D 23 Users

[Tin Can]

I am about to start using D 23, with no experience

Perhaps we can have users post how they use it

Jim Noel has been instrumental in my decision

Here is one person's story

https://pictorialplanetjohnfinch.blogspot.com/2019/05/d-23-secret-sauce.html

[Serge S]

I'm interested also:)


I am about to start using D 23, with no experience

Perhaps we can have users post how they use it

Jim Noel has been instrumental in my decision

Here is one person's story

https://pictorialplanetjohnfinch.blogspot.com/2019/05/d-23-secret-sauce.html

[Michael R]

It is very straight forward as D-23 is a general purpose fine grain developer quite similar to D-76 in working characteristics (it will tend to produce very slightly less emulsion speed and slightly finer grain than D-76).

Stock or 1+1 are common. 1+3 works as well. No special procedures required.

It also makes a good first bath in a "divided" development process. Divided development gives a somewhat straightened characteristic curve, maximum emulsion speed, and different grain characteristics.

Easiest developer to make, of course. To make 1l, simply 700-800ml water at ~50C, dissolve 7.5g metol, then 100g sodium sulfite (anhydrous), then top off to 1l. Some people prefer to dissolve a small pinch of the sulfite before adding the metol, to scavenge oxygen, but this is really not necessary. If you do it, make sure it is a very small amount of sulfite, as metol will be impossible to dissolve if there is any meaningful amount of sulfite in solution beforehand.


I am about to start using D 23, with no experience

Perhaps we can have users post how they use it

Jim Noel has been instrumental in my decision

Here is one person's story

https://pictorialplanetjohnfinch.blogspot.com/2019/05/d-23-secret-sauce.html

[Tin Can]

Replenished D-23 is a goal

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

I've found D23 an excellent developer, and it is my main go to. Here's two links that are helpful:

Tim Layton's discourse. Keep digging you'll find his time/temp combo useful as I did: https://www.timlaytonfineart.com/blog/2016/9/darkroom-daily-digest-exploring-metol-and-d23-formula
Ken M. Lee's discourse as well (as a fanboy, I posted the can photo of Kodak's D23 from Ken's article on my bottle of D23 soup): https://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/D-23.php

I've used it on my Jobo with 35, 120 and 4X5 and have no complaints. Got into after my ID11 and Perceptol period when we moved and gave Caffenol a try for environmental reasons seaside. Caffenol is wonderful and pretty "green" if you care about that, but somewhat of a pain given the inconsistencies of one coffee to another, and zero keeping properties. Aside from its positives, I found it was too much time mixing, and wanted something almost as simple, almost as "green", but with better keeping. Call me lazy? Vitamin C tends to make Caffenol a poor candidate for anything other than mix and use, and my efforts at refrigeration tended to ice up the Vitamin C. So that was a bust. But once you cross the mix it yourself barrier, you start looking for simple ingredients, and D23 wins on having only two and not having to do anything special in anyway. Just mix in warm water (125 F or so), and be done. And then dilute for use. Tim Layton raves about mixing fresh every time, but like I said, that drives me nuts... or at least gives me reasons to defer development that I don't need to give in to.

By contrast, D23 keeps very well mixed at room temp though generally if I haven't used it up in 3 months, I'll throw it out and mix more. Some reports I've seen suggest it keeps much longer. But I am a belt and suspenders kind of a dude. And it's cheap enough, I've not tried the 1:3 dilution since I like what 1:1 gives me. I'm fine with experiments and "tests" up to a point, and then I just want to get stuff done. FWIW, you need a ton of sulfite and a small quantity of Metol... so it also becomes easy to visually tell which chem is which by size of the container.

So I have ONLY diluted 1 to 1 for use, and then disposed when done. You could do another round I'm told, but I'm not THAT stingy. And my experience is that Jobo's tendency to aerate chems during use tends to make replenishment something I haven't had the time or inclination to figure out at this point. Tried that path with XTOL and after discussion with the folks at Catlabs decided to bail on it replenishment schemes in using a Jobo. Others have had more success by using much more new chem in replenishment on their Jobos, and I'm sure that works. I suppose if you use manual agitation that would be more reliable as the aeration would be more defined. FWIW, I think D23 is supposed to work well in replenishment. YMMV.

I use with a water stop bath which I do in at least 2 to 3 rinses mainly because I used to rinse before and after real stop baths, and then I use TF4 or TF5 fix - whatever I have on hand. Wash and then dunk in the photoflow, squeegee and hang to dry.

