Replenished D23 - is it any good?

[Lachlan Young]

During the recent discussion about 777 there was mention of running a replenished D 23 line. Replenished D 23 appeals not least because of the low cost of setting up. What I would like to know are your opinions about replenishing vs diluted D23 and what sort of development times/EIs would be expected from this. Also, what sort of capacity would be expected?

All help much appreciated,

Lachlan

 

[df cardwell]

Some context: D23 was designed as a substitute for D-76, with superiour characteristics which would be suitable for replenished tanks in commercial labs. This was circa 1940. As simple as it SEEMS, D-23 is an extremely elegant developer.

Kodak specified DK-25R, and instructed that one replenish the developer with 6 gallons of replenisher for every 1000 rolls processed. Further, Kodak specified that the developer be replaced after 100 rolls per gallon ( 8000 sq. inches ) have been processed.

I know that upon ocassion, this instruction was overlooked. Replenishment succeeds when there is a high volume of film being processed regularly. In daily use, the stuff never really goes bad, but at some point the balance can't be maintained. Like keeping a color processor happy, running a couple rolls through the works in a week isn't really a happy way to go.

DK-25 R looks like this:
Water 750 ml
Metol 10 grams
Sulfite 100 grams
Balanced Alkali 20 grams
cold water to make 1 liter

This was from Kodak's Gospel, 1951.

With any luck, Mr. Troop will weigh in on this matter !

df

 

[Lachlan Young]

Some context: D23 was designed as a substitute for D-76, with superiour characteristics which would be suitable for replenished tanks in commercial labs. This was circa 1940. As simple as it SEEMS, D-23 is an extremely elegant developer.

Kodak specified DK-25R, and instructed that one replenish the developer with 6 gallons of replenisher for every 1000 rolls processed. Further, Kodak specified that the developer be replaced after 100 rolls per gallon ( 8000 sq. inches ) have been processed.

I know that upon ocassion, this instruction was overlooked. Replenishment succeeds when there is a high volume of film being processed regularly. In daily use, the stuff never really goes bad, but at some point the balance can't be maintained. Like keeping a color processor happy, running a couple rolls through the works in a week isn't really a happy way to go.

Would 10-20 rolls or 20 or so sheets be the minimum throughput per week ?

Thanks,

Lachlan

 

[John Bartley]

This isn't an answer, but is a reasonable question I think. Given the extreme cheapness with which D23 can be made, how much savings can there be in replenishing? Making the replenisher is as much work as mixing up a fresh batch, so why not just start new?

cheers from a D23 user (no longer attending the Rodinal church)

 

[Lachlan Young]

This isn't an answer, but is a reasonable question I think. Given the extreme cheapness with which D23 can be made, how much savings can there be in replenishing? Making the replenisher is as much work as mixing up a fresh batch, so why not just start new?

cheers from a D23 user (no longer attending the Rodinal church)

Let's see...that must make you a non-conformist?

More seriously, what sort of dilutions/development times/EIs are you using/ getting with D23?

Thanks,

Lachlan

 

[df cardwell]

There is a Method in his non-conformity.

A good starting time for D23 is the suitable D76 time. Use it straight, generally. Depending on what you want. We can throw all kinds of trivia around: watcha want to do, and what should it look like when it's done ?

Note: the big difference in a replenished D23 is a minimized grain, a smoother look. But it isn't grainy at all, and keeping a ripened, replensihed developer takes some attention.

 

[John Bartley]

Let's see...that must make you a non-conformist?

Ummmm - yup!! (well, a bit anyway)

More seriously, what sort of dilutions/development times/EIs are you using/ getting with D23?

Oh dear ... now my lack of knowledge is going to be made embarrassingly public (again) - oh well ...

I mix my D23 according to the 'Adams" variation of the formula. I don't dilute it at all. I shoot 4x5 and 8x10, and I don't really count negatives, I change it when it starts to smell bad, which is usually about every 4 to 6 months. I average 2 negs(8x10) per week, so my 2 litres of D23 does about 30 to 40 negs before I throw it out. When I expose the film at the recommended iso, I develop for 5 minutes in D23 and 4 minutes in a borax solution. From those base times I vary to accomodate overexposure when needed. EI ???? I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about what I'm doing to answer that question. :confused:

I hope this helps a bit. Oh yeah ... I develop in home made tubes and I presoak for a minute or two before developing.

cheers

 

[Lachlan Young]

There is a Method in his non-conformity.

A good starting time for D23 is the suitable D76 time. Use it straight, generally. Depending on what you want. We can throw all kinds of trivia around: watcha want to do, and what should it look like when it's done ?

