D 23 Users

[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/01650...-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.

[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