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.
He can test it to find out.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
The nice thing about D23 is that it only requires two ingredients.
Let's not forget water.
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 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.phpIt'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 keep hearing people recommend that book. It must be good. I just ordered it on Amazon.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?