Kodak D-23 developer

Julie having dinner

A
Julie having dinner

  • 0
  • 0
  • 62
untitled

A
untitled

  • 0
  • 0
  • 69
Untitled

A
Untitled

  • 0
  • 0
  • 54
2022-31-26.jpg

A
2022-31-26.jpg

  • 0
  • 0
  • 62
2022-31-36.jpg

A
2022-31-36.jpg

  • 1
  • 1
  • 63

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
179,452
Messages
2,470,659
Members
94,818
Latest member
rootsanalysis
Recent bookmarks
0

vet173

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
1,209
Location
Seattle
Shooter
8x10 Format
Zonal Pro Gamma plus developer at 1:20 will pull a neg range similar to D-23.
 

dancqu

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
3,654
Location
Willamette V
Shooter
Medium Format
According to Anchell, Borax has a ph of 9.5,
while sulfite has a ph of 8.0.

Sulfite, still ph 8.0. I read that years ago and put the book
back on it's book store rack. From suppliers of the chemical
you'll find the ph varies but runs ph 10 give or take some
little. That 9.5 is high for borax, more nearly 9.2.

My own tests confirm the higher sulfite ph. Dan
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,853
Shooter
Hybrid
I loved using D-23 and used it for a number of years as my only developer. I employed the two bath version which worked quite well for pt/pd printing.

Ed Buffaloe of unblinkingeye.com and I did some articles on the variations for this developer.

Here's the link to the article. Explore the site too, it has a lot of information and links to alt process sites.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.html

i was going to add this link, i am glad you beat me to it joe :smile:

-john
 

fschifano

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
3,201
Location
Valley Strea
Shooter
Multi Format
And let the sodium chloride not be iodized table salt. That sold for canning is usually specified as non-iodized. Iodine is a better restrainer I think than bromine. "Kosher" does not guarantee pure sodium chloride. It means that it is fit for human consumption, and I do not know what else it might be fit for, but I'm sure photography is not first in mind.

Some Kosher salt I've used, not for photographic purposes, has had something called yellow prussiate of soda or tetrasodium hexacyanoferrate incorporated into the mix to prevent caking. I don't think that this will have any effect if used to compound a Microdol-X like developer. The bond between iron and cyanide is strong, though it will dissociate and release hydrogen cyanide gas in hot or concentrated acid and upon prolonged exposure to sunlight. Since developers are alkaline in nature and not used in direct sunlight, it would probably be ok. If the stuff is ok for human consumption, I would not worry at all about the release of hydrogen cyanide. Stomach contents are highly acidic, and I haven't heard of anyone dying from cyanide poisoning because they used Kosher salt.
 

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,703
I wasn't even considering cyanide. I was thinking about all the healthy things there might be in sea salt, for example, that might retard development or worse. You don't usually want iodine in developer, nor some other things that are just fine for human consumption. After all, our bodies contain at least traces of nearly, if not all the natural elements, and by now maybe even some of the unnatural ones. I would not hesitate to eat Kosher salt any more than I hesitated to eat those delicious Kosher dill pickles a while ago.

Truth be told, I did some experiments a while back testing the use of salt in developers and decided it was not worth the trouble. These were reported in the article "Salt to Taste" in Photo Techniques. That was when I found that 4 grams of sodium ascorbate did more good in a liter of working Rodinal than either salt or sulfite. You might find the same to be true of D-23.
 

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,703
I forgot to say that if you do not use pure sodium chloride you won't be able to report the results so that we can share. I don't even think I can get Kosher salt in my part of West Virginia. I could get road salt, but I KNOW I will not use that!
 

Tom Hoskinson

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Messages
3,874
Location
Southern Cal
Shooter
Multi Format
According to Anchell, Borax has a ph of 9.5, while sulfite has a ph of 8.0.

According to Grant Haist (Modern Photographic Processing, Vol. 1, pages 244, 245); Borax has low solubility in water, only 0.3% is said to be hydrolyzed in a solution containing 0.1 mol wt in 1 liiter of water, resulting in a pH of 9.2, a much lower value than either the carbonates or hydroxides, and this limits its usefulness to low pH developers.

