DD-23, FP4 Is N++ possible and what about a concentrate

[Eric Woodbury]

I'm not new to D23, but it was a long time ago. Recently I tried divided D23 (w/ Thornton's formula) and HP5. The negatives and proofs look good, but a little short on contrast. Times were 5min/5min A/B. HP5 isn't the best film for N+, I know, thus this question is more focussed on FP4.

Since part B uses the developer that is soaked into the film and modern emulsions are thin (not holding much developer), would it help to use a part A that is more concentrated? Would it help to use a stronger base in part B?

Also, how do you find FP4 to respond to DD-23 in terms of contrast?

I realize this may be a losing battle. D23 excels with high contrast scenes, but for N+ and beyond it may be a dud.

I'm not interested in using any hydroquinone and for now, when I need up to N+4, I use Wimberley's formula.

Thank you.
EW

[Michael R]

Eric,

What all of these divided formulas with a metol-sulfite first bath have in common is that the first bath is a fully functional developer. Therefore to control contrast, adjust the development time in the first bath. Simple as that. The caveat when trying to significantly increase contrast with these formulas is that they will tend to increase fog somewhat. They really aren’t balanced/optimal for that purpose - rather they are aimed primarily at giving maximum emulsion speed without runaway contrast, along with a somewhat straightened characteristic curve. For expansions D-23 is ok (expansion limits in non-staining general purpose developers are determined by the emulsion) but there are slightly better options.

Incidentally these are all based on old formulas from Stoeckler, Leitz etc. The one known as “divided D-23” is the version Adams used because the first bath is actually D-23. Thornton’s versions are functionally no different.

[Mark J]

i'm not interested in using any hydroquinone and for now, when i need up to n+4, i use wimberley's formula.
Thank you.
Ew
wd2h

[Eric Woodbury]

Michael, thank you. Very informative. Over on the LFP articles page I read a little more and found the addition of borax to the D23 part may help, but I will try your suggest first.

Mark, I use WD2H. It is amazing. Not well known, but it should be well known for us contrast addicts.

[j.e.simmons]

You might look at this, too.
https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.html

[Mark J]

Mark, I use WD2H. It is amazing. Not well known, but it should be well known for us contrast addicts.
Yes ! I assumed so. I've reading up about JW's formulae recently.
I notice that the main difference between WD2D+ and WD2H is the addition of a small amount of Benzotriazole.

[Michael R]

Yes ! I assumed so. I've reading up about JW's formulae recently.
I notice that the main difference between WD2D+ and WD2H is the addition of a small amount of Benzotriazole.

Interestingly the Formulary kit for WD2D does include benzotriazole. I’m not sure if the original published formula from 1977 included benzotriazole or not. The addition of benzotriazole should help reduce fog/increase contrast. There is also WD2D+, the exact formula for which has not been disclosed.

In comparison with WD2D, the WD2H working solution is both more dilute (about half the concentrations of developing agents and sulfite) and a little higher in pH. The expectation is that this would increase/maximize imagewise stain for max contrast.

[Eric Woodbury]

From my distant pass, something I did for extreme compensation is to use PMK. Soak in part A concentrate for a few minutes. NO presoak. Return the concentrate to the storage bottle, it's fine. Then use Part B diluted as needed. I used this to process films taken in the cathedrals in England and slot canyons of Arizona. I can see out the windows and the individual light bulbs in the chandeliers in the cathedrals and the clouds in the sky in the slots. Perhaps this would work with WD2H also.

Thanks for all the help.

=EW=

[Drew Wiley]

But Eric, I did that kind of thing with nearly ordinary PMK usage (maybe different ratios of A&B than standard) provided the film type itself had sufficient linearity. Yeah, sometimes a supplementary contrast mask was called for. It's been quite awhile, so my memory of the exact technique is so-so. I could even print brilliant halogen bulbs in night scenes and distinguish the filament from the lamp housing. But more often, when shooting in a dark tunnel or cave entrance, I wanted to look out to a glaring soft light devoid of detail, almost like a near-death experience print-wise. I have numerous examples of that, just a few of the former approach.

Anyway, I'll keep in mind your own trick to try out some day, once I have an appropriate subject again. Are you referring to it in reference to FP4, or some other film?

[Eric Woodbury]

Drew, I don't remember the film, but I'll guess it was HP5. Exposures were still on the order of 20 minutes. While I was making the exposure, some other tourist lay on the floor under my tripod to make her exposure with a happy snapper. Pissed me off, but we had no common language in which to swear.