What formula are you using for Divided D-23?

[sully75]

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.

[Lynn Jones]

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

[Gary L. Quay]

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

[Henry Ambrose]

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.

[BetterSense]

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.

[Ken Lee]

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

The article (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.html) 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 (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/D-23.php). 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.

[Gary L. Quay]

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

[Keith Tapscott.]

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):)

[jvuokko]

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

[Ken Lee]

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.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

There are a lot of folks that post here who closely followed the writings of Fred Picker from Zone VI studios. Of course, there are a lot of folks here who didn't like his photography and didn't like his methods either.

Nevertheless, it seems, from what I have read, that he pretty much stuck with the same developer and film combination throughout most of his career. I have not seen anything written by him about D-23, but then I don't profess to have read everything he wrote.

Since so many folks like D-23 and are able to point out objective reasons why it is "better" than other developers, I wonder why he didn't like it.

Which leads to the question. Why is D-23 "better" (objectively) that what he used, which was, I believe, HC-110?

[Ken Lee]

You might find it interesting to know that HC-110 has changed several times over the years. I don't have my copy of Anchell's The Darkroom Cookbook (http://www.amazon.com/Darkroom-Cookbook-v-1/dp/0240801962) handy, but I recall his detailing some of the changes to the formula. Sometimes a formula is changed to improve image quality. Other times it is changed to make it more profitable or easier to manufacture and store. Developers are like lenses in this regard: there have been several "Tessars" and "Heliars" for example.

I learned about HC-110 from Fred in 1970. He had been introduced to it by Ansel Adams a few years previously. Keep in mind that it wasn't just HC-110 for Fred (and others): it was part of an entire constellation of methods and equipment - which originated with Ansel - and were subsequently developed and refined, so to speak.

It wasn't just HC-110: it was the specific combination of HC-110 and Tri-X.

I like the simplicity of D-23: it has only 2 ingredients. I have never tested it rigorously. I stumbled upon it when comparing Divided D-23 and Pyrocat formulas, and use it with TMY and HP5+. It's good enough that I can concentrate on finding attractive subjects, which is often more important in the long run.

I myself would have no problem using HC-110 and Tri-X again. For Large Format in particular, it's hard to find anything better. It was Ansel's favorite combination for a long time too.

Ansel also liked D-23, back in 1944. You can read about this image in Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs (http://www.anseladams.com/Examples_The_Making_of_40_Photographs_p/2440120.htm), pp. 164: "I used my 8x10 Ansco view camera with the 23-inch component of my Cooke Series XV lens with a Wratten No. 15 (G) filter. The film was Isopan, developed in Kodak D-23".

When I studied with Fred in those days, he had an original copy of that photograph in his home gallery.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/LonePine.jpg
Winter Sunrise from Lone Pine
Ansel Adams, 1944

[baachitraka]

I personally use Divided D-23. Only reason is the economy when compared to D-23. They are almost identical and prints don't show any difference.

Bath A - 1000ml
Metol: 5g
Sodium Sulfite: 100g

Bath B - 500ml
Sodium Metaborate: 7.5g

Three minutes continuous agitation in Bath A and initial continous agitation for 30s and agitate for 10s on every 30th second, for 3 minutes.

[lbenac]

I personally use Divided D-23. Only reason is the economy when compared to D-23. They are almost identical and prints don't show any difference.

Bath A - 1000ml
Metol: 5g
Sodium Sulfite: 100g

Bath B - 500ml
Sodium Metaborate: 7.5g

Three minutes continuous agitation in Bath A and initial continous agitation for 30s and agitate for 10s on every 30th second, for 3 minutes.

Does the economy refers to the 5g of Metol instead og the 7.5g in the AA's formula?
Would it not be compensated by not using the Sodium Metaborate as it is a one bath?
I have been playing around with the divided formula between Thornton 6.5g Metol and AA 7.5g. I have found that the first would give me uneven development but that the later would be reasonnably consistent.
I have not ried yet the non-divided as I want to nail my times for the divided before I make changes again.

Cheers,

[baachitraka]

With 1l of Bath A, I can develop 24 rolls of 120 film.

For me it is economical compare to D-23, which can only develop 4 rolls of 120 film @1:1.

