Would I be missing anything if I use D-23 instead of D-76?

[thinkbrown]

From what I remember you don't really lose anything with D23 compared to D76. I developed exclusively with D23 for about a year and was happy with the results. Eventually I ended up switching to D96 because I was primarily shooting Eastman 5222.

 

[retina_restoration]

You could, if you wanted a D76 equivalent that is NOT D23, make D76H, which is similar in its contents to D23:

Water 760 mL (125 F/52 C)
Metol 2g
Sodium Decahydrate 2.5g
WTM 1 L.

I believe that Borax can be used for Sodium Decahydrate—but I’m sure that the chemists on this Forum will clarify ….

The dilutions and times for using D76H are identical to those for D76—according to Troop & Anchell, The Film Developing Cookbook, Second Edition.

Haven’t you (unintentionally) omitted the 100g of sodium sulfite?

 

[retina_restoration]

Perhaps it might help dcy if we were to only answer the exact question he asked when deciding on the thread's title or even better he were to repeat exactly what it is he needs to know about what if anything he "loses" if he uses D23 instead of D76?

pentaxuser

If we're going to stick to answering the question exactly as posed and not deviate whatsoever, then no - there's "nothing to lose" in choosing D-23 over D-76. However, to achieve the exact same negative density and contrast as you would when using D-76, you may have to give your negs another 1/3 stop exposure and add 10-15% more time to development (over listed D-76 times).

 

[Donald Qualls]

Water 760 mL (125 F/52 C)
Metol 2g
Sodium Decahydrate 2.5g
WTM 1 L.

I believe that Borax can be used for Sodium Decahydrate—but I’m sure that the chemists on this Forum will clarify ….

This recipe is incomplete. Assuming "sodium decahydrate" is actually "sodium borate decahydrate" aka borax this is missing the 100 g of sodium sulfite. The simple way to make D-76H is to just leave the hydroquinone out of a standard D-76 formula.

 

[Milpool]

Perhaps it might help dcy if we were to only answer the exact question he asked when deciding on the thread's title or even better he were to repeat exactly what it is he needs to know about what if anything he "loses" if he uses D23 instead of D76?

pentaxuser

He doesn't lose anything. It works virtually the same as D-76.

 

[ags2mikon]

I mix my own D-23 1:1 by measuring out the metol and the sodium sulfite into small glass vials, a dozen 2 bottle "kits" at a time enough for 1 liter I shot. I have found that it will do 3-4 rolls on the Jobo. I use D-76/ID-11 1:1 times and do not reduce the 15% for constant agitation. It is simple, reliable and always in stock! Metol and sulfite when stored in glass will last for decades. I try to keep a 4 -5 year supply of my most used chemistry on hand. I have also used it replenished when I am doing a lot of shooting, but that adds to the complexity and may not be worth your time. YMMV.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Metol and sulfite when stored in glass will last for decades.

As will most dry chemicals (but not CD-4, says the bottle I had that turned green in the sealed bottle).

 

[ags2mikon]

@Donald Qualls, It is a color developer after all, so it developed a color.

 

[TomR55]

Haven’t you (unintentionally) omitted the 100g of sodium sulfite?

D’oop! Thank you! That’s what happens when one types faster than one thinks? Yes, the formula should insert Sodium Sulfite (anhydrous) 100g after the Metol. [I have found that a pinch of the Sodium Sulfite, added to the water prior to adding the Metol, helps the Metol dissolve quicker.]

 

[pentaxuser]

If we're going to stick to answering the question exactly as posed and not deviate whatsoever, then no - there's "nothing to lose" in choosing D-23 over D-76. However, to achieve the exact same negative density and contrast as you would when using D-76, you may have to give your negs another 1/3 stop exposure and add 10-15% more time to development (over listed D-76 times).

Yes, that probably sums up what I think as well. That plus the ease with which D23 can be made

pentaxuser

 

[retina_restoration]

D’oop! Thank you! That’s what happens when one types faster than one thinks? Yes, the formula should insert Sodium Sulfite (anhydrous) 100g after the Metol. [I have found that a pinch of the Sodium Sulfite, added to the water prior to adding the Metol, helps the Metol dissolve quicker.]

The reason that the instructions for many Metol/sulfite developers state "add a pinch of the sulfite to the water first" is to scavenge the oxygen from the water, which helps preserve the developer, avoiding premature oxidation.