On page 246, Haist discusses Sulfite Alkalis. Sodium Sulfite is a weakly alkaline salt that is capable of acting as the sole alkali for developing agents with amino groups, as for example, Metol or Amidol. Sodium Sulfiite is an alkali because it hydrolizes in solution to produce sodium hydroxide.

The Microdol -X substitute recipe I posted earlier in this thread can be found on page 379 of Haist, and is attributed by Haist to Edgar Hyman.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jim appleyard

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
2,369
Shooter
Multi Format
Well, that certainly is beyond me! I didn't do so well in H.S. chemistry, but I have no doubt that what you have said is accurate.
 

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,703
The fact that the solubility of borax is greater than its ionization whatchacallit is why it is a good buffer, tending to keep pH constant over small additions of other acids or bases. It's too complicated for me to explain even if I knew how, but you can dissolve a little borax or saturate the solution with it and still not get pH much different from 9.2 because only a small part of the borax is ionized anyway and it's the degree of this ionization or separation into positive and negative pieces that is described by pH.
 

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,703
Speaking of explanations, one of our chemistry professors at WVU when I was there was describing destructive distillation of wood. He said "What comes out of the still is pyroligneous liquor, but I'll give you credit on the exam if you call it 'goo that comes off of burnt wood' ." I doubt anyone in that class ever forgot the term "Pyroligneous liquor."
 

ags2mikon

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
151
Location
New Mexico
Shooter
Multi Format
Well, now that someone has resurrected this fine old thread, much like the fine old D-23 developer, I think I will chime in too. I like using it at 1:1 it seems to add to the "sharpness" and it still hits box speed most of the time with most films. If you use D-76 times you will be very very close. D-76 stock = D-23 stock. D-76 1:1 = D-23 1:1 Being a single component developer makes the temperature adjustments more predictable than super additive developers. I live in the desert southwest and the light is harsh and it is a fine developer for that. Other developers by the time you pull for the highlights your mid tones become muddy. Here lately I have been using it 1:1 with replenisher mixed 1:1 22cc per 80 sq in of film. 18 rolls and 5 months in it still seems to be working good. This makes it real cheap and saves money for diesel fuel.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
9,758
Location
North Carolina
Shooter
Multi Format
Given that D-23 is less alkaline than D-76, as well as having only a single developing agent, I'd expect the contrast to be different with the same times. D-76H and borax-accelerated D-23 are much closer to the same working rate. If you're trying to tame contrast from harsh desert light, however, the N-(1?) you'll get by running D-23 at D-76 time might be just what you need.

Officially, D-23 loses 1/2 to 2/3 stop of true speed compared to the D-76 standard, but your final results will depend strongly on your metering techniques.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
9,758
Location
North Carolina
Shooter
Multi Format
The ingredient list? D-76 has borax added, D-23 does not, the only alkali is the sodium sulfite.

I couldn't find a final pH listed for D-23; apparently no one tests it, but D-23 times for the same film and same target contrast tend to be a little longer: Tri-X 400 in D-23 stock lists at 7:30, while D-76 stock shows as 6:45 -- so the times are not interchangeable. Further, this is for commercial D-76, which doesn't show the pH rise over a week that home mixed D-76 does.
 

BradS

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,336
Location
Sonora, California
Shooter
35mm
The ingredient list? D-76 has borax added, D-23 does not, the only alkali is the sodium sulfite.

I couldn't find a final pH listed for D-23; apparently no one tests it, but D-23 times for the same film and same target contrast tend to be a little longer: Tri-X 400 in D-23 stock lists at 7:30, while D-76 stock shows as 6:45 -- so the times are not interchangeable. Further, this is for commercial D-76, which doesn't show the pH rise over a week that home mixed D-76 does.

so...no evidence, just speculation.
I have no evidence either but note that...
The pH of sodium sulfite in aqueous solution is around 10.4. That of Borax is (from memory) around 9.2 or so..
even that is not very convincing because Metol in aqueous solution is slightly acidic.
 

ags2mikon

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
151
Location
New Mexico
Shooter
Multi Format
My main concern at this point is bromide build up with replenishment. If I remember correctly Kodak said 20 rolls per liter and then dump and start over. I am testing replenishment with 1:1 and am now at 10 rolls per liter so same ratio of bromide to developer build up. Yes no maybe? I have a few cameras to test so I may just keep going and see if the shadows fall through the floor. If anybody has gone down this rabbit hole before please speak up.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
9,758
Location
North Carolina
Shooter
Multi Format
The pH of sodium sulfite in aqueous solution is around 10.4.

