D23 vs Ilford Perceptol?

[SPS731]

Does anyone have experience with using D-23 and Ilford Perceptol developers? I used to use D-23 and love the Metol based developer results with large format. I have not used Perceptol but have read good things about it.

 

[jim appleyard]

I've quite a bit of both D-23 and Microdol-X (Kodaks version of Perceptol). They are similar in that they both have metol (Mic-X and Perceptol's ingredients are not public) and a fair amount of sulfite. Both can be used at stock or diluted up to 1+3; although dev times get long.

In Anchell & Troop's "Film Developing Cookbook", a homebrew recipe is given for what is believed to be an equivilent of Microdol-X. This homebrew version contains sodium chloride, salt, to give even finer grain.

I like both devs and have use them often. Which is better? I don't think I'd notice a difference in an 8x10 print.

D-23 gets the edge for ease of mixing; only two ingredients!

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

First came Kodak's D-23, followed by Kodak's Microdol and Kodak's Microdol-X.

Perceptol is Ilord's version of Microdol-X

The homebrew developer recipe published in In Anchell & Troop's "Film Developing Cookbook" is actually Edgar Hyman's Fine Grain Developing formula published as "Microdol" in 35mm Photography, 7 (6): 331 (1964).

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Does anyone have experience with using D-23 and Ilford Perceptol developers? I used to use D-23 and love the Metol based developer results with large format. I have not used Perceptol but have read good things about it.

Perceptol is Ilford's version of Microdol-X (thus very closely related to Kodak D-23).

Try adding about 30 grams of Sodium Chloride (not iodized) to D-23.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I made a side by side comparison between perceptol 1+3, Xtol 1+1, and divided D-23 on 35mm. Perceptol and DD-23 gave nearly identical results, but DD-23 just took less time to process. In the end I stuck with Xtol, because I liked the look, but the other two had a slight edge in the sharpness department, with a little more grain.

 

[SPS731]

Perceptol is Ilford's version of Microdol-X (thus very closely related to Kodak D-23).

Try adding about 30 grams of Sodium Chloride (not iodized) to D-23.

What is the purpose of the Sodium Chloride?

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

What is the purpose of the Sodium Chloride?

According to Van Veelen and Peelaers, Sodium Chloride, added in a high concentration to a developing bath of low activity, dissolves silver bromide or idobromide and solution physical development can occur.

Less salt (i.e. less than 30 grams/liter) is said to give more grain but increase film speed.

Reference: Modern Photographic Processing, Grant Haist, Vol. 1, 1978 page 379.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

What is the purpose of the Sodium Chloride?

um...makes it taste better?

(OK, sorry.. don't mean to dilute this serious discussion.. but I couldn't resist)

Best,

Chris

PS: 5 metol, 100 ss-anhy, 30 salt. I call it "Messol-513". Easy to remember like that.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

um...makes it taste better?

(OK, sorry.. don't mean to dilute this serious discussion.. but I couldn't resist)

Best,

Chris

PS: 5 metol, 100 ss-anhy, 30 salt. I call it "Messol-513". Easy to remember like that.

Tastes better, but elevates your blood pressure.

 

[dancqu]

Both can be used at stock or diluted up to 1+3;
although dev times get long.

D-23 gets the edge for ease of mixing; only
two ingredients!

I maintain that D-23 can be used at 1:7.
At a half liter per roll that is 16 rolls. There is
certainly enough metol and enough of the sulfite
preservative/activator to do the job. I suppose
the only thing for me to do is prove it.

I'll mix up an 1/8 batch of my 8 and 80 gram D23.
Off hand I'd say 16 minutes give or take depending
upon which film. Is 16 minutes long? I've usually hours
in just exposing a roll. Hours more in going to and
coming from location. Then there is the packing
in and back out again. Dan

 

[jim appleyard]

Tastes better, but elevates your blood pressure.

...and like potato chips, it makes you want more and more. And it makes you want a beer to go along with it. (Here we go again!)

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

...and like potato chips, it makes you want more and more. And it makes you want a beer to go along with it. (Here we go again!)

Yes, Beer is strongly advised!

 

[pentaxuser]

Doc to patient: "Time to cut out salt and beer"
Patient to doc: "Will that help me live longer?"
Doc to patient: " Well, it will certainly seem that way"

pentaxuser

 

[nworth]

I've used D-23 a fair amount, but I haven't used Perceptol. D-23 is a semi-compensating developer when used undiluted. Many use it at 1+3 dilution, where it resembles the Windisch metol-sulfite compensating developer. Used undiluted, this developer gives rather unique midtone micro-contrasts. This is very useful when a semi-compensating action is needed, but some may not like it for general use. D-23 gives fine grain while retaining good detail and sharpness. It's a good developer. It shows significant differences from D-76, which I prefer for most work.

 

[fparnold]

Question: doesn't D23 block highlights, or is this only a problem with film from the 50s? (sorry, my old copy of "The Negative" is at the other end of the state)

 

[SPS731]

Thanks for the input!

 

[nworth]

Question: doesn't D23 block highlights, or is this only a problem with film from the 50s? (sorry, my old copy of "The Negative" is at the other end of the state)

I've never seen that happen, even with PX and BX in the 50s.

 

[SPS731]

I'll take your word that it improves the taste

Thanks everyone for the input.

 

[SPS731]

I've used D-23 a fair amount, but I haven't used Perceptol. D-23 is a semi-compensating developer when used undiluted. Many use it at 1+3 dilution, where it resembles the Windisch metol-sulfite compensating developer. Used undiluted, this developer gives rather unique midtone micro-contrasts. This is very useful when a semi-compensating action is needed, but some may not like it for general use. D-23 gives fine grain while retaining good detail and sharpness. It's a good developer. It shows significant differences from D-76, which I prefer for most work.

Why do you prefer D-76?

 

[gainer]

Off topic, maybe, but what in the world is a "semi-compensating" developer? I have never heard that term defined in an engineering way or even in a scientific way. I have, of course, seen it used in such a way as to suggest that it had a definite meaning, but I doubt that of two negatives side by side, I could decide which, if either, was developed by a semi-compensating developer.

 

[gainer]

I must tell you all that I am the first born son of a Doctor of Philosophy and Philology of English. I inherited some of his sense of humor, which is, after all, a sense of the absurd. He came home from a symposium of modern authors once, saying he had just seen six blind men like those of the fable who got a pretty good picture of an elephant by each reporting what he had felt of a different part. He said the only problem with these blind men is that they had all gathered around the elephant's ass. Excuse me for telling this story if it offended anyone, but we should all be careful that doesn't happen to us.

 

[jim appleyard]

Off topic, maybe, but what in the world is a "semi-compensating" developer? I have never heard that term defined in an engineering way or even in a scientific way. I have, of course, seen it used in such a way as to suggest that it had a definite meaning, but I doubt that of two negatives side by side, I could decide which, if either, was developed by a semi-compensating developer.

Patrick, I'm sure you've heard of "compensating devs"; keeping the highlights from blocking up too much and also letting in some light to the shadows. Well, a "semi-compensating dev" allows this to happen to a lesser degree.

No, there is no scientific definition, AFAIK, and I don't think I could tell which was which. I think amount of "semi" depends on how much you dilute the dev. It might be one of those definitions that falls into the same catagory as "a little bit pregnant"

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Note to self: Don't touch the elephant!

 

[Ole]

Question: doesn't D23 block highlights, or is this only a problem with film from the 50s? (sorry, my old copy of "The Negative" is at the other end of the state)

It didn't block highlights when I used it (with a borax afterbath) to develop a really tricky negative from a scene with a 14 stop range. If the highlights had been blocked, I would have lost the top 4-6 stops of highlight detail!

 

[nworth]

Why do you prefer D-76?

Probably habit. D-76 has been my primary developer for at least 35 years, with some excursions elsewhere. For me, it seems more versatile. I can use it for almost any picture taking situation, although D-23 may handle high contrasts a little bit better. I am not real fond of D-23's midtones, although they work very well for many people.