Folks suggest that D76 times are a good place to start. Following Tim Layton's times which he gives at higher temps, I backed that into D23 @ 1:1 for a time of 9:54 at 20 degrees Centigrade for FP4 as my NORM (N) reference. Tim uses the same setup for both FP4 and HP5. I have less experience using it for HP5, but like the idea of being able to develop both in the same tank. Comes in handy, and the lone batch of HP5 I've run with it came out fine. More on the way. I've only been running this way for about a year at this point, but I've run a LOT of film through (by my measure). Probably 50 rolls of 35mm, 100 plus sheets of 4X5, and only a handful of 120. Very consistent results. I used to be a Photo Formulary exclusive kind of guy, but depending on your location, Arts & Crafts (?) is a very good source and speedy delivery here on the east coast of USA.

I have no experience with the divided two-bath variety, though you can find a lot at Blinking Eye I think.

Have I done my own testing? No, other than just referencing my negatives at this point. But I have recently acquired a densitometer for $50 or so, and will give that a whirl somewhere. And I do try to collect times for D23 and other films where they can be found. Most of the times I see are somewhat shorter that this reference point. And yes, I do collect articles and tidbits as I find them on folks using D23... geek that I am.

Hope this helps.

[Michael R]

Not sure why one would want to replenish D-23, but fair enough.

[Alan9940]

I've only used it at 1:1; excellent developer! And, easy to mix yourself as stated above.

[paulbarden]

Randy, thanks for the link to John Finch’s article. Some interesting points he’s making. Can anyone substantiate the supposed role accumulated bromide (as a development byproduct) in replenished D-23 might have in rendering “better” negatives? When anyone touts a specific tool or technique as “magic”, my skepticism alarms go off.

I’ve used D-23 on its own and as a divided developer with an accelerator second bath. Both have their uses. Most recently I made up a batch of D-23 to use on some test negs of Bergger Pancro400 in my search for a better developer for that film (I like BER49 but it’s SO expensive, and it’s not always available). Take a look at this test shot on 8x10 Pancro400: https://flic.kr/p/2kvHYPx
This was processed in D-23 diluted 1:1 for 17 minutes, if I remember correctly.

I’m not much inclined to use D-23 replenished, because I have my doubts about there being any meaningful benefit other than economic. Persuade me otherwise, if you can!

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Agree with Michael R here. Read over the material OP linked, and Finch raves about replenishment. But in my small mind, his description of replenishment just sounds too squishy. I'm fine with squishy in front of the camera or in some part of the printing process. Those are parts where you have visual control. Darkroom squishy over stuff I can't see or control? Dunno. Just sounds like a ticket for disappointment for guys like me, and maybe it leads to brilliant results for guys like Finch with his much more extensive background, but for my money, consistently good results is far from boring.

[Jim Noel]

I use D-23 in two ways, and usually keep 2 different batches.
One is relatively fresh , less than 6 months old, which I use straight and in a tray.
The more important batch is now more than 3 years old, and has been heavily used. After each use it is topped off with fresh D-23, NOT D-25R which is the normal replenisher. This batch is used on negatives which would normally be very flat - Low contrast subjects exposed under flat lighting conditions. The negatives are developed for lengthy periods of time, even overnight. The result is a negative with brilliance. When I learned this method as a teenager in the 40's it was explained that the silver left after development of many, 100's, of negatives replated the highlights.
We used this method when I worked in a large Photo store darkroom to develop all roll film. When i was teaching at the college we used a nitrogen burst system with D-23. At the end of each semester instead of throwing this away, i brought it home and continued to use it. The system works well with FP4+ the only "regular" film I use today.
Note that it will not work if less than at least 500 4x5 negative equivalents have been developed in it. I use the "younger" D-23 on x-ray film.
Some of the younger members of this forum will question the validity of my statements. I will not argue with them but continue to use my proven methods.

[Mark Sampson]

Jim, I would never argue with your experience. In fact it is fascinating to hear!
I'll just add that, from my own experience, any replenished process system, color or B&W, depends upon large volume to work properly.

[Michael R]

Randy, thanks for the link to John Finch’s article. Some interesting points he’s making. Can anyone substantiate the supposed role accumulated bromide (as a development byproduct) in replenished D-23 might have in rendering “better” negatives? When anyone touts a specific tool or technique as “magic”, my skepticism alarms go off.