 

[xkaes]

He doesn't lose anything. It works virtually the same as D-76.

He loses film speed -- which may not matter to him. D-76 has hydroquinone which is an accelerant. He can test it to find out.

 

[Saganich]

I've ordered a 1L kit of D-76 and I am looking forward to developing film with the gold standard developer. That will help establish a baseline of what a developed film is supposed to look like.

But... Long term, I'd rather use developers that I can mix myself or are concentrates that never go bad. That would better suit the sporadic & random nature of my photography hobby. I have Rodinal, PC-TEA, and the ingredients & tools (e.g. milligram scale) to mix D-23 in small batches. I know that Rodinal (and I think also PC-TEA?) will give a different look to D-76 because D-76 is a solvent / fine-grain developer. But D-23 is also a fine-grain developer. D-23 is apparently a lower contrast than D-76, but my understanding is that contrast is something I can learn to control with over/under exposure and push/pull processing.

Is there any reason it might not be a good idea to use D-23 as my single fine-grain developer?

I had the same thought process. I started with HC110 and Rodinal because it was easy to hide (small equipment footprint), lasted forever, and was reliable for intermittent development. D23 is similar in that regard if you replenish, so mix 1L of D23 and D23R and your good for about 30 rolls. D23 and D76 have a similar look. D23 isn't lower contrast it just requires longer development times that D76 presumably due to D23 having pretty low pH. I would say D23 does better in N- than N+ situations compared to D76 because it's difficult to get those N+ times without some time spent testing.

 

[dcy]

You can mix your own equivalent D-76 yourself - the formulas very nearly the same thing are floating around.

Yeah. D-76 is just one more ingredient. I will get to see both D-76 and D-23. I suspect that the difference might be too subtle for me to notice at this stage.

Since you're starting out, I'd say go with the D-76 diluted 1:1 for one time use and then discarded.

Certainly. D-76 1+1 one-shot, D-23 1+1 one-shot, everything one shot.

 

[dcy]

This is quite subjective. I recommend considering experimental results to make a decision. For example, take some frames and develop them with D-76. Optional, take similar scene and develop them with another developer, such as D23, and place those photos on the right. ...

I can designate a sacrificial roll to do a side-by-side comparison. Elsewhere, @snusmumriken pointed out that to learn I need to take risks. Looking back, the obvious thing to do is grab a roll for the express purpose of learning and testing.

 

[dcy]

To control contrast, you can shorten or lengthen development, or lower or raise development temperature, but that doesn't necessarily mean a push or a pull.
You have to be careful if you bring up the terms "push" and "pull", because they often confuse, due to the fact that many associate use of them when referencing combinations of exposure changes and development changes, where those combinations are intended to counteract the effects of exposure changes.
So I generally recommend against using the terms "push" and "pull" unless you are explicitly dealing with adjusting development in response to exposure concerns.

Thanks. I did not know that they had those associations. I thought push/pull just meant "develop more/less".

 

[dcy]

@dcy, in another thread you have explained that you use half-frame 35mm. I suggest you should try D-76 undiluted first to set yourself a yardstick for comparison. Both D-76 and D-23 are solvent developers, producing relatively fine grain, but you might find the results a bit mushy in half-frame. Using them dilute should help somewhat in that respect. Given that you’ve also stated that you’d like simplicity, home mixing and good keeping properties, I suspect Thornton’s 2-bath could suit you well, but I don’t want to seem to be evangelising!

Your experiments with different developers will be plagued by the fact that you have so many variables (lighting, exposure, film type, developer, dilution, temperature, agitation, …) and you will find it difficult to interpret the results. That’s the reason you’ll keep getting the recommendation to become very familiar with one film/dev combination before experimenting further.

To help with the comparison and reduce the number of variables, I can shoot an entire roll with the same 4-6 scenes in rapid succession (e.g. living room, kitchen, backyard tree and front of the house on a sunny day). Then I can cut the film into 3 or 4 equal pieces inside the dark bag and be confident that each piece has every scene. Develop each piece on each of the developers I want to test.

EDIT: I can do the same test whenever I want to test other variables, like development time, or whatnot.

 

[dcy]

The dilutions and times for using D76H are identical to those for D76—according to Troop & Anchell, The Film Developing Cookbook, Second Edition.

