolved in a quart (or a liter, doesn't really matter) of warm water.

US and Imperial quarts are considerably different in size.

 

[miha]

Is it possible to use phenidone instead of metol, say 1.5 g of phenidone vs 7.5 g of metol?

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

You can mix 2 level teaspoons of Metol and 4 tablespoons of sodium sulfite in a liter of water and will never know the difference. A standard teaspoon is 5 ml and a tablespoon is 15 ml, just in case we're different over here.

This is the "recipe" I have used when mixing it without a scale. I have a nice set of stainless spoons that are easy to level without smooshing the ingredients. I believe consistency and keeping things dry through proper storage are key.

 

[BradS]

US and Imperial quarts are considerably different in size.

yeah...why is that? My working theory is that the brits "invented" a new definition of quart so that the could have more beer when they ordered a pint....


seriously though, I doubt that it would matter much in this case...especially if one were consistent.

 

[BradS]

Is it possible to use phenidone instead of metol, say 1.5 g of phenidone vs 7.5 g of metol?

The usual rule of thumb is to substitute phenidone for metol at a ratio of about 1/10. So typically one would substitute about 0.75 g of phenidone for 7.5 g of Metol.

However:
Even if substituted at the "usual and customary" ratio, I think you would be terribly disappointed by the result. Read about POTA to find out why.

 

[miha]

Thanks Michael and Brad. The idea behind my queastion is that phenidone seems to be less harmful.

 

[MattKing]

yeah...why is that? My working theory is that the brits "invented" a new definition of quart so that the could have more beer when they ordered a pint....


seriously though, I doubt that it would matter much in this case...especially if one were consistent.

A 20% difference is fairly substantial.

According to wikipedia, the US gallon owes its origin to measurements involving wine, while the imperial gallon owes its origins to measurements involving ale.

In both cases, the respective quarts are 1/4 of their related gallons.

Makes sense to me!