Dull results with D23 stock

Auroraua · Dec 7, 2015

I have developed two rolls of D-23 stock and they are fairly dull. One is with Fomapan 200 and other HP5+.
Is it normal to get fairly dull results.
Do you normally have to over expose half a stop or so?
I did develop two rolls with 1+3 and the results is much nicer.
What is your experience?

Jim Noel · Dec 7, 2015

D-23 yields the best negatives when it is exposed at approximately 1/2 the box speed. Also, too many beginning to use it do not develop long enough.
It is a marvelous developer especially for those of us who print several different processes. It is very good at altering the characteristic curve to suit the impending printing process.

Jim Noel · Dec 7, 2015

I neglected to say I always use it straight.

mdarnton · Dec 7, 2015

I have used the stuff on and off for 40 years because it's so convenient, but I don't think you will ever get the sparkle with D23 that one gets from, for instance, D76, even after you get the density and tonal range the same. This is something you can get around in printing, but it's just a bit more bother. I used to use potassium ferricyanide locally a lot in printing, and if you do, that will help.

mdarnton · Dec 7, 2015

As a wise friend of mine used to say, it's impossible that something complety different can be the same.

Michael R 1974 said:
D-23 was formulated at Kodak to essentially be a substitute for D-76 primarily in high volume systems. Over the years it has somehow erroneously come to be regarded by some as a lower contrast developer, "semi-compensating" developer etc. This is incorrect. D-23 is capable of the same snap, crackle and pop as D-76 or any other general purpose developer.

Jim Noel · Dec 7, 2015

I use D-23 a lot. I just finished 14 negatives to be used in making salt prints. Density ranges are within 1.9-2.4 range with a full range of tones. It is like any other developer in that it must be used appropriately in order for it to yield negatives with the desired tonal range.

gone · Dec 7, 2015

You're probably going to have to do a little testing w/ a couple of rolls to get it dialed in as you like it. Might start w/ 1/2 to 1 stop more exposure and maybe a little more development time, although all this is going to give more grain w/ the HP5 in all probability.

It's amazing how different the negs will look w/ most any film/developer combination, depending on who develops them and how. As mentioned, most of this can surely be addressed in printing, but easier to get the negs sorted out in the beginning.

pdeeh · Dec 7, 2015

I often wonder with threads like this, where so little information is given, how the negatives are being evaluated - from examination on a lightbox? being held up to the window? contact sheets? enlargements? scanned negatives?

presspass · Dec 7, 2015

Just did six rolls over the weekend, all with D-23 stock. The ISO 1600 shots were contrasty, as expected. The ISO 400 shots were fine, plenty of sparkle, etc. All are Tri-X 135; the 400 shots were shot at that. Using my digital thermometer, eight minutes at 68 degrees f. Agitate for the first minute, then four inversions per minute for the remainder of the time. D-23 is sensitive to agitation - more agitation gives more contrast. I've been using D-23 for about five years as my main developer. The only other one is Diafine. D-23 allows me to get good reproduction with scanned negs [newspaper] and prints in the 2.6 to 3.5 grade range with Ilford Multigrade RC Warmtone. So far, no problems with lack of sparkle.

Chris Livsey · Dec 7, 2015

With no details of time,temp or agitation and an emperical description of "fairly dull", presumably 6 on the internationally recognised scale of dullness in negatives, we are going to struggle other than to add another voice that says my stock D23 has not scored other than 0, no dullness, it is a fine developer, one of many, probably too many, that I use.

takilmaboxer · Dec 7, 2015

I love D23, and use it and D76 exclusively, at 68F and agitation every 30 seconds. My experience has been that both developers increase shadow density at similar rates
but D76 adds highlight density faster than D23. So, if I develop TriX 6 minutes in D76 I get denser highlights than in D23 for 6 minutes, with similar shadow values; which means higher contrast. If I'm not mistaken D76 contains an accelerator that D23 lacks. Lastly, if you do testing to establish a specific gradient (I use 0.50) they both yield similar negatives across the board. I use D23 to control highlights, it works great with Pan F and the Foma films that tend to build contrast quickly.

Auroraua · Dec 7, 2015

I am comparing them to negatives I had, perhaps I am under exposing. It just seems that the result is so different when I am using stock and 1+3 and I was wondering if there needed to be something to bear in mind. I am comparing the scanned result, not darkroom result. I would love to be able to use it as it´s economical. Maybe it matters that these days the winter days are extremely dull.
So perhaps instead of exposing HP5+ at 400 I should expose it at 250 and develop for 9 minutes rather than 7.30 minutes.
I would like to give it a shot.

I developed at 20 C, agitated 0-30 sec, then 2 per 30 seconds.

I know it sounds vague saying dull, but I just find that the negatives were very different, when used 1+3 and stock.

I have been posting some results here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/104979973@N04/albums/72157660890862739

MattKing · Dec 7, 2015

Why do you think they need more exposure? That mainly increases the detail in the shadows, and sparkle doesn't happen in the shadows.

Give them more development. The resulting extra contrast is much more likely to add sparkle.

Arvee · Dec 7, 2015

Matt's right; D23 is a soft working developer and you simply need to keep the ISO at 400 and develop 50% longer. This will get more than enough 'snap.'

