I'm wondering now if pH can be used to vary the volume of D23R per roll in order to maintain consistent D23 pH or is the increasing pH actually necessary (and as designed) to keep the other ingredients active?
This suggests that your final developer is something in-between D23 and D23R, but closer to the latter. Maybe that's intentional, but I've never quite understood what the appeal is in working with developer that provides inconsistent result for a significant number of rolls, only to (hopefully) somehow balance out at the end. YMMV.I noticed that D23 pH increased at a rate closely matching the volume of D23R used eventually reaching a similar pH as the D23R. The effect on development is consistent with increasing pH and I learned along time ago to shave development time about 1 minute/500ml of D23R based on film tests.
The only benefit for replenishment is it saves me time and I can keep up with processing due to limited time and constraints on space.
So, is it even the same developer once replenished? Sort of?
I doubt it. D76 is of course strongly buffered through a borate buffer, contrary to D23.
I have a litre of D76 that I replenish as I use. I mix up 500ml of D76R and, when that's used, I use the remaining replenished D76 1:1. The current bottle of D76 has been in use for around 6 months - the replenisher is almost gone.
D23 is a different thing to begin with, though. Being only metol and sulphite, it dies very rapidly with use and so the replenisher requires a source of alkalinity to bring it back to life. So, is it even the same developer once replenished? Sort of?
A great advantage of replenished developer is that the bottle is always full. But the replenisher bottle is not. Once 400 of the 500ml in my replenisher bottle is gone, I start to get suspicious about the remaining 100ml.
Out of curiosity, is your starting 1L solution "official" Kodak D76 or is it made using one of the readily available formulaes?
replenished D23 is a different developer as it's buffered, although it may or may not act sort of similarly to D23
Ah, OK, I see; yes, that makes sense. I think in your place, I'd be tempted to revisit the highly concentrated developers again, seeing if there's something in there that might do what you like about D23, but with the added benefits of consistency as well as space savings. Have you tried pyrocat?
. A character of D23 unreplenished is that it loses power quickly, which can have an impact on how a sheet of film develops, depending on agitation.
In its literature Kodak seemed to treat replenishment of D-23 and D-25 (both using the the D-25 replenisher formula) as more of a compromise than usual, with good reason. In the case of D-23 the instruction was to discard the replenished developer after approximately the equivalent of 26 rolls per litre by which time 600ml of replenisher solution would have been added.
Does the above statement indicate that unreplenished stock solution loses its power quickly when left in its container or is this unreplenished stock that has been used, say once, either at 1+1 or 1+3, and then an attempt is made to use the same stock or dilution again at some point thereafter.. If it's the latter then how quickly do you have to use it again to develop a second film?
I had always thought that once used either as stock or in diluted form it had to be discarded anyway but that unused stock solution kept for at least 6 months
Thanks
pentaxuser
Does the above statement indicate that unreplenished stock solution loses its power quickly when left in its container or is this unreplenished stock that has been used, say once, either at 1+1 or 1+3, and then an attempt is made to use the same stock or dilution again at some point thereafter.. If it's the latter then how quickly do you have to use it again to develop a second film?
I had always thought that once used either as stock or in diluted form it had to be discarded anyway but that unused stock solution kept for at least 6 months
Thanks
pentaxuser
Pyrocat might be fine but I've been shy about it for two reasons, working with pyrocatechin and originally I had it fail me out of the blue (same happened with D76)
Just thinking outloud a bit, aside from economy, I was under the impression that one of the benefits, so to speak, of using a replenished system was that after it was appropriately "seasoned" by developing a few rolls of film, that the replenisher would more or less keep the system operating the same at least until complete EOL of the developer. I know some replenishment schemes(XTOL comes to mind) call for replenishing by adding stock solution. Others, like D76 or D23, with a dedicated replinisher, omit some of the ingredients of the stock solution while the amounts and ratios of other components(developing agents, borax, sulfite, etc) is different from stock.
Since D23 is about the cheapest and simplest developer I know of to DIY mix, and if replenishment causes constantly drifting properties, it would be hard for me to make an argument for running it replenished...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?