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

[chuckroast]

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.

That's nuttin'. We had to walk to school in snow storms, up hill, both ways, shooting with Super-XX...

 

[xkaes]

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.

What you're saying is true, but most photographers that I've encountered, especially novices, assume they want the finest grain -- so they try fine-grain developers, even when they are using fine-grained film. They are "gilding the lily".

 

[chuckroast]

What you're saying is true, but most photographers that I've encountered, especially novices, assume they want the finest grain -- so they try fine-grain developers, even when they are using fine-grained film. They are "gilding the lily".

And fine grain is typically at the expense of film speed, and more importantly, acutance as your triangle shows.

In "Edge Of Darkness" Barry Thornton does a good job of explaining not only the technical aspects of this, but also how we perceive sharpness and what can be done to enhance this. I also found Ctein's dissertation on sharpness and viewing distance helpful along the way.

 

[GregY]

That's nuttin'. We had to walk to school in snow storms, up hill, both ways, shooting with Super-XX...

Life was hard in those days, before PMK/Pyrocat too....

 

[chuckroast]

Life was hard in those days, before PMK/Pyrocat too....

This is actually true - there was a time when I experienced the use of mechanical typewriter that did not have key presses for 0 and 1. You had to use Os and ls.

 

[Donald Qualls]

This is actually true - there was a time when I experienced the use of mechanical typewriter that did not have key presses for 0 and 1. You had to use Os and ls.

Yep. And they didn't erase, either; if you made a mistake on a finish-grade page, you had to toss it out and start over. The typists who could run at 60+ wpm and make no errors on a page always seemed other than human to me.

 

[GregY]

This is actually true - there was a time when I experienced the use of mechanical typewriter that did not have key presses for 0 and 1. You had to use Os and ls.

The struggle to type my M.A. thesis was far greater than the uphill battle to make my first acceptable fine print....

 

[chuckroast]

Yep. And they didn't erase, either; if you made a mistake on a finish-grade page, you had to toss it out and start over. The typists who could run at 60+ wpm and make no errors on a page always seemed other than human to me.

The struggle to type my M.A. thesis was far greater than the uphill battle to make my first acceptable fine print....

Gads, we're a bunch of old fellas, aren't we.

Some years later, the 0/1 thing was an amusement to us budding computer scientists as we pontificated with undergraduate certainty about a world in which 1s and 0s didn't actually exist. Many years later in grad school, we got to prove that any two distinct symbols would work, not just 0 and 1. It is intuitively true, but we had to do all manner of fancy theorem proving to show exactly why.

Although my education covered analogue, digital hardware, and software, I never forgot the famous Shakespeare quote that has kept me welded to traditional photography:

All the world's a stage, and digital is but a bit player ...

 

[GregY]

Gads, we're a bunch of old fellas, aren't we.

Some years later, the 0/1 thing was an amusement to us budding computer scientists as we pontificated with undergraduate certainty about a world in which 1s and 0s didn't actually exist. Many years later in grad school, we got to prove that any two distinct symbols would work, not just 0 and 1. It is intuitively true, but we had to do all manner of fancy theorem proving to show exactly why.

Although my education covered analogue, digital hardware, and software, I never forgot the famous Shakespeare quote that has kept me welded to traditional photography:

All the world's a stage, and digital is but a bit player ...

Love it !

 

[Donald Qualls]

All the world's a stage, and digital is but a bit player ...

Wow, I didn't know Shakespeare wrote any bit parts...

 

[Milpool]

Keep in mind with the progress of emulsion technology those Xs have moved around. For example while in ye olde timey days Rodinal was seen to be an acutance developer and fine grain / solvent developers were assumed to be low acutance, things have changed.

What you're saying is true, but most photographers that I've encountered, especially novices, assume they want the finest grain -- so they try fine-grain developers, even when they are using fine-grained film. They are "gilding the lily".

View attachment 399558

 

[Donald Qualls]

things have changed.

Indeed. D-76 can be an acutance developer at 1+2 or weaker dilution and with reduced agitation; same is true of Xtol. Be sure to use extra volume at these dilutions, to ensure enough active developer for your film area (100 ml stock per film, minimum, for Xtol, for instance).

 

[xkaes]

If there is a speed difference between D-76 and D-23 it is miniscule.

It wasn't minuscule in my film tests -- and here's a current discussion on the same point.

Question for the chemists.

It is believed that low levels of sulphite will add moderate speed increase, because the solvent action opens up buried exposure points; should this work for other silver solvents (Amounts too low to effect grain)?

www.photrio.com

 

[dcy]

Add some salt (sodium chloride) to D-23 to make Microdol. Results with TMax 100 are virtually grainless (well as grainless as it gets without getting into exotics). Use it 1:3 to retain full film speed, with TMX I find grain at 1:3 and FS to be pretty identical.

Can you help me understand why using D-23 at a 1+3 dilution would "retail full film speed"? How can diluting it even more help it retain speed better? There is a discussion going on about whether there is a significant speed difference between D-23 and D-76, but if speed is something I can adjust with dilution anyway, then maybe the disagreement is a bit academic.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have always found that when using Microdol X I need to shoot about half speed. Never used it with Tmax so maybe with a T grain film full film speed is retained?

 

[ags2mikon]

I think that the addition of sodium chloride causes the speed loss. I used Ilford perceptol in different dilutions for about 10 years and I had to make adjustments to my E.I. based upon the dilution. It worked well with some films. D-23 with sodium chloride added is real close to perceptol.

