Ulophot
19-Dec-2022, 18:43
An intriguing result came from a foolish error made tonight while continuing a series of tests on 2-solution development using D-23. I have been using a carefully created, 3-D test target to render flat tonal areas from Zone I minus 1/3 to VIII or greater ( or VIII and lower Zone 0) depending on how it’s lit. All prints, of course, are made at the same contrast, magnification, and exposure time, for comparison.
In the test tonight, I had two negatives, exposed to the target with the minus-I to VIII lighting, which I had overexposed to place the Zone VIII tone on XII, i.e., Zone III-ish to XII with Normal development. Having achieved an N-3 previously using D-23 stock, I thought I’d see what would happen with my usual dilution of 1:1.
The first negative got 3 minutes of constant agitation in Bath A, and 3 minutes of sitting in B (Borax solution). The result was about N-5 with the lowest values somewhat depressed. The next negative received 5 minutes of constant agitation, a bold 60% increase -- and then I made my error. Instead of Bath B, I mixed up beakers and poured in water, which then sat for 2 ½ minutes before I realized my mistake. I decided to proceed anyway, poured out the water and poured in Bath B for three minutes of sitting.
The resultant negative is very dense. By that I mean, at the same print exposure, VI is IX, II is V, and even minus-I is a III, indicating significant overall fog in addition to the development’s density increase -- although, the image has no appearance of fog as it might from, say, pre-exposure, because the low values are well separated from falling higher on the scale. in printing it, takes a 60% increase in exposure time to bring the exposed XII to print IX, exposed IV to print IV, and exposed minus-III to about I.
So, I was surprised. After reading cautions against a water rinse between the two baths. In this case, the water apparently acted as a still water bath, allowing development to continue especially in the low values, and the subsequent proper Bath B boosted the process further. I somehow expected the developer to have diffused into the water so that the Borax would have less to accelerate.
Any thoughts from others more chemically astute than I on how this worked?
In the test tonight, I had two negatives, exposed to the target with the minus-I to VIII lighting, which I had overexposed to place the Zone VIII tone on XII, i.e., Zone III-ish to XII with Normal development. Having achieved an N-3 previously using D-23 stock, I thought I’d see what would happen with my usual dilution of 1:1.
The first negative got 3 minutes of constant agitation in Bath A, and 3 minutes of sitting in B (Borax solution). The result was about N-5 with the lowest values somewhat depressed. The next negative received 5 minutes of constant agitation, a bold 60% increase -- and then I made my error. Instead of Bath B, I mixed up beakers and poured in water, which then sat for 2 ½ minutes before I realized my mistake. I decided to proceed anyway, poured out the water and poured in Bath B for three minutes of sitting.
The resultant negative is very dense. By that I mean, at the same print exposure, VI is IX, II is V, and even minus-I is a III, indicating significant overall fog in addition to the development’s density increase -- although, the image has no appearance of fog as it might from, say, pre-exposure, because the low values are well separated from falling higher on the scale. in printing it, takes a 60% increase in exposure time to bring the exposed XII to print IX, exposed IV to print IV, and exposed minus-III to about I.
So, I was surprised. After reading cautions against a water rinse between the two baths. In this case, the water apparently acted as a still water bath, allowing development to continue especially in the low values, and the subsequent proper Bath B boosted the process further. I somehow expected the developer to have diffused into the water so that the Borax would have less to accelerate.
Any thoughts from others more chemically astute than I on how this worked?