I keep hearing people recommend that book. It must be good. I just ordered it on Amazon.

 

[MattKing]

To help with the comparison and reduce the number of variables, I can shoot an entire roll with the same 4-6 scenes in rapid succession (e.g. living room, kitchen, backyard tree and front of the house on a sunny day). Then I can cut the film into 3 or 4 equal pieces inside the dark bag and be confident that each piece has every scene. Develop each piece on each of the developers I want to test.

EDIT: I can do the same test whenever I want to test other variables, like development time, or whatnot.

Good test.
One hint though - put something like a coded sign into each scene.
For example, something with a big "A" in the first set of scenes, then a "B" in the next set of scenes, then a "C" in the next set of scenes, etc.
Then, when each developed snippet comes out of the tank, record which set of "letters" came out of which developer.
Otherwise it can be really tough figuring out which is which later.

 

[Milpool]

He loses film speed -- which may not matter to him. D-76 has hydroquinone which is an accelerant. He can test it to find out.

No.

If there is a speed difference between D-76 and D-23 it is miniscule. In any case you can't characterize the emulsion speed a developer produces based simply on the list of ingredients. There are concentrations to consider, interactions etc.

 

[Milpool]

I keep hearing people recommend that book. It must be good. I just ordered it on Amazon.

There are a few good things in the cookbooks but also a lot of unfounded suppositions, opinions, hyperbole etc. Don't get too wrapped up in it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

D-76 is just one more ingredient.

One thing to be aware, of however: D-76 from the classic recipe will tend to increase pH (gaining activity) for some period after it's mixed. This is apparently due to a reaction of the hydroquinone with the sulfite and is the reason for D-76H existing. Kodak found a way to beat this for the commercially packaged D-76, but I don't know that their additives for this purpose have been made public. They might have used an improved buffer system (seems most likely), something like adding bisulfite and metaborate to "lock" the pH at the correct level.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's worth reading AA "The Negative" for his comments and use of D23 There are good reasons why Kodak did not release it commercially, it's low contrast and a compensating developer, AA states where it's useful, it is not an all round developer. In low contrast light there are far better developers, including D76.

One thing to be aware, of however: D-76 from the classic recipe will tend to increase pH (gaining activity) for some period after it's mixed. This is apparently due to a reaction of the hydroquinone with the sulfite and is the reason for D-76H existing. Kodak found a way to beat this for the commercially packaged D-76, but I don't know that their additives for this purpose have been made public. They might have used an improved buffer system (seems most likely), something like adding bisulfite and metaborate to "lock" the pH at the correct level.

The reason D76h exists is because it was part of Crabtree & Henn's published research that lead to DK-20, D-23. D25, Microdol, etc, and it contains Hydroqinone.

Before Eastman Kodak published D-76 their Research department published a Metol only Fine Grain Developer. Note 1927 was the précis of an earlier article in the weekly BJP, the 1927 Almanac was published laten1926.

D76H (Metol only) is based on Grant Haist's recollection of the early EK FG developer, in a conversation.

Ian

 

[Yezishu]

To help with the comparison and reduce the number of variables, I can shoot an entire roll with the same 4-6 scenes in rapid succession (e.g. living room, kitchen, backyard tree and front of the house on a sunny day). Then I can cut the film into 3 or 4 equal pieces inside the dark bag and be confident that each piece has every scene. Develop each piece on each of the developers I want to test.

EDIT: I can do the same test whenever I want to test other variables, like development time, or whatnot.

Good idea! And with half-frame cameras providing over 72 shots, you can easily create at least twenty sample strips for many testing.

 

[chuckroast]

One thing to be aware, of however: D-76 from the classic recipe will tend to increase pH (gaining activity) for some period after it's mixed. This is apparently due to a reaction of the hydroquinone with the sulfite and is the reason for D-76H existing. Kodak found a way to beat this for the commercially packaged D-76, but I don't know that their additives for this purpose have been made public. They might have used an improved buffer system (seems most likely), something like adding bisulfite and metaborate to "lock" the pH at the correct level.

My understanding is that this is a fairly short lived phenomenon that is pretty much done after the stock has been mixed and has cooled unless it is stored in air-permeable containers like plastic jugs. In glass, D-76 stock seems to hold up fairly well over time even with some air in the bottle.

I am talking about Kodak-manufactured D-76 here, not home rolled, with which I have no experience whatever.