Kodak D-23 for small negatives?

Jerevan · May 29, 2016

Just wondering ... is there a point to using D-23 (apart from it being simple to mix from scratch) with 35 mm negatives?

I suppose smaller negatives benefit from having more acutance, rather than any solvent action?

mdarnton · May 29, 2016

I've been on and off with D23 for about 40 years, but I think I have finally kicked the habit. The easy thing about it is mixing and using it, and you get a smoother contrast range. The down side is that it's almost entirely solvent (sodium sulfite in abundance), and the grain and sharpness both come out mushier than my favorite D76. Also, highlight contrast suffers, and there's none of the nice sparkle of D76. I won't even use it for x-ray film now, which is a high contrast film on its own and likes softer developers, but even with that, D23 kills the sparkle in the highlights. So I'm left wondering what the point of D23 is, after ease of use.

I do not use it as a two-part, with a B solution. That might change my feelings about the sparkle, but probably not about the mush.

But it sure is easy to mix.

Gerald C Koch · May 29, 2016

Try using it 1+1 for better acutance. I use it with Ilford Pan F+ to tame this film's contrast.

Prof_Pixel · May 29, 2016

I was never a big fan of D-23. For sheet film I used DK-50 and for rolls it was D-76 (straight or 1:1)

railwayman3 · May 29, 2016

Slightly OT, but I remember seeing a Camera Club talk when I was a teenager by a guy who must have been in his 80's then, on "Architectural Photography". His prints of cathedrals, etc., were amazing, never seen better.

I remember he used an ancient quarter-plate camera, Ilford ortho plates and cut film, and D-23......his recipe was "pint of water, teaspoon of Metol, handful of sulphite, and develop under a red safelight until done".

Jim Noel · May 29, 2016

That's the way I first learned to mix it. Of course,that was with ortho films so the red light was on during the whole process.

idamia · May 29, 2016

My go to developer is Barry Thornton two bath.
Basically a D23 with an additional metaborate bath.
It's a great universal developer. Never got disappointing results.

Jerevan · May 29, 2016

I'll have to at least try D-23 with the Ilford Ortho+ whenever I get around to doing some large format photography.

David Allen · May 30, 2016

railwayman3 said:
Slightly OT, but I remember seeing a Camera Club talk when I was a teenager by a guy who must have been in his 80's then, on "Architectural Photography". His prints of cathedrals, etc., were amazing, never seen better.

I remember he used an ancient quarter-plate camera, Ilford ortho plates and cut film, and D-23......his recipe was "pint of water, teaspoon of Metol, handful of sulphite, and develop under a red safelight until done".

Are you based in the UK?

If so, was that lecture by T. Herbert Jones?

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

David Allen · May 30, 2016

Jerevan said:
Just wondering ... is there a point to using D-23 (apart from it being simple to mix from scratch) with 35 mm negatives?

I suppose smaller negatives benefit from having more acutance, rather than any solvent action?

The only way to answer your question is to know what you like to photograph and how you like your prints to look.

There is no 'magic' perfect film developer only the one that suits your needs.

You have to consider (or list in order of importance to you) which developer characteristics are most applicable to your needs and be aware that every developer is somewhat of a compromise. Do you want the finest grain?, the highest sharpness?, the most shadow detail for a given exposure?, the highest acutance?, the simplest to make developer?, the cheapest developer?, a developer that prevents highlights from blocking up?, etc.

The main two advantages of D23 for 35mm work is the very fine grain and preventing highlights blocking up plus, of course, it is cheap and easy to make. However, if you want your photographs to look like Anders Petersen then this is definitely not the developer for you!

For my own work, I use Barry Thornton's Two-Bath developer because it delivers D23's advantages but with somewhat higher acutance. However, you must be aware that:

I don't like intrusive grain
I photograph scenes with normal to extreme subject brightness ranges
I shoot urban landscapes so I do not need a developer that delivers maximum speed.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

idamia · May 30, 2016

@David Allen
Good to hear that I'm not the only one using BTTB.
For my needs/expectations (hybride approach) it's almost perfect.

presspass · Jun 9, 2016

D-23 has been my main developer for about five years. I use it replenished, as the first part of a two-bath, and diluted either 1:1 or 1:3. The results with replenished developer are sharp enough for 35mm reportage and restraining the highlights allows good definition in the sky without a yellow or orange filter. I came to D-23 after more than 10 years with X-tol and more than 20 before that with HC-110. The only time I go to something else is Diafine for ISO 1250-1600 with Tri-X. BTW, my standard film is 35mm Tri-X or HP5+.

Trask · Jun 9, 2016

presspass said:
D-23 has been my main developer for about five years. I use it replenished, as the first part of a two-bath, and diluted either 1:1 or 1:3. The results with replenished developer are sharp enough for 35mm reportage and restraining the highlights allows good definition in the sky without a yellow or orange filter. I came to D-23 after more than 10 years with X-tol and more than 20 before that with HC-110. The only time I go to something else is Diafine for ISO 1250-1600 with Tri-X. BTW, my standard film is 35mm Tri-X or HP5+.

What do you replenish it with, and how much volume developer do you toss and replace? What is Bath B? I have had mixed results with D-23, things a bit mushy (but good shadow detail), so always looking to learn from the experiences of others.

Zathras · Jun 9, 2016

Trask said:
What do you replenish it with, and how much volume developer do you toss and replace? What is Bath B? I have had mixed results with D-23, things a bit mushy (but good shadow detail), so always looking to learn from the experiences of others.

D-23 is replenished with Kodak Replenisher DK-25R. Here is a link to the formula from Unblinkingeye.com. Have fun!

Thomas Bertilsson · Jun 9, 2016

D23 does not yield very sharp negatives, but beautiful tonality. If you want to print big, it's probably best to use acutance developers; solvent developers will make that grain look pretty tired when you start to go beyond 11x14. But if your goal is to print 5x7 or 8x10, D23 might be just perfect!

It really does depend on what you want to accomplish, how big you print now (and think about the future too), and what you value in a print.

Arklatexian · Jun 10, 2016

mdarnton said:
I've been on and off with D23 for about 40 years, but I think I have finally kicked the habit. The easy thing about it is mixing and using it, and you get a smoother contrast range. The down side is that it's almost entirely solvent (sodium sulfite in abundance), and the grain and sharpness both come out mushier than my favorite D76. Also, highlight contrast suffers, and there's none of the nice sparkle of D76. I won't even use it for x-ray film now, which is a high contrast film on its own and likes softer developers, but even with that, D23 kills the sparkle in the highlights. So I'm left wondering what the point of D23 is, after ease of use.

I do not use it as a two-part, with a B solution. That might change my feelings about the sparkle, but probably not about the mush.

But it sure is easy to mix.

Many (and I mean MANY) years ago, locally, many photographers, both professional and advanced amateurs, used a two part D-23 developer. I seem to remember putting the film in D-23 for three minutes and then into a solution made with Kodalk (I would think metaborate now) for not less than one minute otherwise as long as you like within reason. I don't remember any dilutions. It was used with 35mm, MF, and 4x5 as I remember and the negatives were all beautiful. No one seemed to like just D-23 as a one part developer. There is one retired professional photographer older than I, who might remember the details. I am going to ask him. I better hurry. He is right at 90 and I am 85. Tempus fugit!.....Regards!

idamia · Jun 10, 2016

This sounds a lot like (what I and others call) Barry Thornton two bath developer.

railwayman3 · Jun 10, 2016

David Allen said:
Are you based in the UK?

If so, was that lecture by T. Herbert Jones?

Yes, I'm in the UK. The lecture would probably been in the early 1970's, but I have no recollection or record of the speaker's name. Sorry.

Yes, I'm in the UK, and would have been in Derbyshire at that time. The lecture would probably been in the early 1970's, but I have no recollection or record of the speaker's name. Sorry.

DREW WILEY · Jun 10, 2016

I found D23 a bit too mushy for even 4x5; can't personally imagine using it in 35mm. It was really best for two-bath development with older "thick
emulsion" films. If you want something off the shelf with most of its advantages but better acutance, you might try Perceptol.

Kodak D-23 for small negatives?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency