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.

[tundra]

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

With respect, I disagree strongly.

Compensation happens when the highlight development exhausts quickly. Relative to the shadows, that happens anyway - shadows take far longer to develop to completion and highlight development will exhaust rapidly if you don't agitate.

You can do this a number of ways but both D-23 - which is somewhat of a compensation developer in the first place - and HC-110 can be made highly compensating with high dilution and extended low agitation development. Ditto, Pyrocat-HD. Extended development with minimal agitation does require care in how the film is suspended in developer - it needs to be well off the bottom of the tank. My notes here:

https://gitbucket.tundraware.com/tundra/Stand-Development

I've not tried D-76, but I've also gotten good results with DK-50, but I find the look of MQ developers less attractive than the aformentioned.

You can also achieve compensation with two bath development as I recall.

The reputation of D-76 being harsh is typically a consequence of its well know habit of having climbing alkalinity if it's not stored properly - i.e. In tighly sealed glass bottles.

[tundra]

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.

D-23 doesn't have to be soft. It can be made to be very high acutance with super dilution. I've used it as 1+9 for 60min semistand development by adding 0.5g/l Sodium Hydroxide (lye) to keep the alkalinity up and gotten razor sharp negs.

[tundra]

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.

As an aside, I just tried Acros II and found it to be unremarkably different than the original Acros. Mind you, this is based on a couple rolls of 120, not rigorous testing.

[paulbarden]

D-23 doesn't have to be soft. It can be made to be very high acutance with super dilution. I've used it as 1+9 for 60min semistand development by adding 0.5g/l Sodium Hydroxide (lye) to keep the alkalinity up and gotten razor sharp negs.

Of course, once you've added lye, it's no longer D-23.

[tundra]

Of course, once you've added lye, it's no longer D-23.

Well, that's technically true, I guess.

But even without it, you can get very sharp results with D-23, say diluted 1+3 and develop semi-stand or EMA for 60 min. With EMA, you may well be able to go out to 1+5 and for and hour and get very sharp, very well developed negs.

I guess my only point is that "sharpness" isn't really inherent in the developer but moreso how you apply it.

[paulbarden]

I guess my only point is that "sharpness" isn't really inherent in the developer but moreso how you apply it.

Try telling that to Anchell & Troop! Is Rodinal not an "acutance developer"?

[tundra]

Try telling that to Anchell & Troop! Is Rodinal not an "acutance developer"?

Well, sure, there are developers more likely to give you more- or less acutance, but even so, you can modify this by how you use them. I suppose making Rodinal less sharp would be tough without some chemical fiddling, but even HC-110 and DK-50 can be made high acutance with nothing more than higher dilution. I've not tried it, but D-76 likely can be as well.

More to the point, there is a lot of discussion about high acutance developers, but not as much about high acutance development. Higher dilution, lower agitation, and the like play a significant role in the acutance of the negative.