Compensating Developers

[Salmo22]

Are D-23 or Ilford DD-X compensating developers, such as Kodak HC-110 or Rodinal?

I want to experiment with diluted developer (low energy) and extended development times for scenes/subjects with high contrast ranges. I don't want to use harsh acting developers, such as D-76, for this particular experiment. Your kind comments are sincerely appreciated.

Jeff

[Michael R]

A few things:

1. D-76 is not harsh-acting
2. D-23 is functionally very similar to D-76 (it was formulated to be)
3. None of the developers you listed are compensating developers. DD-X, HC-110 and Rodinal do not work that way

[Mark Sawyer]

Compensating development is more a method than a particular developer, though some developers work better than others. Compensated development is little or no agitation, generally with a more dilute developer for a longer time.

[paulbarden]

D-23 has a slightly softer look to it than D-76, but as stated, they are very similar developers, and neither are "compensating" developers. However, at high dilutions, D-76 can act a bit like a compensating developer, and it isn't as much of a solvent developer.

If you want more of a compensating effect, try one of the 2-bath developers which are designed to manage high contrast scenes with a big tonal range. The Thornton 2_bath is very simple to make (it's essentially a split variant of D-23) and produces excellent results. Xtol is also a somewhat compensating developer, preventing "overcooked" highlights while maintaining excellent shadow detail.

Of course it's also worth mentioning that your choice of films will play a significant role in the outcome also.

[Eric Woodbury]

I find that any developer with hydroquinone is 'harsh'. Maybe not officially harsh, if there is some definition of harsh for which I'm not aware, but HQ blocks highlights better than other developing agents. It gives D76 its extra contrast. D23 split compensates well, it is simple, cheap. But don't believe us. Just dive in.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm not fond of strong compensating techniques. I'd rather contrast mask an image instead. But via two-bath technique, D23 can act as a highly compensating developer. I successfully tried that early on.

[Michael R]

Two-bath/divided development results in a different phenomenon than "compensation" (which is typically a shouldering effect). What divided development does is straighten the characteristic curve somewhat, while reducing overall contrast and maximizing emulsion speed. There is less toe and less shoulder. This can also be helpful under certain circumstances.

The point Paul Barden raises above regarding film choice is important. The differences between the characteristic curves of most general purpose films are relatively trivial - until the upper highlights, where there can be significant differences in how much density a film tends to produce. For example if one is dealing with a very high contrast subject, a film such as TMX or HP5 require less gymnastics than say Tri-X 320 or Fuji Acros.

[Drew Wiley]

Hard to say how divided D23 affected the toe in my case, since it was way back when I was trying it with Plus-X Pan, which has a very long toe regardless. I also tried it with good ole Super-XX, but didn't have a densitometer yet. Decent prints on hard graded paper.

HP5 is actually a poor choice for high contrast scenes. I have a LOT of experience with it, and often had to resort to supplemental masking in contrasty scenes to avoid minus or compression development. Triassic X 320 is similar in that respect, but not quite as long a toe. For high contrast scenes, Super XX and Bergger 200 worked wonders, followed by TMax films. Acros and FP4 need to be rated at 50 to boost the shadows further up onto the straight line. But it appears that Acros might become the next dinosaur fossil. I'd rather see Acros survive rather than Triceratops; but its price has simply gone too crazy, and its gone in sheets now anyway.

[Salmo22]

Lots of things for me to consider. Thanks much for the comments and suggestions.

[Ben Calwell]

Hard to say how divided D23 affected the toe in my case, since it was way back when I was trying it with Plus-X Pan, which has a very long toe regardless. I also tried it with good ole Super-XX, but didn't have a densitometer yet. Decent prints on hard graded paper.

HP5 is actually a poor choice for high contrast scenes. I have a LOT of experience with it, and often had to resort to supplemental masking in contrasty scenes to avoid minus or compression development. Triassic X 320 is similar in that respect, but not quite as long a toe. For high contrast scenes, Super XX and Bergger 200 worked wonders, followed by TMax films. Acros and FP4 need to be rated at 50 to boost the shadows further up onto the straight line. But it appears that Acros might become the next dinosaur fossil. I'd rather see Acros survive rather than Triceratops; but its price has simply gone too crazy, and its gone in sheets now anyway.

Drew, I really enjoy reading your posts. Humorous and full of great info gleaned from what I gather is years of experience.