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

[xkaes]

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.

Exactly why I wrote:

He can test it to find out.

 

[Yezishu]

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.



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

I hope you don't mind me asking a slightly off-topic question, but I would be interested to know your opinion, whether Kodak viewed Microdol-X as a superior successor or replacement for D-23, as fine grain developer?

 

[Donald Qualls]

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

But the point here is that the pH drift and activity increase is only seen in home-mixed D-76 from the published formula.

 

[Milpool]

Microdol (originally without X) was intended to be an "extra-fine grain" developer, so a little different than D-23. The -X was a modification apparently based on the two Henn/Kodak "anti-stain agent" patents. One was 4-chlororesorcinol, the other a benzophenone. These compounds were found to reduce the undesirable effects developers with extra-high solvent action could have on some emulsions of the day (1950s...). The late Ron Mowrey disclosed (based on recollection of a discussion with Henn) ultimately chlororesorcinol was used in Microdol-X.

Ilford's Perceptol would be a close substitute.

 

[chuckroast]

But the point here is that the pH drift and activity increase is only seen in home-mixed D-76 from the published formula.

I guess my question is how long lived that is with homegrown developer, now that you mention it

 

[Paul Howell]

What I missed is that OP is shooting half frame, although D76 will work, I would have recommend Microdoal X, or ILFord's version s Perceptol Freestyle still carries MicrodolX in their Legacy line although only the gallon size, but only a dollar more then the Lt size of Perceptol. Another legacy fine grain developer in the same price range as Perecptol is MCM 100, named after the British magazine Minature Camera Magaizine it produces negatives with tight fine grain with good tones at close to box speed, with Foma 400 I would still shoot at 320 to 200. It is toxic. I kept a tank running for 2 years, only stopped using it due to cost.

Formulary's MCM-100 Film Developer contains Catechol and p-Phenylenediamine. MCM-100 produces extremely fine-grain negatives with good sharpness and superb tonal gradation. It is recommended for Tri-X, T-Max and HP-5 films; however, it is also excellent with slower films. The contrast can be controlled by development time. The chemicals in the kit will make a working solution with a capacity for six rolls of film. The shelf life of the working solution is six months.

 

[MattKing]

I wouldn't generally worry about fine grain vs general purpose developers if I had available to me modern films like Kodak T-Max or Ilford Delta films to put in a half frame camera.
Not unless I knew that I had to make fairly large enlargements from the negatives.
The 8x10 enlargements I've seen from the Pentax 17 are quite impressive.

 

[mshchem]

I wouldn't generally worry about fine grain vs general purpose developers if I had available to me modern films like Kodak T-Max or Ilford Delta films to put in a half frame camera.
Not unless I knew that I had to make fairly large enlargements from the negatives.
The 8x10 enlargements I've seen from the Pentax 17 are quite impressive.

Absolutely agree. TMY-2 or TMX half frame, very steady shot (or tripod) XTOL 1:1 I bet you could very impressive 8x10s.

 

[Paul Howell]

OP is trying Foma 400 and 100, not a fine grain films, I use Foma 400 in 35mm but would not use in 1/2 frame. Last time I shot 1/2 frame (Pen F) I used Tmax 100 and used D76, got negatives that were fine for 8X10 without a crop.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The nice thing about D23 is that it only requires two ingredients.

 

[dcy]

OP is trying Foma 400 and 100, not a fine grain films, I use Foma 400 in 35mm but would not use in 1/2 frame. Last time I shot 1/2 frame (Pen F) I used Tmax 100 and used D76, got negatives that were fine for 8X10 without a crop.

I have several different rolls, including Foma 400. The reason I asked about that film earlier is that I expect it to be more challenging than the others. I also have Kentmere 200, 400, Tri-X, and there's a sale of AristaPan 100 at FreeStyle for $4/roll so I had to grab some of that too.

Currently I print 5x7. I've seen online photos of 5x7 prints of Foma 400 with the Pentax 17 that I thought looked great. If I cannot get good results with Foma 400 but I can get good results with Kentmere 200, then I'll just use that.

If I ever upgrade to 8x10 prints, I'm sure I will also be willing to spend the extra cash on a better film stock than Foma 400.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

As more people have said already:

1. Just pick one, doesn't matter which, and try it out.
2. See how you like it, and especially what specific things you don't like.
3. Determine how you could influence the things you didn't like:
- Shadow density too low? Give more exposure (rate your film at a lower E.I. than before)
- Too flat and/or highlights too thin? Increase development time (or temp, or agitation. But not all at once, stick with one variable)
- Highlights too dense? Reduce development.
- Both hightlights and shadows too dense? Increase your E.I. (give less exposure).
It's always best to stick with just changing one variable at a time, otherwise you won't know what did what, also sticking with the same film.
4. If what you want to change about your images is not something to do with exposure time or contrast, look further: e.g. you might want to change dilution or the developer entirely (for instance, for more perceived sharpness, you might want to dilute further or try an acutance developer), or a different film stock. Then you can start the process over again with that specific combination of film/dev.

with all due respect. This method could take decades to find your favorite combination.