Unfortunately there are many variables involved so it is difficult to generalize. What is often overlooked is that the film is an important variable (modern films have more iodide etc.). Different aspects of seasoning/replenishment can have opposing effects. For example, build-up of bromide and iodide can sometimes have sharpness-enhancing effects, but at the same time as a solvent developer such as D-23 is repeatedly used, physical development might also gradually increase, which can sometimes work against sharpness. Etc. Etc. So it is hard to say. Of course without a significant enlargement factor, such small differences in image structure are invisible anyway.

One characteristic of replenishment which can generally be expected and is well documented by Kodak etc. is a loss of emulsion speed. But here again, we're usually not talking large differences.

In order to truly evaluate the pros/cons, one would have to develop identical images, made on the same type of film, to the same contrast in both fresh and well-seasoned/replenished D-23. They could then be compared. However the conclusions would only apply to the particular film. I am 100% confident nobody has ever done this. Therefore take everything you read with a grain of salt. That goes both for people claiming it is magical, and people claiming it is terrible. Nobody has any evidence.

[Tin Can]

a question

does D 23 need N2 in gas bubble system to maintain chemistry

If it does, how does it handle rebottling, storage, transfer pump back and forth from 1 gallon tanks to 3 gallon tanks with a floating cover, which will add room air with every transfer

as some here know I use a gas burst system with air compressor

I can change to N2 and have worked with huge amounts of N2 as liquid and 5K bottles for decades, not film processing

but we always run out of N2

[mdarnton]

D23 is so easy to make, and given the consistency of always having a fresh batch I have never considered replenishment. One thing that I have done that works well is using it diluted. For xray film I make it 1:7, which stretches the dev time for more control and may lower contrast.

In the past there have been periods where I used D23 for Tri-X, but I have always come back to D76 because D23's fine grain comes from dissolving grain . . . and sharpness. Also, I find that for Tri-X is doesn't have any of the creamy highlight sparkle that I so appreciate from D76.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

When I was using D23 in 11x14 tanks (5 gallons of developer!) I used replenishment. It seemed very wasteful not to do so. I used replenishment instructions from a 1950s Kodak darkroom guide. The replenishment worked very well, and after the first batch (which were slightly different, but I can't remember in what way) my negatives were very consistent.

[paulbarden]

I use D-23 in two ways, and usually keep 2 different batches.
One is relatively fresh , less than 6 months old, which I use straight and in a tray.
The more important batch is now more than 3 years old, and has been heavily used. After each use it is topped off with fresh D-23, NOT D-25R which is the normal replenisher. This batch is used on negatives which would normally be very flat - Low contrast subjects exposed under flat lighting conditions. The negatives are developed for lengthy periods of time, even overnight. The result is a negative with brilliance. When I learned this method as a teenager in the 40's it was explained that the silver left after development of many, 100's, of negatives replated the highlights.
We used this method when I worked in a large Photo store darkroom to develop all roll film. When i was teaching at the college we used a nitrogen burst system with D-23. At the end of each semester instead of throwing this away, i brought it home and continued to use it. The system works well with FP4+ the only "regular" film I use today.
Note that it will not work if less than at least 500 4x5 negative equivalents have been developed in it. I use the "younger" D-23 on x-ray film.
Some of the younger members of this forum will question the validity of my statements. I will not argue with them but continue to use my proven methods.

Thank you for that information, Jim. I don't doubt your results at all. Do you suppose an accumulation of bromide also contributed to the properties of this well-seasoned developer? Also, do you think there is a way to add bromide to a developer like D-23 to season it?

[paulbarden]

When I was using D23 in 11x14 tanks (5 gallons of developer!) I used replenishment.

Using D-25R replenisher?

[Michael R]

The re-plating of dissolved silver (referred to by Mr. Noel) onto developing silver is physical development. It plays a role in the accumulation of density. However it tends to work against sharpness. With older films it could sometimes result in dichroic fog. For these reasons historically in formulating fine grain solvent developers attempts were often made to prevent or reduce physical development. Microdol-X (which evolved from D-23) was an example.

Related to this, in large commercial replenished systems the buildup of dissolved silver (usually referred to as "sludging") could make it more difficult to maintain equipment. Compounds were sometimes added to developers to prevent this as well. Ilford's ID-11 Plus was an example.

[tundra]

On a related note, is there any practice with high dilution, extended development with D-23 beyond 1:3?

[Joe O'Hara]

I use D-23 at 1-1 with TMax 400 in the Jobo tank. I use 100 ml of D-23 stock and 100 ml of distilled water for each sheet of 4x5 film, and discard it after one use. That way I don't have to figure out how to replenish it after it slops around in the tank for 10 minutes or so getting thoroughly aerated. That works for N+, N, and N-1 development. I expose it at a nominal ISO 400, but I tend to expose generously as a matter of course, placing darker areas I want full detail in on Zone 4.

For N-2 or greater contrast reduction, I dilute it 1:3 (still using 100 ml of stock per 4x5 sheet, but with 300 ml water) in a tray. I give the tray one rock on each of the 4 sides every 30 seconds or so and otherwise leave it alone. Times will depend on what paper you are targeting and the kind of enlarger you are using, but I'd start with your N-1 time in the Jobo tank and see how it goes from there. BTW I add one stop of exposure when doing this amount of contraction.

Honestly, in making mostly full-frame prints on 11x14 paper from a 4x5 negative, I've never seen any difference in sharpness in the prints whether the negatives were developed in D-76, D-23, Xtol, or WD2H. You might see a difference in really big enlargements, or under a microscope, but I don't do those things so the question has never concerned me.

[Michael R]

On a related note, is there any practice with high dilution, extended development with D-23 beyond 1:3?

It isn’t common so you might have to experiment on your own to determine development time - which will be long. If you think about 1+7 for example, you’ve got roughly a gram of metol per liter and very weak buffering. Even at 1+3 the only real difference between it and a simple “acutance” developer (by traditional definition) is the relatively low pH. It is possible there might be some amount of “compensation” but not necessarily.

[LabRat]

On a related note, is there any practice with high dilution, extended development with D-23 beyond 1:3?

POTA...

Steve K

[Tin Can]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1966PASP...78..511L


POTA...

Steve K

[Michael R]

Not the same at all.


POTA...

Steve K

[Ulophot]

I settled on D-23 when I returned to photography several years ago and had to make a number of choices respecting my equipment and processing. The two main considerations were streamlining—since my available time would be very limited—and economic. So, one film (HP5), one developer, one paper, etc., with the focus on gaining increasing mastery of the process.

Although I tried a Vitamin C mix, I had trouble controlling the density build-up, and have not gone back, yet, for another try. D-23 appealed as thrifty, tested, and flexible.

Since my new course was set on location, so-called environmental portraiture in (as much as possible) natural light, I wanted to be able to handle any lighting situation without anxiety, from drearily flat to extended-range interior images including direct sunlight and perhaps large parts of the room only indirectly illuminated, thus calling for N-3 or perhaps even greater contraction, I entered into a long round of testing—far longer than I had anticipated, partly due to errors and unexpected variables along the way.

I use D-23 at 1:1 and find that box speed is many times sufficent, though I prefer to err on the side of caution; if I have any concern, I rate the HP5 at 200. By the way, I don't use a gram scale; just a set of leveling measuring spoons that came with a flat bar used to level off the top. (Amazon, probably.) 2t Metol, 4T sulfite per liter. Metol has a consistency that is somewhat compressible, but I am careful to be consistent and have not noticed significant variation.

Divided development to manage extended-range scenes didn’t work well for me, and I didn’t wish to continue with tray development, either. I tried 1:3, which I had used a few times in the long-ago past, but found that, although high values are rendered exquisitely, and the grain and sharpness attractive for smaller formats, the low values suffered considerably, losing more density than would be acceptable in any scene in which Zone III and II detail in good -sized areas played a significant role. While additional exposure is, of course, technically an option, I prefer not to tempt fate too much with long exposures of a portrait subject unless he or she is very well anchored, and calm.

Therefore, I turned again to David Kachel’s SLIMT technique, published in 1990 and now available here: http://www.davidkachel.com/assets/cont_pt3.htm. You can also get a kit from Freestyle: https://www.freestylephoto.biz/016500-Formulary-David-Kachel-s-SLIMT-Bleach-Kit-2-x-500ml along with PDF of his updated instructions on the PDF Downloads tab of that page.

In brief, SLIMT, which can be used for both film and print development, use a pre-development, extremely dilute ferricyanide bleach, which acts more quickly on the more greatly exposed areas of the image than on the lesser, i.e., it affects (notice the use of the perfectly good verb affects in place of the now-pervasive impacts) the highlights more than the shadows. Tim Layton published an article of mine on this, three illustrations of which I include here, showing the improved shadow density in the SLIMT neg. Original zone values as read are included in the Normal image.