Never really look beyond the Divided D-23 where I can make the second bath either with Borax or Sodium metaborate or Sodium carbonate depending on required contrast and grain.

[lbenac]

With 1l of Bath A, I can develop 24 rolls of 120 film.

For me it is economical compare to D-23, which can only develop 4 rolls of 120 film @1:1.

Never really look beyond the Divided D-23 where I can make the second bath either with Borax or Sodium metaborate or Sodium carbonate depending on required contrast and grain.

Got it.
I cannot use full strength as I use rotary processing and it is too fast acting. The first time I tried I had uneven development marks where I think the developer start to be poured in the Jobo.
I use 1:1 divided as a one shot developer.

Cheers,

Luc

[baachitraka]

Source for the formula: Darkroom Cookbook.

Happily honing the composition and printing skills.

[BetterSense]

When I used D23 I replenished it with something...DK-25r was the formula I remember. It was very economical that way. I think I got 30 or more rolls out of a liter. I assumed everyone did so...metol and sulfite are too expensive to use only once.

[baachitraka]

Yes, that's DK-25r. Can be replenished @22ml for a 80 sq.inch of film.

It contains Metol 10g, Sodium Sulfite 100g and Balanced Alkali 20g. I presume BA is Sodium Metaborate.

[stawastawa]

Regarding replenishment, were you developing many rolls at once? or could the used developer be stored and replenished some 2 week later for developing the next set of film?

I've been using D23 1:1 as a one shot developer as well, and extending it's life would be nice, as I generally only develop 4 sheets of 4x5 at a time.



When I used D23 I replenished it with something...DK-25r was the formula I remember. It was very economical that way. I think I got 30 or more rolls out of a liter. I assumed everyone did so...metol and sulfite are too expensive to use only once.

[BetterSense]

The batch lasted months. I just mixed up 1 gallon of d23 in a glass 1 gallon jug, and 1/2 gallon of replenisher. While developing, put 20mL of replenisher per roll into the jug. When you pour the used developer back into the jug, it will not fit due to the replenisher; so you just dump that little bit. I would do this until all the replenisher was used. So about 100 rolls per gallon.

[stawastawa]

awesome, thanks for the idea!

so you were using it straight then?


The batch lasted months. I just mixed up 1 gallon of d23 in a glass 1 gallon jug, and 1/2 gallon of replenisher. While developing, put 20mL of replenisher per roll into the jug. When you pour the used developer back into the jug, it will not fit due to the replenisher; so you just dump that little bit. I would do this until all the replenisher was used. So about 100 rolls per gallon.

[baachitraka]

I don't think dilution is possible with replenishment.

[BetterSense]

Yes I used it straight. I developed tri-X for 8 minutes. I don't remember if that was 20C or room temperature. Development time is very forgiving with this developer, I would err toward overdeveloping and never had any trouble with blown highlights.

[David Karp]

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

The two sites have slightly different versions of Thornton's formula. The first, www.photosensitive.ca/wp/archives/115, is the latest version. The other, www.awh-imaging.co.uk/barrythornton/2bath.htm, is an earlier version. This was confirmed to me by Barry Thornton before he passed away.

Thornton felt this formula was preferable to stock DD23 because of the reduced level of sodium sulphite. He felt that 100g/L of sodium sulphite decreased sharpness in an attempt to achieve fine grain. He used 80g/L instead, the aim being to enhance sharpness.

I have successfully used a slightly different variation of Thornton's formula. My variant splits the sodium sulphite so that I use 40g/L in each bath. I read that David Vestal did this in his version of DD76 and thought to try it in Thornton's formula. I reasoned that this would reduce the amount of development in Bath A, due to the greatly reduced concentration of the reducer (sodium sulphite). I have never tested just the A bath to see what happens, but my negatives come out just fine with this version, so I have made it my standard. It works well for rotary development diluted 1:1, per Sandy King's article on divided developers in View Camera Magazine. I use the undiluted version for tray development in a slosher. It works very well.

[stawastawa]

now that I have decided to mix up some dk25-r I can't seem to find any sodium hydroxide (to use in kodalk substitution)

any recomendations for where to go find some?
specifically in the Portland, OR area :)

~n

[gabriele turchi]

hi guys
i am restoring this old old thread to ask a couple of questions.
i am trying 2 Bath D23 for the first time (actually B&W processing first time ever (i have done only color so far) ,

my question is :

Assuming that i am going to develop 4x5 on a paterson tank (i liter is required by the tank)
Each version of the formula for D23 (bath A) and for Bath B produce 1 liter .

1- for both A and B , do i have to diluite ? like 1:1 when i use it ?
2- can i reuse Bath A without the use of replenisher ? is am so confused because some say they process many rolls with it but i am not sure if is because dry diluite a lot
3- if i can refuse it , is there a quantity of sheets i can process before it exhaust? is this quantity based on the ratio of dilution ? , and there is any difference on this regard if i process 1 sheet at the time vs 6 sheets at once ?
4- can i reuse bath B ?

thanks, and sorry for the basic questions , i guess al my doubts come from the fact that the info i can get only always talks about "how many reel " etc , but never mention dilution , size of the tank , etc...

thanks!
g

[David Schaller]

Well put Ken, as always.

[gabriele turchi]

Well put Ken, as always.

???

my post was the first after over a year ... what do you refer to ?

g

[David Karp]

Gabriele,

There is lots of good information available on this site, so Google or use the search function. That said, this might be the best article on the subject: http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/devforscan.pdf.

You have to slide down a couple of pages past the ads to get to the article.

[steveo]

Thats an interesting article, odd that Sandy recommends using the D-23 single use while many people report getting dozens of rolls from Solution A. I'm still waiting on my Metol clearing customs (day 19 and waiting) I'm keen to try this out on some of my night cityscapes which end up with very high contrast.

[gabriele turchi]

yeah don't tell me about it ...seems hard to believe ... also because i guess don't mention the use of dilution or replenisher or ..who knows ...

so i am still doubting if you can reuse it ...
and
if the durability is associated to how many times you use it
if the durability is associated to how many sheets develops
if the durability is associated to the dilution
if the durability is associated to the use of the replenisher

also , since the 2 bath is used for contraction , many seem not mentioning Bath A having a certain time depending if you trying to achieve -1 / -2 / -3 ... which i was told should be considered ... (same thing for Bath B)

g

[steveo]

From what I understand, time in A effects the density time in b is largely irrelevant since it will use up the left over developer pretty quickly.

But I'm still waiting on my chemicals so can't do any testing but:
Based on experience of other developers if you dilute you'll ruin the keeping properties so it becomes one shot
I'd not worry about a replenisher unless you're processing large volumes of film or using large volume tanks

[David Schaller]

???

my post was the first after over a year ... what do you refer to ?

g

Sorry about that! I guess I was on an earlier page....

[gabriele turchi]

Sorry about that! I guess I was on an earlier page....

:)

[Michael R]

It is important to understand how this type of divided developer (ie metol-sulfite bath A) works in order to understand the controls, reusability and capacity.

Remember that with this type of process, rather than it being a true divided developer, bath A is a complete developer formula - therefore development occurs in bath A. This has important implications regarding sensitometry and capacity. Without getting too detailed:

1. Since development occurs in bath A, think about reusing it in the same way you'd think about reusing any single bath developer.
i. As development proceeds, halides are released (which can act as restrainers, the buildup of which in a metol developer can gradually both reduce emulsion speed and increase contrast).
ii. There is nothing in the bath A formula to regenerate oxidized metol
iii. Bath A is relatively weakly buffered, which means its pH could decrease with re-use as development by-products build up

Mr. King therefore probably recommended not reusing a D-23 bath A because it would not be the way to get the most consistent/repeatable results.

2. With this type of developer, development in bath A is the primary control for contrast. Therefore the usual processing variables apply (time, temperature, agitation) in controlling contrast. Emulsion speed is primarily affected by bath B. This is more complicated because there are additional variables such as diffusion rates, which themselves are dependent on several variables.

Hope this helps.

[Ken Lee]

Considering the cost of Large Format film and other materials, the savings we obtain by reusing developer may be relatively modest.

If I were doing an important project I would want to be confident that my developer is always the same.

[gabriele turchi]

Thanks Michael


It is important to understand how this type of divided developer (ie metol-sulfite bath A) works in order to understand the controls, reusability and capacity.

precisely, i have total lack of knowledge on this stuff!


1. Since development occurs in bath A, think about reusing it in the same way you'd think about reusing any single bath developer.

for example i was ignoring that was a single bath developer , i am used to color and with C41 i reuse till i process 32 sheets of 4x5 , regardless if i did 1 one at the time , or 6 etc... it last till i have done 32 . in B&W i am hearing about the One shot thing , but since people gives completely different testimony (like some would say they process 20 rolls using 1 liter of 23...it gets confusing .. but i guess it is one shot developer

but my question is : regardless if i have 1 sheet or 6 sheets?

being a normal developing bath i guess all the others rules would follow , such as : developing times dictate by the ratio : ISO vs Normal developing /or Pulling -1 /or Pulling -2 ?



2. With this type of developer, development in bath A is the primary control for contrast. Therefore the usual processing variables apply (time, temperature, agitation) in controlling contrast. Emulsion speed is primarily affected by bath B. This is more complicated because there are additional variables such as diffusion rates, which themselves are dependent on several variables.

not sur ei understand if this one can be reused... also, so even bath B time change depending on ISO?


Hope this helps.

thanks!

[Jim Noel]

now that I have decided to mix up some dk25-r I can't seem to find any sodium hydroxide (to use in kodalk substitution)

any recomendations for where to go find some?
specifically in the Portland, OR area :)

~n

Drain cleaner is often nothing more then NaOH.

[Jim Noel]

Why is it that people insist on messing around with a tried and true, well proven developer rather than using it as intended? D-23 is not meant to be diluted. If not, there is essentially no limit to it's use if not contaminated. At the college we used it in N2 burst system with replenishment for a semester at a time. Probably around 4500-5000 sheets of 4x5 per semester. When it was changed, I brought it home to use for total development. I have never known it to go bad, or get weakunless contaminated.

[Michael R]

Considering the cost of Large Format film and other materials, the savings we obtain by reusing developer may be relatively modest.

If I were doing an important project I would want to be confident that my developer is always the same.

Agree completely. D-23 and two-solution variants thereof are pretty cheap, requiring nothing exotic. A goal with any process is consistency. In that context I would not recommend reusing D-23, on its own or in a two-solution process, unless it is properly replenished. Even so, replenishment of a metol-sulfite developer is still a compromise, and usually makes more sense in a high volume process (which is why D-23 was originally formulated as an alternative to D-76). For the most consistent performance, I would always suggest using it one shot even at full strength (as well as at 1+1, 1+3 etc. of course).

@gabriele: I will try to answer your questions later today.

[Tin Can]

Why is it that people insist on messing around with a tried and true, well proven developer rather than using it as intended? D-23 is not meant to be diluted. If not, there is essentially no limit to it's use if not contaminated. At the college we used it in N2 burst system with replenishment for a semester at a time. Probably around 4500-5000 sheets of 4x5 per semester. When it was changed, I brought it home to use for total development. I have never known it to go bad, or get weakunless contaminated.

Jim, that's great info. How large were the tanks? How many gallons?

[sanking]

Agree completely. D-23 and two-solution variants thereof are pretty cheap, requiring nothing exotic. A goal with any process is consistency. In that context I would not recommend reusing D-23, on its own or in a two-solution process, unless it is properly replenished. Even so, replenishment of a metol-sulfite developer is still a compromise, and usually makes more sense in a high volume process (which is why D-23 was originally formulated as an alternative to D-76). For the most consistent performance, I would always suggest using it one shot even at full strength (as well as at 1+1, 1+3 etc. of course).

@gabriele: I will try to answer your questions later today.


I agree with Michael (and Ken) in that for most consistent results one-shot at full strength is the best way to go. Reusing developers like D-23 is feasible, but requires a dedicated system (as Jim describes) or a good system of replenishment.

In the article I published in View Camera I used one-shot and discard solutions because it is the only way to I know to closely test with sensitometry. All re-use systems I have tried always wander a bit in terms of average gradient so not practical for exact testing, though may be OK in practical use. This comment applies not only to D-23, but to all developers.

Sandy

[steveo]

Thanks Sandy I see where you're coming from.

Whilst Metol is cheap, I agree its inexpensive, its not readily available in the UK (or the EU); Mine is still waiting in customs after 3 weeks minimising its use is less for the economy more for convenience of not having an enormous back log when HM Customs finally let it be delivered.