Apparently there's some disagreement. I've seen listings giving 8.0-10.0s, "around 9" and various other values in that range. Borax is 9.3, and listings seem consistent. A week after mixing, homemade D-76 will have risen from about 8 to 9+ -- which is what causes the increase in activity that Kodak reformulated away in commercial D-76.
 

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser
Advertiser
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
3,330
Location
Cleveland, O
Shooter
Multi Format
The received wisdom is that the 2gm/l of Borax used in the conventional formula was replaced with 8gm/l of Borax and 8gm/l of Boric Acid.

The wisdom was received from Richard Knoppow of the Pure Silver mailing list.
 

john_s

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
1,704
Location
Melbourne, A
Shooter
Medium Format
Do you know what kind of buffer they (Kodak) added to D-76?

At Ian Grant's web site

he has some variants including an Australian label (on a metal can: they were the days!) which shows

D76 Kodak Australia,
packaging indicates
4.5% Hydroquinone,
4.6% Borax and
1.8% Boric Acid

I've seen a photo of that label. Incidentally Australian MSDS often have more detail, presumably because of local regulations.
 

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser
Advertiser
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
3,330
Location
Cleveland, O
Shooter
Multi Format
The received wisdom is that the 2gm/l of Borax used in the conventional formula was replaced with 8gm/l of Borax and 8gm/l of Boric Acid.

Looking at my original 'cheat sheet' this was noted as "D76d (Kodak)", and included a pinch (0.3 - 1.0 gm) of P. Bromide. I remember Richard Knoppow mentioning that he thought this was the version Kodak produced. Keeping developer activity stable was a real problem in motion picture processing, probably leading to the inclusion of the wee dram of bromide. The dates on the D-76 variations are in the 1930's when black & white movie production was at a peak.

Ian Grant's page is interesting - there are all sorts of variations on buffering D76, pick the one that seems best to you.

If the developer will be used immediately and discarded then there is little point in buffering.
 

john_s

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
1,704
Location
Melbourne, A
Shooter
Medium Format
........

If the developer will be used immediately and discarded then there is little point in buffering.

I mix ID-68 (supposedly like Microphen) according to the published formula, and since I use it one shot (not necessarily immediately), I have wondered if I need the boric acid which I assume is there for buffering, as this developer is often reused and also replenished where buffering is obviously important. I note that FX-37 has carbonate and borax but nothing to buffer the alkalis, so by analogy it appears that I could get away with omitting the boric acid?
 

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser
Advertiser
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
3,330
Location
Cleveland, O
Shooter
Multi Format
I mix ID-68 (supposedly like Microphen) according to the published formula, and since I use it one shot (not necessarily immediately), I have wondered if I need the boric acid which I assume is there for buffering

Oh, dear. I should have clarified my remark. I postulated that if D-76 was going to be used immeddiately and discarded then probably the original Borax-only formula would work fine.

Developers with Hydroquinone apparently go through some sort of chemical gyration that produces S. Hydroxide over the first few days after mixing into water. Without buffering the developer would become more alkaline and the activity would increase. If the developer is left to sit for a while it's activity stabilizes.

I am not sure the average pictoral photographer would notice any activity shift - it would be swamped by differences in subject matter, lighting, metering and the usual processing variations in agitation, temperature and timing.

Removing the Boric Acid from ID-68 would send the developer far into the alkaline range unless the Borax was reduced to bring the developer back to the proper pH.

I would leave the ID-68 formula alone. Also, ID-68 has no Hydroquinone and so a D-76d level of buffering shouldn't be needed.

The only reason for omitting the buffering in D-76 would be to save a few pennies and reduce the quantity of chemicals going into the water works. Though, if being green is the goal then a developer made from fruit juice/coffee, Vitamin C and washing soda would be the way to go.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab
Top Bottom