The technique and chemistry are simple; finding your times and dilutions will take a while. For my work, it was eminently well-spent time. By the way, you’ll need a graduate that measures milliliters in small very small amounts; Paterson makes a good one.
For N-1, I usually just cut my development time, though I have tested for an appropriate SLIMT time. N-2 and greater contractions get SLIMT, with the film rated at 200.

Whether or not you wish to take this route, you may find D-23 a very amenable developer for your needs.

212910
212911
212912

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Using D-25R replenisher?

Yes:

DK-25R
1000ml Water
10g Metol
100g Sodium Sulfite
20g Sodium Metaborate

Kodak instructions (from 1947) are to add 22ml of replenisher per roll of film processed (3/4 oz per roll)
Discard after 26 rolls have been processed per liter (100 rolls per gallon)

[paulbarden]

Yes:

1000ml Water
10g Metol
100g Sodium Sulfite
20g Sodium Metaborate

Thanks!

[LabRat]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1966PASP...78..511L

There's a typo for the phenidone which is .15 gm, not 1.5gm...

There is a metol variation for about 1 gm, and this is a very diluted version of D23, but produces very weak contrast... This was used to record explosions, and to tame severe contrast using Technical Pan film...

Steve K

[Tin Can]

Good to know, thank you!

I worry about intensional misdirection


There's a typo for the phenidone which is .15 gm, not 1.5gm...

There is a metol variation for about 1 gm, and this is a very diluted version of D23, but produces very weak contrast... This was used to record explosions, and to tame severe contrast using Technical Pan film...

Steve K

[LabRat]

Yes:

1000ml Water
10g Metol
100g Sodium Sulfite
20g Sodium Metaborate

But be aware that this will eventually turn D23 into D25, which causes a cut to speed of film... I remember my film + D25 caused about a 1/2 to 2/3 stop speed loss...

If you shoot for it, you will be fine...

Steve K

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Tend to agree with Joe O'Hara that the differences between negatives - no matter what they're developed in - tend to be quite small. Maybe not indistinguishable, but small enough that focusing on one film, one developer, etc. and getting to know these seems a better course than getting lost in the weeds. And if that fits, then D23's simplicity is good enough for primary use and not bother with the rest.

My thanks to Tin Can for this thread, for bringing out all the other users and how they use this simple stuff.

[Michael R]

The formula in the paper is correct. 1.5g/l phenidone.


Good to know, thank you!

I worry about intensional misdirection

[Jim Noel]

a question

does D 23 need N2 in gas bubble system to maintain chemistry

If it does, how does it handle rebottling, storage, transfer pump back and forth from 1 gallon tanks to 3 gallon tanks with a floating cover, which will add room air with every transfer

as some here know I use a gas burst system with air compressor

I can change to N2 and have worked with huge amounts of N2 as liquid and 5K bottles for decades, not film processing

but we always run out of N2

I have only used D-23 with N2.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

But be aware that this will eventually turn D23 into D25, which causes a cut to speed of film... I remember my film + D25 caused about a 1/2 to 2/3 stop speed loss...

If you shoot for it, you will be fine...

Steve K

This is a good point, thanks Steve. The Kodak replenishment directions include both the amount of replenisher to be added after each square foot (or roll) of film processed and the maximum proportion of replenisher that can be added to the original developer. I posted the directions above.

As an aside, I have been using replenished D19 in a (cine) reversal process, and notice that once I go past the total recommended proportion of replenisher (1:1 D19R to the original volume of D19) I need to change the processing times.

[Jim Noel]

Thank you for that information, Jim. I don't doubt your results at all. Do you suppose an accumulation of bromide also contributed to the properties of this well-seasoned developer? Also, do you think there is a way to add bromide to a developer like D-23 to season it?

I have always believed that the accumulated silver is responsible. This shows up when the negative is viewed by reflected light. I have never considered bromide as a factor.

[Michael R]

This is a good point, thanks Steve. The Kodak replenishment directions include both the amount of replenisher to be added after each square foot (or roll) of film processed and the maximum proportion of replenisher that can be added to the original developer. This, I assume, is less than what it takes to turn it into D25. I will look up and post the directions later.

Using DK-25R to replenish D-23 won’t turn it into D-25. The pH will be higher than that of D-25, and the pH is what differentiates D-25 from D-23.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've been developing xray film in D-23 at 1+3. Very pleased with the results. Not large format, but I love Ilford Pan F in D-23 1+3.

