whoisusingd23?

[RalphLambrecht]

whoisusingd23what formula andwhat process,please?

 

[BradS]

I use D-23 quite a bit. Especially in the Summer as it is relatively insensitve to temperature....
What formula? Is that a trick question? There is only one published formula.

Metol: 7.5g
Sodium Sulfite: 100g
water to make 1liter.


teaspoons:
Metol: 2 teaspoons
Sodium Sulfite: 4 Tablespoons
water to make 1 quart


Sometimes I'll reduce the Metol to 5g and add 4 grams of Borax....but, that's not D-23 any more.


oh, process:

Six sheets of 4x5 sheet film in a Jobo 3006. About ten to twelve minutes of continuous rotation on a motor base that does not reverse and I don't bother to reverse the drum either. No need.

 

[MDR]

I use D23 Standard formula undiluted (Stock) and love the results it's my second most often used developer after Rodinal.

Dominik

 

[Gabino]

I've used it with good results following the advice of guys much more experienced than I from this website:

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

it uses a two-solution formula, the classic chemistry first followed by a kodalk solution (10 gr of sodium metaborate) to work on the shadows. The replenisher highlighted here (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Developers/Formulas/formulas.html) uses 20 g of Kodalk instead. I've used only 10 gr.

Hope this helps.

Gabriel

 

[piu58]

Dear Ralph,
what are you trying? Which answers come from Apug if you send a enigmatig question in?

 

[Ryuji]

Let D-23 die.

Film developers that don't deliver box rated speed need to offer something extraordinary. D-23 does not.

 

[Jerevan]

Let D-23 die.

Oh man. I think you need a hug.

 

[Ryuji]

I'll take a hug as long as the body is free of Metol.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hmm...these questions are suspicious. First, print developers with film. Now this one. Surely you know enough about processing with D23 . I'm curious.

You know you and and nnothing too seriousand that i'm just back in the experimrnting mode

 

[Ian Grant]

Let D-23 die.

Film developers that don't deliver box rated speed need to offer something extraordinary. D-23 does not.

That opens a whole debate about box speed itself.

Many people don't use films at the manufacturers box speed anyway and in fact when Kodak released Tmax films it was with a recommendation in the data sheet to shoot at half box speed for a better tonal range. This was also recommended by John Sexton in his excellent articles on Tmax in the mid 1980's.

However your right that a downside of D23 is a slight loss of effective EI compared to other developers.

Ian

 

[pcyco]

Let D-23 die.

Film developers that don't deliver box rated speed need to offer something extraordinary. D-23 does not.

hallo

WHY??
this is your opinion, and this must not fit to all the others who use und love it (like me)

its not the best over all but easy and effective.
--
thomas

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hmm...these questions are suspicious. First, print developers with film. Now this one. Surely you know enough about processing with D23 . I'm curious.

You know you and and nnothing too seriousand that i'm just back in the experimrnting mode

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Oh man. I think you need a hug.

apres vou monsieur

 

[Steve Smith]

i'm just back in the experimrnting mode

That's the best mode to be in.


Steve.

 

[Oxleyroad]

Well I am another using D23. Not all the time but often, and mainly with ORWO UN54, occasionally with Shanghai GP3. Why, well because I can and I am happy with results if start temp is between 20 and 26 deg.

Metol 7.5g, Sodium Sulfite 100g and water to 1 litre. Dilute 1:3

Then as I read in the Darkroom handbook 1min developer constant agitation, 4 min water soak, 1 min dev const agitation, 4 min water soak, 1 min dev const agitation, 4 min water soak, then fixer.

 

[Ian Grant]

I think I'd go back to an earlier Kodak Fine grain dveloper:

From the 1928 British Journal Photographic Almanac:

Eastman Kodak Research Fine Gran Developer 1927

For Fine grain. - A developer recommended by the Eastman Kodak Research Laboratories for use when images of specially fine grain are required is as follows:-

Metol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 gr (2g)
Sodium Sulphite (anhyd) . . . . . . 400gr (100g)
Borax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 gr (2g)
Water to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ozs (1600ml)

The developer works more slowly than those of normal formula. - A.P., May 25, p. 504.

-------------------------------------

This seems to be the earliest published Fine Grain developer from Kodak.

Ian

 

[MDR]

D23 and Pat Gainer's stuff follow the classic principle of KISS they are easy to mix unexpensive and more important they work. Even if they don't reach absolute box speed neither does Rodinal and D23 comes often pretty close to box speed imho. So there is absolutely no reason to badmouth D23 for all its simplicity I've never had a problem with it unlike X-Tol.

Dominik

BTW Is Pat Gainer still active on this forum?

 

[mdarnton]

I'll have to get out my scale: my recipe is 1t metol to 4T sulfite--has been for years, in fact I originally got that from an article in Camera 35 in the 70s, I think, then checked it when I bought my first scale.

Anyway, I use Tri-X at 250. "Box speed" doesn't mean much, and in fact until some time in the 60s all b&W films were rated half what they are now, then the ASA decided shadows weren't that important (look at some 60s photos, and you'll see that this idea took a decade or two to recover from).

Either that or all developers are bad--I used 250 with Microdol-X, D76, D23, and any other normal developer I've tried. The advantage of D23 is its simplicity--I only need to keep 2 chemicals on hand, and they mix virtually instantly. I like D76, but it's twice as complex to make. The grain of 76 and 23 are about equal to me, and the tonal scale of 76 is a bit snappier, but nothing you can't fix with development. I've found 23 particularly nice for scanning (shhh!), since both the shadows and highlights are wide open. The downside is that metol is more expensive than hydroquinone and borax, if that's a concern, and 76 can be faster if you're in a big rush.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I'll take a hug as long as the body is free of Metol.

Are you allergic to Metol?

 

[railwayman3]

I can still just recall a photo lecture at my school camera club by an old guy (must have been nearly 90) who shpwed amazing architectural pictures which he'd taken on Ilford plates and cut film, probably in the 1940's and 50's, of historic buildings, cathedrals, etc.
I can remember that he used ortho plates (I'd guess quarter-plate size), developed by inspection in red safelight in D-23.....his formula was "water, a spoonful of metol and a handful of sodium sulphite". His exposures for interiors was f/32 or f/64, open shutter on time and go away for a walk or a sandwich until he thought it had had enough.
I've, honestly, never seen anything since which could rival his prints for quality and artistry of that type of subject!

 

[Ryuji]

Are you allergic to Metol?

Nope, just being silly.

But in all seriousness, I prefer Dimezone S over Metol in developers.

 

[Ryuji]

That opens a whole debate about box speed itself.

Many people don't use films at the manufacturers box speed anyway and in fact when Kodak released Tmax films it was with a recommendation in the data sheet to shoot at half box speed for a better tonal range. This was also recommended by John Sexton in his excellent articles on Tmax in the mid 1980's.

For a good part of the past decade, I used film developers that give full nominal speed if not more compared to the standard developer used for the ISO speed rating, while giving good tonality and granularity. Simply, I don't see a reason to lose speed unless I'm getting something extraordinary.

The story would be a bit different when I'm shooting in studio... where I can always increase the light to a level way beyond what I need. But the strength of film (over digital sensors) is dynamic range, and available light shoot on location is the prime candidate to make use of the advantage. In that scenario, not losing half stop of speed is appreciated, especially in the northeast winter...

 

[Ryuji]

Regarding speed, of course this is something individuals need to test for, but in general when it comes to speed and/or shadow contrast I have not found the differences between most general purpose developers to be as great as many suppose them to be. Superfine grain variants such as Perceptol and Microdol are indeed slower if you want to maintain their extra fine grain properties.

I don’t like those developers that’s why I made my own.

But if we're comparing D23 to D76 for example, the differences are quite small. Even XTOL is not a great deal faster than D76 in my experience. In the end it depends on how you use them, and with which films.

I’d describe what I’ve been using as a cross of DD-X and XTOL. I get DD-X speed with XTOL tonality, with granularity somewhere between.

I like good shadow separations, so if I have to rate TMAX 100 at say 50 instead of 64 or 80, I don't really care. I'm interested only in image quality.

If you are shooting landscape or still life, or shooting in studio, that would be fine, but if you are hand holding small format cameras, doing street photography, or environmental portrait, or something of that nature, extra speed out of medium speed films would be a lot more appreciated.

I get good karma by rating TMX at 100 when I can get good exposure metering, and have an option to err on the over side when I'm not sure, and always get good shadow details.

I also feel good when I can rate any of the 400 speed films at 400 in a toy camera with fixed focusing distance or other cameras with zone focusing only, or when you don't want to use viewfinder. Why don't I trade in extra speed from the developer to a bit more DOF.

 

[BradS]

Does one really give up that much film speed when using D-23? I guess I have not noticed it to be the case (compared to D-76). I suppose it depends on film to a very great degree.

D-23 may not be extraordinary but, it does have some very appealing characteristics. D-23 is simple to make, relatively robust against temperature variation and relaibly gives very decent results. Like I've said in the past, if you cannot get a decent printable negative with D-23 it isn't because you measured out the ingredients with teaspoons, tablspoons and measuring cups.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I get good karma by rating TMX at 100 when I can get good exposure metering, and have an option to err on the over side when I'm not sure, and always get good shadow details.

I also feel good when I can rate any of the 400 speed films at 400 in a toy camera with fixed focusing distance or other cameras with zone focusing only, or when you don't want to use viewfinder. Why don't I trade in extra speed from the developer to a bit more DOF.

Hello Ryuji,

Would you be surprised if I told you that I regularly expose TMax 100 (or Acros) at EI 400, and TMax 400 at 1600? I get what I feel is 'enough' shadow detail when I push process in Xtol 1+1. The negatives are easy to print, and gives the 'weight' to the blacks that I want and really anchors the print.
Those two extra stops I happily trade for a little bit of shadow detail.

The above is not how I normally use my film, but I do it regularly to compensate for dim lighting, as I shoot much like you do. In different circumstances, I might reason differently.

- Thomas