 

[xkaes]

I have always found that when using Microdol X I need to shoot about half speed. Never used it with Tmax so maybe with a T grain film full film speed is retained?

My personal tests using D-23 and Microdol-X produced similar results -- both were about one stop slower compared to D-76. I've never bothered to test D-23 or Microdol-X with T-grain film, but since the grain is finer in the film, why bother?

 

[Paul Howell]

One of the reason that only a few fine grain developers are on the market is that film grain is go much better than the in the 50 to 70s. Microdol, Edwal 20, Edwal FG7 with sodium sulfite added were all fine grain developers. Photographers Formality still carries a range, their version of Edwal 12, MCM 100, D50 and 23.

 

[darkroommike]

D-23 and D-76 are functionally very close cousins in performance. D-23 in my opinion is easier for the novice to mix (fewer ingredients) and easier to "scale" (again, fewer ingredients). It's possible to quickly cobble up a spreadsheet to calculate how much of each ingredient to include to make just enough working solution to fill any size tank so that you are using fresh developer for each roll of film. Mix at the recommended temperature and then quickly cool off your working solution with a bag of ice.

 

[pentaxuser]

darkroommike, nice to know that this can be done even down to an amount for 1x35mm film in a Jobo tank of only 250mm John Finch briefly mentions scaling down to 500ml in response to a question from a viewer of the video but I suspect that he doesn't mention any further scaling down as you lose the simplicity of the "teaspoon" method and D23's keeping qualities means that the usual 1L can still be used within the likely time you'd develop 4 x 35mm films of 2x120 films

pentaxuser

 

[Ian Grant]

What you're saying is true, but most photographers that I've encountered, especially novices, assume they want the finest grain -- so they try fine-grain developers, even when they are using fine-grained film. They are "gilding the lily".

View attachment 399558

My personal tests using D-23 and Microdol-X produced similar results -- both were about one stop slower compared to D-76. I've never bothered to test D-23 or Microdol-X with T-grain film, but since the grain is finer in the film, why bother?

You raise the issue of the film technology, T grain and similar, and the effects of different developers.

My experience going back to the mid 1980s was that Agfa AP100 (&AP25) gave exceptional results on Rodinal, excellent fine grain and full box speed. On the suggestion of the late Peter Goldfield I also tried Tmax100 in Rodinal, very similar results but at half box speed (as per John Sexton's tests with other developers).

AP100 (then APX100) was my main film, I bought Tmax100 if the dealer was out of stock, that's 35mm, 120, & sheet film. I also used Xtol, replenished, for films like Tmax400, but occasionally APX100 or Tmax100, both Kodak films at half box speed.

These days I shoot Ilford Delta 100 MF & LF, also HP5 LF for hand held work, Foma as aback up. I struggled to get any Kodak B&W films while living abroad, and travelling in South America, Ilford & Foma films dominated the B&W market.

There's also a need to delineate "High Acutance" with "Definition". The High Acutance developers of the 1960s and 70s like Acutol S did not give good definition, (resolution), coarse grain, exaggerated edge effects, quite a graphic look.

In contrast, Ilford Hyfin and Kodak HDD (not made or sold in the US) were designed to give a level of acutance that increased definition/resolution and an improvement compared to Wiilli Beutler's acutance developer.

Hyfin was a Metol Gycin based developer, I have a few 1967 packets, but they are useless as Glycin stores poorly.

Ian

 

[xkaes]

No teaspoons for me. When I mix up chemicals for a roll of Minox,110, or 16mm film, I only need 6.6oz (195ml) in my Yankee tank.

 

[dcy]

darkroommike, nice to know that this can be done even down to an amount for 1x35mm film in a Jobo tank of only 250mm John Finch briefly mentions scaling down to 500ml in response to a question from a viewer of the video but I suspect that he doesn't mention any further scaling down as you lose the simplicity of the "teaspoon" method and D23's keeping qualities means that the usual 1L can still be used within the likely time you'd develop 4 x 35mm films of 2x120 films

I don't do teaspoons. I love having an excuse to use my precision scale.

I'm lazy so I plan to make 1L batches to use 4 times, but it's great to know that it's so easy to make smaller batches of D-23.

 

[pentaxuser]

I don't do teaspoons. I love having an excuse to use my precision scale.

No teaspoons for me. When I mix up chemicals for a roll of Minox,110, or 16mm film, I only need 6.6oz (195ml) in my Yankee tank.

Thanks for sharing what you do but I was only speculating as to why John Finch did not mention in his video the option of scaling down his 1L

What I found useful in darkroommike's reply was that D23 has the added attraction of being scaled down. I am no photographic chemist but I suspect that not all developers lend themselves to straightforward "scaling down as some may need a minimum amount of certain ingredients to be effective

pentaxuser

 

[Yezishu]

Thanks for sharing what you do but I was only speculating as to why John Finch did not mention in his video the option of scaling down his 1L

What I found useful in darkroommike's reply was that D23 has the added attraction of being scaled down. I am no photographic chemist but I suspect that not all developers lend themselves to straightforward "scaling down as some may need a minimum amount of certain ingredients to be effective

pentaxuser

Assuming a 135 film contains 0.3g of silver, with 25% being developed, this would consume 0.12g of Metol (sulfate).
Using 250ml D-23 developer, which contains 1.875g of Metol, the consumption rate is 6.4%.
If using 250ml D-23 diluted 1:1, containing 0.9375g of Metol, the consumption rate rises to 12.8%.

If someone wants the fluctuation in Metol concentration within 7.5% (a very subjective assumption) , more 1:1 developer solution should be used.
There are similar calculations regarding bromide as well.