John Bragg · Dec 8, 2015

D23 is a close relative of Ilford Perceptol, (the same but without the additional sodium chloride), and that also produces more speed when diluted and also sharper grain with less softening effect from the sulphite. Good reasons not to use it as stock.

zanxion72 · Dec 8, 2015

Also make sure you have rated your films in EI. Tri-X in D-23 looks more like a EI 320 or even 250 film than ASA 400. In solvent developers it is always better to keep the development time down to the minimum required to get the results you like, than prolonging it to cope with low contrast. Prolonging the development time by much means more softening from the S. Sulphite as your negative stays in it for longer.

Chris Livsey · Dec 8, 2015

Thanks to the OP for extending the information, the characteristics of D23 do change with dilution, or in your case with stock. Almost to the point of being different developers, the formula change by dilution does in particular affect the solvent effect and undiluted the developer tends not to exhaust in the highlights. What times were you using for 1+3, which you say you were happy with and if so other than curiosity why try the stock, what gain were you looking for?

Brian L · Dec 11, 2015

I'm also using HP5+ and D-23. Maybe you can try to agitate for the complete first minute, and for 5 seconds each following minute. I remember ANCHELL(The Darkroom Cookbook) writing that the first agitation is the most crucial for building up contrast.
Just 2 days ago I did some of my first successful prints taking some of my Negs (Hp5+ @400. D-23 7:30) and some cheap Grade 2 paper. The contrast seemed fairly ok to me. But tese a just the words of an almost complete beginner.

All the Best,
Brian

Andrew O'Neill · Dec 11, 2015

I have used D-23 straight and diluted to 1+1, with HP5-Plus with very nice results. EI 250 for normal situations. Divided D-23 for compensation also works well.

Jim Noel · Dec 11, 2015

Auroraua said:
I am comparing them to negatives I had, perhaps I am under exposing. It just seems that the result is so different when I am using stock and 1+3 and I was wondering if there needed to be something to bear in mind. I am comparing the scanned result, not darkroom result. I would love to be able to use it as it´s economical. Maybe it matters that these days the winter days are extremely dull.
So perhaps instead of exposing HP5+ at 400 I should expose it at 250 and develop for 9 minutes rather than 7.30 minutes.
I would like to give it a shot.

I developed at 20 C, agitated 0-30 sec, then 2 per 30 seconds.

I know it sounds vague saying dull, but I just find that the negatives were very different, when used 1+3 and stock.

I have been posting some results here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/104979973@N04/albums/72157660890862739

Yes, you are under-exposing as well as under-developing. Use 1/2 the box speed to expose, and use the developer straight, and for more time. I know of no successful workers who use it diluted, although there probably are some. It will never produce the same film curve as D-76 if developed and agitated the same for the same amount of time.

john_s · Dec 11, 2015

Jim Noel said:
D-23 yields the best negatives when it is exposed at approximately 1/2 the box speed.......

Not only D-23 IMO!

Arvee · Dec 11, 2015

In one of Anchell's Cookbooks, he specifically addresses the advantages of D23 while also mentioning that most folks don't develop long enough. IIRC, in the 3rd ed. Cookbook, he recommends 12 minutes/68F. Earlier editions recommended only 8 minutes/68F.

Auroraua · Dec 16, 2015

I am using 20 minutes with stock 1+3.
I want to use stock as
it´s more economic and takes significant shorter to develop.
But of course I want to be happy with the result.
I agitate either 0-30 sec and 3/30 sec or 0-1 min and 10sec/min.

Will try a couple of rolls more, one at 250 ISO and 50% longer minutes and the other one 400 ISO and 50% longer.
See where that takes me.

zanxion72 · Dec 17, 2015

1+3 is not stock. Stock is plain developer, not further diluted in water.
The more you dilute the stock solution, the longer the development time gets.
The more you dilute the developer, the less the contrast and the higher the accutance effects.

For the agitation, if you can fill your development tank with the developer in less than 10 seconds then 30 seconds initial agitation is fine. Else agitate for the entire first minute. Needless to say that you have to ensure that the temperature remains constant during development and close to the one you have selected.

Also note that flat negatives is not always a bad thing. You can always increase contrast with post processing, or during wet printing.

Gerald C Koch · Dec 17, 2015

Two rolls of film are hardly a meaningful sample on which to rate a developer be it D-23 or something else. You can adjust contrast by varying the development time and film exposure. The OP needs to some more testing as to his method. I have used a lot of D-23 albeit at 1+1 but have never had any problems.

It should also be pointed out that development times are suggestions only and are not "engraved in stone." Everyone's method is different.

When you change the dilution of a developer you are essentially changing the developer's character. The character of D-23 FS, 1+1 or 1+3 are all different. This can be in granularity, acutance, contrast, etc. It is therefore rather pointless to complain about differences.

The term "stock" can have several meanings and should not be used when one really means "full strength, FS".

Dull results with D23 stock

Auroraua

Jim Noel

Jim Noel

mdarnton

mdarnton

Jim Noel

gone

pdeeh

presspass

Chris Livsey

takilmaboxer

Auroraua

MattKing

Moderator

Arvee

John Bragg

zanxion72

Chris Livsey

Brian L

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Jim Noel

john_s

Arvee

Auroraua

zanxion72

Gerald C Koch

Dull results with D23 stock

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency