Divided D-23 Question

[PicklesFrog]

Hey all.

I was reading the Darkroom Cookbook and i stumbled upon divided d-23. I really like d-23 so i decided to give it a shot with the 4.5g sodium carbonate per 500mL in solution b (as i like contrast).

However, when doing the solution a for 3 minutes and b for 3 minutes, my negative came out thin vs my normal d-23 development. Used Catlabs X Film 80 rated at 80 iso.

Did i do anything wrong? Or is that just a jumping point to where i should go next? Rather, has anyone worked with divided d-23 and give me any ideas to make my experience better? Attached are my two negatives. Left is normal d-23 development at 9 minutes, while right is the 3 minute solution a constant agitation and 3 minute solution b with 5 second agitation every 30 seconds. Sorry for the crude pic, I just needed to see the results after washing.

Thanks

 

[juan]

I haven't used DD23 in a long time, but I seem to remember using more time in the solutions - I think it was 4 minutes in each and I was in a place where my developer temperature was 80F. Look at this article.

Divided D-23 developer

 

[koraks]

The challenge with divided developers is that the degree of development depends on a couple of factors that don't really do much in regular development - particularly how much developer the film will be able to soak up in its emulsion in the first bath. With DD23 regular dynamics also come into play since bath A isn't entirely inert by itself, but due to the sulfite present it will actually do some development on its own. This means that extending the time in bath A can be used to increase the degree of development. Bath B then functions (supposedly) as a compensating step that adds some more density to the thinner areas of the negative, while putting a limit (through local exhaustion) to the highlight areas.

Given the times you used (9 minutes in undivided D23, 3+3 in divided) I'm not surprised that the second sheet came out thin. I don't see how your film would out with the same degree of development if you develop it shorter AND limit the amount of developer that can get to the emulsion. Common sense still applies to uncommon modes of development.

Overall I have to say I'm quite skeptical based on the few experiments I did about the added value of divided development as opposed to normal control through exposure and regular development.

 

[PicklesFrog]

The challenge with divided developers is that the degree of development depends on a couple of factors that don't really do much in regular development - particularly how much developer the film will be able to soak up in its emulsion in the first bath. With DD23 regular dynamics also come into play since bath A isn't entirely inert by itself, but due to the sulfite present it will actually do some development on its own. This means that extending the time in bath A can be used to increase the degree of development. Bath B then functions (supposedly) as a compensating step that adds some more density to the thinner areas of the negative, while putting a limit (through local exhaustion) to the highlight areas.

Given the times you used (9 minutes in undivided D23, 3+3 in divided) I'm not surprised that the second sheet came out thin. I don't see how your film would out with the same degree of development if you develop it shorter AND limit the amount of developer that can get to the emulsion. Common sense still applies to uncommon modes of development.

Overall I have to say I'm quite skeptical based on the few experiments I did about the added value of divided development as opposed to normal control through exposure and regular development.

Hmm that does seem right. I'll probably just stick with normal d-23 then.

I haven't used DD23 in a long time, but I seem to remember using more time in the solutions - I think it was 4 minutes in each and I was in a place where my developer temperature was 80F. Look at this article.

Divided D-23 developer

Yeah I think i messed up by putting it in solution a too short.

 

[jim appleyard]

It has been said that todays emulsions are very thin compared to films of yesteryear and that not enough of Bath A gets soaked into it. I've tried most of the 2-baths in the Cookbook and found very thin negs.

However, Barry Thornton's 2- Bath works rather well. You can find the recipe here and other places and it's not too different from D-23. Give that one a try.

Grab Barry's book, "The Edge of Darkness". Good read.

 

[retina_restoration]

For starters, CatLabs X80 is nowhere near 80 ASA in speed. I tested it extensively in the first 2 years it was available, and I never got a functional speed of greater than 40 ASA.
To further complicate matters, when using any divided developer, you must add approximately one full stop more exposure to get optimal negatives. I would also suggest that 3 minutes in bath A and bath B was too short by at least 1.5 minutes

So, in order to get the best negatives using this process with X80 film, you should decrease the ASA speed to around 25 ASA (or less: test for yourself!), and develop for 4.5 minutes in each bath (A and B) in divided D23.

As Jim mentioned, you might look at Barry Thornton's version of divided D23, which is what I use, and it provides excellent negatives as long as you add the extra stop of exposure. Example images here and here.

 

[Milpool]

PicklesFrog, if you got thin negatives I suspect it was either an exposure or film speed issue (for example I don’t know what the ISO speed of the CatLabs film is).

Divided D-23 should produce full emulsion speed without much effort. From a sensitometry perspective the choice of alkali for the second bath makes little difference, although it might have an influence on image structure. Borax or metaborate (Adams) is probably the best choice.

Development uniformity might or might not be an issue, and the somewhat straightened characteristic curve this type of process tends to produce might or might not be what is wanted.

Most variations I’ve seen on actual D-23 for the first bath are somewhat trivial.

On balance divided development it is not a method I’d generally recommend but it can work.

 

[PicklesFrog]

For starters, CatLabs X80 is nowhere near 80 ASA in speed. I tested it extensively in the first 2 years it was available, and I never got a functional speed of greater than 40 ASA.

oh, i've always had great negatives with box speed. i forgot to mention this was the "CatLABS X Film 80 II" maybe thats why? either way i've had great tonal negatives with iso 80.

On balance divided development it is not a method I’d generally recommend but it can work.

yeah that seems to be the consensus.

 

[Milpool]

oh, i've always had great negatives with box speed. i forgot to mention this was the "CatLABS X Film 80 II" maybe thats why? either way i've had great tonal negatives with iso 80.



yeah that seems to be the consensus.

I don’t want to discourage you. It might just take a little experimentation and make sure you are getting even development. Contrast is controlled by changing the development time in bath A.

I suggest the old standby - D-23 first bath and 5-10g sodium metaborate or borax second bath.

 

[PicklesFrog]

It has been said that todays emulsions are very thin compared to films of yesteryear and that not enough of Bath A gets soaked into it. I've tried most of the 2-baths in the Cookbook and found very thin negs.

However, Barry Thornton's 2- Bath works rather well. You can find the recipe here and other places and it's not too different from D-23. Give that one a try.

Grab Barry's book, "The Edge of Darkness". Good read.

This seems good enough, Ill try this today. I looked it up and videos and articles are saying its good, and you can even use multiple films according to pictorial planet youtube channel.

i actually dont have any sodium metaborate, but the darkroom cookbook says i can sub it with sodium carbonate by multiplying what i need by 0.59. you think that'll work?

 

[retina_restoration]

oh, i've always had great negatives with box speed. i forgot to mention this was the "CatLABS X Film 80 II" maybe thats why? either way i've had great tonal negatives with iso 80.

It comes down to metering technique, and a person's requirements. One person's ideal negative may be completely inadequate to the next person. Myself, I found X 80 I and II to both behave the same, and both required careful metering at 40 ASA to get a good negative (for my needs).

That said, if you want to explore divided developers (and I absolutely encourage you to experiment) then whatever your practice, add at least a half stop more exposure if you plan to develop with a divided developer.

Thornton's Two Bath is one of my most used developers. It can produce exceptional negatives if used with skill (it's not something to use with every single scenario, as it has a compensating effect. Flat scenes won't benefit from this technique), especially if managing a broad range of values is required. (Did you look at the samples I provided??)

And finally, bear in mind that divided developers work best with "classic" thick emulsions better than modern thin ones. CatLabs X80 (I and II) are thinner emulsions and may require more time in A to get sufficient development. Fomapan 400 handles beautifully in Thornton 2 Bath.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hey all.

I was reading the Darkroom Cookbook and i stumbled upon divided d-23. I really like d-23 so i decided to give it a shot with the 4.5g sodium carbonate per 500mL in solution b (as i like contrast).

However, when doing the solution a for 3 minutes and b for 3 minutes, my negative came out thin vs my normal d-23 development. Used Catlabs X Film 80 rated at 80 iso.

Did i do anything wrong? Or is that just a jumping point to where i should go next? Rather, has anyone worked with divided d-23 and give me any ideas to make my experience better? Attached are my two negatives. Left is normal d-23 development at 9 minutes, while right is the 3 minute solution a constant agitation and 3 minute solution b with 5 second agitation every 30 seconds. Sorry for the crude pic, I just needed to see the results after washing.

Thanks

You should probably expose CatLABS 80 at EI 40... or lower. I routinely expose it at EI 32... D-23 1+1, Pyrocat-HD, XTol-R...

