Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 44

Thread: What formula are you using for Divided D-23?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,015

    What formula are you using for Divided D-23?

    Hi there,

    I'm interested in trying divided d-23. There are a lot of formulas online and I'm not sure where to start. Currently I'm using HP5, and Arista/Foma 400 but I'm going to try TMAX 400 in 35mm also and might try it in 4x5.

    I assume I'm going to have to buy the chemicals in bulk?

    I'm guessing that DD-23 would not be a good high speed developer? I'm going to try TMAX 400 for my 35mm with the hopes of pushing it pretty hard, so I think I'm going to stick with XTOL or possibly Microphen for that and then maybe DD-23 for my box speed shooting.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    435

    Re: What formula are you using for Divided D-23?

    If you want a divided developer, use the best one, Diafine. Photo Formulary has one also but I don't yet have enough experience with it for recommendations.

    If you want film speed, use TMax developer but kiss sharpness and granularity goodbye. A good fine grain developer would certainly be a good thing with all the films you have mentioned, UFG, Acufine, or Microfin. I personally hate Xtol.

    Lynn

  3. #3
    Gary L. Quay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Fairview, OR
    Posts
    567

    Re: What formula are you using for Divided D-23?

    I've used the one in Ansel Adams' book "The Negative," but I haven't had good results with it. I'm assuming that it's a problem with the way I used it. Divided D23 is not actually a divided developer, according to Adams. It's the developer in its entirety in one bath, and a separate mild alkali in the other. The Unblinking Eye has a page on it, which shows differences in approaches for modern films versus the ones that Adams used.

    http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.html

    --Gary

  4. #4

    Re: What formula are you using for Divided D-23?

    I think you can do most anything with Xtol that you can do with any version of D23 and real film speed is much higher with Xtol. But there is nothing wrong with D23 and its variants.

    If Xtol went away I'd likely move to D23 or some variation of it. There have been numerous threads here over the years about this developer, you should do a search and read as many of them as you have time. I second that the Unblinkingeye link above is good information.

  5. #5
    hacker extraordinaire
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,331

    Re: What formula are you using for Divided D-23?

    I use D23, but not divided. I mix up 4 tablespoons of sulfite and 2 teaspoons of metol to a liter of water. The developer is a very forgiving and fine-grained one, yet I find that it's very sharp, and I have yet to really find a film that doesn't work well with it, from Foma to TMY. The biggest disadvantage is that I find it costs me a good stop of speed compared to conventional developers.
    Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.
    --A=B by Petkovšek et. al.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Re: What formula are you using for Divided D-23?

    Just to be clear: there is "D-23", and there is "Divided D-23".

    The article on Unblinking Eye deals with Divided D-23.

    I have tried both, and like others, have been unable to readily distinguish between negatives developed in Divided D-23, and those simply left a little longer in D-23.

    I ended up going with D-23. It has only 2 ingredients, but manages to provide all 4 developer components. It's actually a rather remarkable formula.

    As Lynn points out, Divided D-23 is not a true divided developer like Diafine or Divided Pyrocat. If you want robust compensation, then go with those. Divided D-23 may offer more hyperbole than compensation.

  7. #7
    Gary L. Quay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Fairview, OR
    Posts
    567

    Re: What formula are you using for Divided D-23?

    Interesting. I'm going to give it a try again, but not with the divided formula. I recently took some night shots that I intended to develop with PMK. I'll try a few in D-23 instead, and compare them to the pyro negs.

    --Gary

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    England.
    Posts
    291

    Re: What formula are you using for Divided D-23?

    My personal favourite for B&W films is the most standard of all standard film developers.
    I find it works well with just about every B&W I have tried.

    http://www.digitaltruth.com/data/kodak_d76.php (also known as Ilford ID-11)

  9. #9
    jvuokko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Turku, Finland
    Posts
    329

    Re: What formula are you using for Divided D-23?

    I use recipe that is modified from stoeckler by Thornton.
    Never really have compared different D-23 variations, nor have seen any comparison.
    Recipe is here: http://www.photosensitive.ca/wp/archives/115 and http://www.awh-imaging.co.uk/barrythornton/2bath.htm
    Jukka Vuokko
    Flickr

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Re: What formula are you using for Divided D-23?

    I'm not an expert, but lately it occurs to me that most films and developers give very workable results. For standard situations, almost any of them will do, as long as you do a little testing with them. The same is true with most lenses: the differences are often exaggerated. The same is also true with most cameras.

    Where the differences become evident, is under extraordinary conditions: extreme contrast, extreme enlargement, extremely long exposures, etc.

    With lenses it's extreme coverage, extreme magnification. With cameras it's extreme movements, extreme portability, light weight, etc.

    One way to avoid the need for "heroic measures" is to take pictures of subjects that are, as it were, already beautiful, and well within the normal capacity of the equipment.
    Last edited by Ken Lee; 12-Jun-2011 at 17:43.

Similar Threads

  1. Beutler-Pyro: a different formula
    By Harald Leban in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 17-Jun-2022, 22:48
  2. Formula to calculate plane of sharp focus?
    By Robot in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 25-Oct-2010, 19:04
  3. Two-Bath and Single-Bath Compensating" Developers
    By Ken Lee in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 15-Feb-2006, 12:05
  4. Optical formula for focussing flange distance > F
    By Nick_3536 in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 25-Mar-2005, 04:32
  5. Trusting the formula?
    By Stuart Whatling in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 31-Jul-2001, 09:54

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •