Simple D-23 formulation question

[Gerald C Koch]

Well I just did my first set of exposure and development tests on Fuji Green X Ray film. Nothing definitive, or anywhere near. I had cut down the 8x10 film to 4-4x5's to reduce needless waste. First impressions of Buetler's is that it seems a good bit more energetic that I had imagined. I kept overdeveloping badly. My last piece of film I cut down to 1 1/2 minutes at 65 degrees F. It was a bit underdeveloped. Seems like I might have a preliminary film speed of ASA 32 I believe I'll load up a whole 8x10 sheet and do ASA 32 and develop at 2 1/2 minutes, and see where I stand in or near the ballpark.

Certainly not what I would have expected either. Average development times for regular films is 6 to 12 min at 20C depending on film speed.

 

[Tom1956]

This whole experience with my short experimentation time with this film has been odd. Other guys are reporting ASA 80 speeds, and if I try that, shadow detail is totally empty and clear on the negative. I formulated the Beutlers by the well-known formulation and dilution. And according to Aaron Sussman in his 1962 book, Adox KB14 was to be developed at 6 minutes at 65 degrees with the stressed admonition not to exceed 65. Sixty five is COLD! How in the world am I overdeveloping badly at 6 and 8 minutes at that? I'm using 1+1+8, my Ohaus scales are accurate, I'm made my shutter tester and know what my true speeds are. I'm running a Luna Pro with 357 batteries with an on-board voltage regulator at 2.7 volts. And yet I'm having to hold film speed to ASA 32 max, and the development as I've described. Screwy, screwy.
But I'm doing what I have to to get some kind of shadow detail other than blank film. Odd.

 

[Tom1956]

Here's what I'm thinking on the Buetler's. Firstly I think it's a good developer for this pursuit. Other guys are either using Rodinal 1/100 or Pyrocat. But then Rodinal fanboys probably stir it in their coffee and use it as a topping on ice cream. They're not going to say anything bad about it.
The Buetlers is compensating, which is what is needed for a 2-sided film with no AH backing. And it can actually generate LOW contrast complaints if diluted past 1,1,8. Perhaps I need to try a 1,1,10, which will lower contrast a tad, allowing me to overdevelop slightly, and in turn; creep my film speed up and keep shadow detail from going clear on the film. I'm going to try 1,1,10, film speed 40, development time 5 minutes between 65-68. On these experiments, shadow detail is dictating everything, keeping in mind yo can't expect shadow detail on objects outside of the color sensitivity of the film. I don't expect shadow detail under the eves of the roof of a blood-red barn.

 

[Trask]

This is essentially identical to the Bishop formula converted to metric. The web conversion program that I was using last night was giving me incorrect values that were too low when I tried to confirm my notes. So whatever the name you call the formula it produces some very nice negatives.

Thanks for posting this and confirming that I wasn't going nuts last night.

For those curious the Bishop formula is

Acetone 35.7 ml
Sodium sulfite anhydrous 2.56 g
Metol 1.56 g
Water to make 1.0 l

Gerald, you're entirely correct that this is the formula found on the net as coming from G. Paul Bishop -- for some reason I turned "Bishop" into "Buff" who I think was a man who used to sell electronic flash units in Shutterbug. (Maybe he still does, but as SB is now all digital it no longer interests me.)

There's an interesting interview with Mr. Bishop here, where he discusses his metol-acetone formula and other photographic issues.

 

[Tom1956]

BTW--Don't be annoyed at me, Rodinal users. I'm actually going to recommend it to a buddy who doesn't develop very ofter. At 59, a bottle ought to last him the rest of his days. I DOES have it's purposes. But on this X-Ray film, I don't think it makes the grade from what I've studied off the other sites. Neither apparently does Pyrocat. This Beutlers is showing promise at this juncture.

 

[Tom1956]

OK, just developed a new negative I shot today. This was planned to be my first "official" picture. The testing phase I declared concluded and went out today and shot a picture of a rusty 1948 Chevy flatbed and a 1960 VW bug with a sweetgum tree grown up through the motor compartment, with a soybean field and partly cloudy sky in the background. Time was 1/5 second at f/35 approx and a No.8 yellow filter at ASA 20 on the meter, no filter adjustment. Developer was Beutlers 1,1,14 at 66 degrees, 4 minutes. Result--nearly perfect negative. Looks almost like any regular pan film neg. I can use this. Still a bit of fight on contrast and shadow detail, IMO. But an ASA of 16 and 3 1/2 minuted development should clear this up. The most important thing I've kept an eye on is not pushing highlights over the shoulder to get shadow detail. X Ray film seems to be a tight fit to keep zones 0-10 inside the curve, but it looks like I'm getting it done.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Are you having any trouble with even develop with those short times?

 

[Tom1956]

To answer that is to answer it with a logical question: If it were a print and not a negative, would there be any reason to expect the same problem? I was fortunate enough to have read of a fellow on the LFF who has determined that particular problem being caused with excessive agitation (tray). So I kept agitation on the down-low, and do not observe any evenness in the sky area which is where it shows up best. I won't get to print till tomorrow night, but it looks like there isn't any problem there. I'm still shocked that my fllm speed and development times are both much lower that I had expected. But apparently, it is what it is.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

It is a good question. One I have often thought about. Experience has taught me, however, that film is far more susceptible to uneven development than paper. I have no idea why that is...

Those ARE extremely short times, must be some incredibly contrasty film. Good luck with the continued testing!