Dull results with D23 stock

I develop Tri-X and HP-5 in stock D-23 for 10 minutes but I love grain. If I were developing those films in a 1:3 dilution I would probably want to increase the time by at least 50%, maybe more.

As for exposure, that all depends on what I am trying to accomplish. Since I really can't vary development of individual negatives in a roll I use exposure to try to vary shadow detail. I frequently expose at box speed but I usually take my exposure readings for the shadows and then make my adjustments.

However, with all that being said, the real difference comes during the printing stage. I have had some ugly looking negatives turn out great on paper with a bit of work.

EDIT - Negatives that are completely clear...or completely black are not usually the best. Everything after that depends an awful lot on what I want the results to look like. That includes dull or flat.

To:
zanxion72
I know that 1+3 is not stock.
I did both, a couple of roll at stock and the rest at 1+3.
I normally start the timer once the developer is in there, so 20 minutes from when I start to agitate.
I actually don´t have the developer in a water bath, but I have been happy with my 1+3 negatives, it´s the stock that I am trying to find out.
Thanks for the input.


To:
Gerald
Apart from that D-23 stock is more economical I also wanted to have this developer as my good to go, so it was a bit of a disappointing that the 2-3 results in stock were so off to me, I am no expert, I only saw it from scanning - not wet printing, but I just wanted an advice I could go on from, I will try both exposure increaser and development increaser and see where that takes me.
I also want to try 1+1.

Thanks everyone for the input.

1+3 is 20 minutes for Fomapan 200 and HP5+ and I like what I have seen.
Great mid tone.

"1+3 is 20 minutes for Fomapan 200 and HP5+ and I like what I have seen.
Great mid tone."

Are you using the minimum developer per roll, i.e., 250ml FS D23 + 250ml H2O for a 1:1 dilution?

For 1+3 dilution, you must use 250ml FS D23 + 750ml H2O for a total of 1L per roll. Less than 250ml stock solution per roll will produce thin negs.

From past threads I think that many have come to the conclusion that you really need to make wet prints and not depend on scans to evaluate negatives.

Is the FS developer being replenished or the development times being extended with use? A replenished FS developer would be the most economical. This would be followed by extending the development time by 10 to 15% for each roll developed. Again using FS developer. One shot use either 1+1 or 1+3 would be the least economical usage.

My experience with stock, undiluted, D-23 is rather large and spread over several years.
When I was a young teen in the 40's i worked in the darkroom of a photography department. Our last task each day was to prepare all the roll film taken in that day for development. The film was removed from the paper backing and, along with the 35mm, hung from a clip on a large rack. A 2 oz weight was clipped to the bottom of each roll. the film was then lowered into the large vat of D-23 and left overnight to develop to completion. In the morning processing was completed. The D-23 was never changed as long as I worked there, only replenished.
Fast forward to the 1990's when I was teaching photography at the local community college. One of the methods of film development available to LF students was nitrogen burst. The developer was once again undiluted D-23. the solution was brought backup to the proper level with more developer. This was changed at the beginning of each new semester. I brought the used developer home and used it to develop negatives made of flat subjects in very flat light, once again to total development.
Currently I am on occasion using a batch of D-23 first mixed in 2012. It does not get replenished.
I just finished two series of tests which utilized 30 sheets of 8x10 film. It was developed in the D-23 by inspection in order to assure the film curve I desired for the tests.

Obviously in each of these situations the developer was, and is, far cheaper than diluting it for one time use. No, I do not replenish, or extend development times, but I am very careful to not contaminate it with other chemicals, particularly carbonates.

My own testing shows replenished D23 costs up to a stop of speed compared to HC110 and Rodinal