 

[jim appleyard]

This seems good enough, Ill try this today. I looked it up and videos and articles are saying its good, and you can even use multiple films according to pictorial planet youtube channel.

i actually dont have any sodium metaborate, but the darkroom cookbook says i can sub it with sodium carbonate by multiplying what i need by 0.59. you think that'll work?

I have not tried BTTB with carbonate, only with metaborate, however, it might be worth a try. I don't see why it wouldn't work.

The cool thing about 2-baths is that you can experiment. Barry says you can change the amount of alkaline for the B bath. I've done this for Pan-F by using only 7 g of metaborate instead of the normal 12. Works well!

 

[PicklesFrog]

You should probably expose CatLABS 80 at EI 40... or lower. I routinely expose it at EI 32... D-23 1+1, Pyrocat-HD, XTol-R...

Do I have to readjust the times as well? I do 9 minutes for ISO 80 at D-23 stock.
Never done any sort of testsing for a personal rating, I've been getting very great results for what I have been doing though.

 

[SMD]

i actually dont have any sodium metaborate, but the darkroom cookbook says i can sub it with sodium carbonate by multiplying what i need by 0.59. you think that'll work?

You can use/substitute Borax/Soda/Potash(NaOH) but both developing speed and grain size will increase in that order.
I suppose x0.59 will give the same pH and therefore same developing speed, dont know about grain size. (My thinking is: Why would anyone use Borax if there was no difference.)

You can prepare Metaborate by mixing Borax with Natriumhydroxide. I have never done it, there are recipies out there and videos on YT.

I do not know where in the above mentioned row Metaborate fits in, especially regarding graininess.

 

[snusmumriken]

...you might look at Barry Thornton's version of divided D23, which is what I use, and it provides excellent negatives as long as you add the extra stop of exposure. Example images here and here.

Those are gorgeous!

 

[retina_restoration]

Those are gorgeous!

Thank you. I believe the Thornton 2 Bath process contributed to the look of those images.

 

[Saganich]

It has been my experience that divided D23 is good for contraction development. I found if you want extra contrast a 2 minute borax soak (2-5 g/l) following undivided D23 N development works well.

 

[PicklesFrog]

Thank you. I believe the Thornton 2 Bath process contributed to the look of those images.

wow! i just used it today, i havent actually done any prints but on kentmere 400 it looks very promising just by the negatives alone via my test roll
unfortunately ferraria p30 didnt go out so well. same tank, but very flat.

left is kentmere right is p30. both with box speed
both baths were at 4.5 minutes with normal agitation.

i dont mind the p30, i just bought it for this test anyways, i dont really use this stock but i wanted to see another stock in this rather than just k 400 which i love to use all the time.

overall i think its a success.

btw i used a 1:4 borax to carbonate to substitute the 12 grams of sodium metaborate. maybe thats why the p30 was messed up? unless this film just needs like 30 seconds more in each bath.
I'll shoot a sheet of catlabs 80 @ iso 80 and see if it works out tmrw.

but im very happy. thanks all

 

[pentaxuser]

Most users of P30 find that its true speed is no more than 50 or 40 whereas the true speed of Kentmere is what's written on the box. So might this have had an effect on the P30 negatives?

Just a thought

pentaxuser

 

[retina_restoration]

wow! i just used it today, i havent actually done any prints but on kentmere 400 it looks very promising just by the negatives alone via my test roll
unfortunately ferraria p30 didnt go out so well. same tank, but very flat.

left is kentmere right is p30. both with box speed
both baths were at 4.5 minutes with normal agitation.

i dont mind the p30, i just bought it for this test anyways, i dont really use this stock but i wanted to see another stock in this rather than just k 400 which i love to use all the time.

overall i think its a success.

btw i used a 1:4 borax to carbonate to substitute the 12 grams of sodium metaborate. maybe thats why the p30 was messed up? unless this film just needs like 30 seconds more in each bath.
I'll shoot a sheet of catlabs 80 @ iso 80 and see if it works out tmrw.

but im very happy. thanks all

My experience with Ferrania P30 tells me that it must be given much more exposure than its ASA rating suggests. The only really usable negatives I got from my test rolls were given 1.5 to 2 stops more exposure than the 80ASA box rating.
Your thin negatives are not the fault of the developer - this film requires more exposure than its rating.

You are also likely to discover that the CatLabs X80 has to be rated at 30ASA or lower to get good negatives. I'm not the only person who came to that conclusion - Just ask Andrew O'Neill.