[David Schaller]

I've been developing xray film in D-23 at 1+3. Very pleased with the results. Not large format, but I love Ilford Pan F in D-23 1+3.

At what speed do you rate Pan F in D-23 1:3? Thanks.

[Eugen Mezei]

Seems I just bought me a dip and dunk developer apparatus for X-ray films that is in fact 3 big sinks. I intend to use D-23 1+3 but it needs huge volume. So my question is: Can be D23 frozen? I dont see why but better ask, maybe some of you did it already.

[Tin Can]

Update

While I have plentiful D23 chem.

It is only my backup

as I prefer Rodinol for extreme safety and simplicity

No dust

I worked in Chem lab 53 years ago

Way too dangerous

I QUIT

I am very lucky

[Michael R]

Generally speaking, freezing liquid developers is not a good idea. You’d have to try freezing some D-23 and then see if there are any problems - ie crystalization/precipitation.

In large volume settings D-23 was typically run replenished. XTOL and clones can be convenient because the developer serves as its own replenisher. Other options for large volumes might be things like Ilford DD but you’d have to do the math regarding economy. For one-shot Rodinal is hard to beat but again do the math.

[Tin Can]

I use PQ for 11X14 any film


and ancient NOS Plates

[Alan Townsend]

Seems I just bought me a dip and dunk developer apparatus for X-ray films that is in fact 3 big sinks. I intend to use D-23 1+3 but it needs huge volume. So my question is: Can be D23 frozen? I dont see why but better ask, maybe some of you did it already.

Wow, a moderately old d23 thread!

D-23 is the only developer I use. I standardized on it about 35 years ago when I got tired of experimenting with developers. I use it 1:3 for all camera films, mixing it directly to that dilution instead of dilution a stock solution, which makes no sense to me. At this high dilution, it mixes almost instantly. Yes, I use the pinch of sulfite thing. I believe it will keep 3-4 months at that dilution in air tight container. A foam float on a large container may work. Freezing would not be very practical, unless you live on an antarctic research facility. Boiling might make more sense, in order to drive all the air out of the solution before tanking with floating lid. Never tried boiling, but may work.

For both Xray and ortho litho films, I use a 1:7 dilution. I always use as a one shot developer. I also use plain fixer mixed about 30 grams/liter as a one shot fixer. This is about 10% of normal strength for hypo. One shot makes sense to me because I am always an intermittent processor of films and am very frugal. Ortho litho films get 2-3 minutes of development time giving pretty low contrast, and are very compatible with older contact printing processes such as cyanotype, kalitype, vandyke, salt print, etc., because it has a very non-linear response curve that is very similar, and can give nearly linear print response directly without using the "digital negative" crutch.

Fuji HRU gets 20 minutes with minimum agitation using my Doran sheet film tank holding 12 sheets of 4x5 in 52 fl. oz. solution. High dilution of D-23 give semi-compensating effect, high local sharpness with mackie lines, but more visible grain. Green Xray films have much lower local contrast due to the halation of the rear emulsion, benefits from this.

I develop camera films like Kentmere 100, TMX, TMY, Fomapan 200 and others for 20 minutes using 1:3. This is not the greatest developer of all time. It's simple and works well at very low cost and is easy-peasy at high dilutions. It has no tinting effect on film, allowing simple zone system in the darkroom methods.

Have fun with it,

Alan Townsend

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53377900460_8c25f5dceb_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2pjPG9C)New 8x10 Kodak Basket Line Installed 1 (https://flic.kr/p/2pjPG9C) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

I have decided to finally set up by Kodak 8x10 Hard Rubber Tanks, with floating lids, and Kodak Film Baskets. I can do 18 8x10's in a run, or 48 sheets of 4x5. Or 18 rolls of 120 film in a go. I think I will start with Replenished D23 as a starter. I have 500 sheets of 8x10 HRU, as well as multiple boxes of various 8x10 films. I just bought a fresh box of Arista 200 8x10 (On Sale) which I think is FOMA 200. Also I have an 8x10 Kodak Hard Rubber Wash Tank, it is in the front right, hooked up well and running great.

I've been talking to Jay Defur over on Flickr, and this is how he does his 8x10 HRU, in replenished D23. Seventeen Liters! KISS. My Thanks to Jay, his portraits on 8x10 HRU are over the top.