Note: the big difference in a replenished D23 is a minimized grain, a smoother look. But it isn't grainy at all, and keeping a ripened, replensihed developer takes some attention.

What sort of effect does replenished D23 give in terms of 'look' - does it give an upswept curve on TMY like 777 does or does it act like Edwal 12 or is it simply a smooth fine grain general purpose developer like d76 with none of the problems?

If this doesn't work out successfully I will just go back to Fotospeed's FD10 - imagine Aculux 2 with slightly higher acutance and cheaper!

Thanks for your help,

Lachlan

 

[df cardwell]

It isn't replenishment that kicks the highlights up, it's the glycin

D23, replenished or not, is virtually identical to D76.

Replensihed simply smooths the grain, not a big concern. One shot D23, diluted 1+1, like D76, is a great developer.

Or you could just use D76 / IDll......

 

[Lachlan Young]

It isn't replenishment that kicks the highlights up, it's the glycin

D23, replenished or not, is virtually identical to D76.

Replensihed simply smooths the grain, not a big concern. One shot D23, diluted 1+1, like D76, is a great developer.

Or you could just use D76 / IDll......

If I were to add 5g/l of glycin to D23 what sort of effect would I expect to see?

Thanks,

Lachlan

 

[df cardwell]

nothing

the pH is too low

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

nothing

the pH is too low

Yes, you would be better off with FX-2 if you want the glycin look.

 

[dancqu]

What I would like to know are your opinions about
replenishing vs diluted D23 ... Also, what sort of capacity
would be expected? Lachlan

I've made use of an 8-80 D-23; 8 grams of metol and 80
grams of carbonate. At 1:3 dilution and 500ml solution
volume I've gotten plenty of development.

I've decided the next roll through my 8 - 80 will be at
a 1:7 dilution. My or the official D-23, I'm quite sure will
be good for 16 rolls. That, BTW, makes it a low sulfite
developer and best for slow films.

To a liter of the 1:7 dilution add 6 grams of sodium
carbonate and you have one liter of double strength
FX-1; a good film developer. Dan

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yes, you would be better off with FX-2 if you want the glycin look.

FX-2 it is then - just as soon as the Formulary are back in stock...

Thanks for the help,

Lachlan

 

[Zathras]

I've made use of an 8-80 D-23; 8 grams of metol and 80
grams of carbonate. At 1:3 dilution and 500ml solution
volume I've gotten plenty of development.
snip...

Carbonate? I imagine you would get plenty of development. This is a typo, is it not?

Mike Sullivan

 

[MikeSeb]

During the recent discussion about 777 there was mention of running a replenished D 23 line. Replenished D 23 appeals not least because of the low cost of setting up. What I would like to know are your opinions about replenishing vs diluted D23 and what sort of development times/EIs would be expected from this. Also, what sort of capacity would be expected?

All help much appreciated,

Lachlan

Not exactly what you asked, but my vote is to NOT replenish developer unless this provides a specific "look" you are after. It's so damn cheap to make or buy, relative to the value of time and materials expended to take photographs and make prints, it strikes me as a false economy.

 

[dancqu]

Carbonate? I imagine you would get plenty of development.
This is a typo, is it not?
Mike Sullivan

It is a TYPO. I may have been thinking ahead to the
8 - 80 formula's conversion to FX - 1. Make that 8 grams
metol and 80 grams sodium sulfite; my formula D-23. At
any one time I compound only a small portion of the
full liter, ie, 1 gram 10 grams. Dan

 

[jim appleyard]

Chris Waller at photo.net has a nice formula for Modified D-23. It adds salt and a bit of borax to standard D-23. This cuts the grain a bit, adds a bit of contrast and shortens dev time. I've had good success with it.

If you do a search there for Chris and/or the formula, I'm sure you'll find it. Chris is a very helpful guy.

 

[Gerald Koch]

Forgive me, but if you change the proportions of D-23 or add a bit of this or a pinch of that then what you have is no longer D-23. You loose the advantage of using an established, predictable developer with published development times for something else.

 

[dancqu]

an established, predictable developer

Is there THE Standard Developer: A single
developer with which all other developers
are or may be compared? Dan

 

[Lachlan Young]

Is there THE Standard Developer: A single
developer with which all other developers
are or may be compared? Dan

I believe it is called ADOX MQ Borax or the ISO standard developer and is in the Chem recipes section - never tried it however so can't comment on performance.

Lachlan

 

[Gerald Koch]

Is there THE Standard Developer: A single
developer with which all other developers
are or may be compared? Dan

Many would say yes, D-76. I really don't know of any manufacturer who doesn't publish D-76 development times for their B&W camera films.