 

[chuckroast]

with all due respect. This method could take decades to find your favorite combination.

I'm with you on this Ralph. It is much preferred that only a single variable be changed at a time: the film, the time, the developer, the dilution ... to see how that variable changes the outcomes.

 

[xkaes]

The nice thing about D23 is that it only requires two ingredients.

Let's not forget water.

 

[chuckroast]

Let's not forget water.

Let's not forget the hydrogen and the oxygen that make it up ...

 

[Paul Howell]

I have several different rolls, including Foma 400. The reason I asked about that film earlier is that I expect it to be more challenging than the others. I also have Kentmere 200, 400, Tri-X, and there's a sale of AristaPan 100 at FreeStyle for $4/roll so I had to grab some of that too.

Currently I print 5x7. I've seen online photos of 5x7 prints of Foma 400 with the Pentax 17 that I thought looked great. If I cannot get good results with Foma 400 but I can get good results with Kentmere 200, then I'll just use that.

If I ever upgrade to 8x10 prints, I'm sure I will also be willing to spend the extra cash on a better film stock than Foma 400.

I do not shoot half frame, often, as I wrote earlier for half frame I would with a T grain film, 100 will provide the best resolution, finest grain, but careful exposure is needed to control contrast. No matter which film I would think about Microdol X. it was Kodak's fine grain developer, it was taken off the market when T grain films were put on the market. Microdol X when used 1:1 to 1:3 becomes acutance developer.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

... And a spoon for mixing. Don't forget the spoon!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

... And make that distilled water!

 

[David Lindquist]

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.

I recently came across this picture; to my surprise it looks like at one time Kodak packaged D-23 for sale: https://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/D-23.php

I have two versions of Ansel Adams's The Negative. One is from the "Basic Photo Series", 2nd ed. 1959, the other is from "The New Ansel Adams Photography Series", copyright 1981.

In the older work he says "...a developer of the semi compensating type, such as Kodak D-23, using Metol alone as a reducing agent... will produce admirable results. Prolonged development in developers of this type will yield vigorous high-value opacity; hence these developers can be used for a variety of effects and controls."

He says much the same about D-23 in his 1981 book. He does say "...can produce admirable results." rather than "...will produce admirable results." He goes on to say "Prolonged development in solutions of this type yield vigorous high-value density, thus making such developers quite versatile." (Emphasis added.)

In both books he indicates that he does not personally like the results obtained with metol-hydroquinone developers (which would include D 76). He found they gave excess high value densities by the time the required shadow densities were reached.

He does say in the 1981 publication that at that time his preferred developer was Kodak HC-110 at various dilutions.

David

 

[Bill Burk]

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

Great!

 

[Bill Burk]

I just noticed in Photographic Lab Handbook that there’s a chance of white scum that you’re going to have to watch out for.

 

[bernard_L]

@dcy This blog post addresses -- in a broad sense -- several of the questions you're asking yourself and asking on this forum; I would not have said it better.

Guerilla darkroom 2020: what to do with all that stuff

So three months went by in the blink of an eye, and I didn’t get around to Part Deux. Ok. Better late than never. Now that you have your unreasonably large arsenal of cheap darkroom hardware …

themachineplanet.wordpress.com

And the best part of it is: it's simple.
see also:

Guerilla darkroom 2020: hardware selection

Well, it’s been almost 20 years since I’ve did any updates on the original Guerilla Darkroom on the old site, so let’s bring things forward to this year. I’ll assume that th…

themachineplanet.wordpress.com

 

[Donald Qualls]

In my experience, Fomapan 100 is quite acceptable grain-wise in half frame -- even when developed in Parodinal at high dilution. Then again, I grew up with real Tri-X.

 

[xkaes]

With the right film, I don't find grain a problem even with formats smaller than half-frame.

The developer that you choose has a lot to do with what film you are using. I started out using Microdol-X with Agfapan 25, but soon decided that because APX 25 was so fine-grained, It didn't need Microdol-X, so I switched to D-76 and I appreciated the increase in speed.

I can use a fine-grain developer with faster film, but often times when I'm using a faster film I want SPEED over fine grain. D-76 wins again.

 

[chuckroast]

The developer that you choose has a lot to do with what film you are using. I started out using Microdol-X with Agfapan 25, but soon decided that because APX 25 was so fine-grained, It didn't need Microdol-X, so I switched to D-76 and I appreciated the increase in speed.

I can use a fine-grain developer with faster film, but often times when I'm using a faster film I want SPEED over fine grain. D-76 wins again.

More generally, with monochrome film development you are making tradeoffs between the following properties:

• Speed (EI)
• Grain
• Acutance
• Contrast
• Edge effects
• Microcontrast

These various properties are influenced by a variety of factors:

• Film type
• Developer type
• Dilution
• Development duration (which itself depends on temperature)
• Agitation method

Because there is no way to optimize for all the properties above at once, you have to pick the ones that matter most for the scene. That's why sheet film is so attractive. You can make the tradeoff to optimize the things that matter most on an exposure-by-exposure basis.