 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / January 2007considering of D-23
i like to heard any of your opinions about the D-23 as film developer. Adams seemed like it mentioned in his book Negative. but, people said, it is not suitable to push. is it true? and, how about the film speed when use it? thanks. - woody > i like to heard any of your opinions about the D-23 as film developer. > Adams seemed like it mentioned in his book Negative. but, people said, > it is not suitable to push. is it true? and, how about the film speed > when use it? I do not like to "push" negatives, because I cannot do it to my satisfaction. When I try it, all I get is underexposed negatives with too much contrast. The nearest I can get if I want a one-stop push is to develop in a 2-solution developer, such as D-23 or D-25 for bath 1 (for around 7 minutes or so), followed by 3 minutes in Kodalk and Bisulphite (2% of each). But while this raises the toe, the shadow contrast is still weak. For modern films like TMax, D-23 can give good contrast, but the sharpness is poor.  Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 09:30:01 up 79 days, 12:03, 3 users, load average: 4.22, 4.22, 4.13 Steven Woody wrote: > i like to heard any of your opinions about the D-23 as film developer. > Adams seemed like it mentioned in his book Negative. but, people said, > it is not suitable to push. is it true? and, how about the film speed > when use it? It's a soft developer, won't develop a lot of contrast. It was used as a push developer in the 30's(?) and 50's, but pushing was different then as it was acceptable to have no shadow detail -- D-23 wouldn't block the highlights while it did raise the contrast of whatever image was there, making the negative more printable. It has a wow factor for being that simple. Outside of caffenol made from old grounds or ersatz pyro made from acorns it is possibly the cheapest developer around. And it works well with Plus-X and portraiture, not so well in 35mm as I find the grain to be mushier than I like from PX. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >The nearest I can get if I want a one-stop push is to develop in a >2-solution developer, such as D-23 or D-25 for bath 1 (for around 7 minutes >or so), followed by 3 minutes in Kodalk and Bisulphite (2% of each). But >while this raises the toe, the shadow contrast is still weak. This also works for terribly over-exposed images but use 3 minutes for the development time. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net >i like to heard any of your opinions about the D-23 as film developer. >Adams seemed like it mentioned in his book Negative. but, people said, >it is not suitable to push. is it true? and, how about the film speed >when use it? Film speed is at .8 X iso. Grain is fine and image is sharp.Toxicity is low and stabiity is decent. Mixing is simple and fast. IMO, it's all I need. I certainly don't bother pushing a film though. If you need that capability then purchase a faster film. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net > >i like to heard any of your opinions about the D-23 as film developer. > >Adams seemed like it mentioned in his book Negative. but, people said, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > all I need. I certainly don't bother pushing a film though. If you > need that capability then purchase a faster film. okay, thank you! well, how you compare it with D-76 ? >> >i like to heard any of your opinions about the D-23 as film developer. >> >Adams seemed like it mentioned in his book Negative. but, people said, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >okay, thank you! well, how you compare it with D-76 ? As I prefer to mix my own developers, I prefer D23. It's formula is quick to mix, stable enough for storage and the results I like better as it doesn't really blow out the highlights. Grain is finer and the developer is less active than D76 which is only important when tap water temps reach 80F as they do on occasion here in Tennessee. Also I think you van buy a 25 lb. bag of sulfite along with a couple pounds of Metol and save a little bit of money mixing your own. And at least you have some idea what the condition of the formula is as it hasn't been sitting on someones shelf for the last 2~3 years. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net > >> >i like to heard any of your opinions about the D-23 as film developer. > >> >Adams seemed like it mentioned in his book Negative. but, people said, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > you have some idea what the condition of the formula is as it hasn't > been sitting on someones shelf for the last 2~3 years. thank you for your reply. some relative questions i also want helps: 1, i use D-72 as paper developer. i always mix by myself for one shot use every time. i found the D-72 formular is a little complex for this style of useage. do you get any suggestion for other choices? 2, if i want to push film, what home-mixable developer you will suggest? i will accept two-bath solution if it is good enough and simple. thanks. ... >1, i use D-72 as paper developer. i always mix by myself for one shot >use every time. i found the D-72 formular is a little complex for this >style of useage. do you get any suggestion for other choices? ... January 9, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, I've always found it interesting that D-23 is very similar to the old Ansco 120 formula for developing prints. Ansel Adams lists it in the appendix to 'The Print'. I've used it for years on many prints. It's extremely easy to prepare. In fact, I've stopped bothering with making up a liquid concentrate to dilute later. I just keep the dry powder chemicals at hand and measure out enough to mix up a working solution when I want one. It's quick, easy and cheap, the three prime directives ... For a variation (especially if warm tone results on prints is desired), mix Ansco 120 with potassium sulfite and/or potassium carbonate substituted for the usual sodium salts. The difference really shows WITH selenium toning. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > January 9, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, > > I've always found it interesting that D-23 is > very similar to the old Ansco 120 formula for > developing prints. Well there are two "120" paper developers: 1) Ansco 120, sometimes called Agfa 120 2) Agfa 120, sometimes called Ansco 120 All to make 1 litre of stock: D-23 D-72 Ansco Agfa Ansco 120 120 130 Metol 7.5 3.0 12.0 2.2 Hydroquinone 12.0 12.0 11.0 Glycin 12.0 S. Sulfite 100.0 45.0 36.0 30.0 50.0 S. Carbonate 70.0 36.0 40.0 78.0 P. Bromide 2.0 2.0 5.5 The two that are close are D-72 and Ansco 130, where 12gm Glycin and 3.5 P. Bromide turns D-72 into Ansco 130. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com ... >Well there are two "120" paper developers: >1) Ansco 120, sometimes called Agfa 120 >2) Agfa 120, sometimes called Ansco 120 ... January 10, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, True, there is ambiguity. I was referring to the one similar to D-23. (Maybe it needs a rename to the Metol-only 120 formula. In my own notes I just call it 120 developer.) regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > 1, i use D-72 as paper developer. i always mix by myself for one shot > use every time. i found the D-72 formular is a little complex for this > style of useage. do you get any suggestion for other choices? Patrick Gainer has created several developers based on ascorbic acid. These are mainly intended as film developers, but he says they work well at lower dilutions for paper, too. For examples, check out: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/VitC/vitc.html http://www.photosensitive.ca/wiki/index.php/Main/EasyFilmDevelopers For PC-Glycol, you could easily mix it all in water at time of use rather than mixing the phenidone and ascorbic acid in glycol first; made that way, it'd be just three dry ingredients plus water. The trouble is that phenidone is used in such small quantities that it'd be better to dilute it in something and measure that by volume. You could always substitute metol for phenidone for easier dry measurement (you'd use about 10x as much metol), but that would alter the character of the developer (which wouldn't necessarily be bad, just different). Although I use PC-Glycol fairly extensively for film, I've never used it (or any other Gainer formula) with paper, so I can't say from personal experience how well it works with paper. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking > Patrick Gainer has created several developers based on ... > > Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com > http://www.rodsbooks.com > Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking TEA. Mr. Gainer should chime in. As for a most simple print developer I've used a D-23; metol + sulfite. It is slow and the paper needs more exposure. The sulfite serves as the activator. The result is Very similar to Ansco 120; mentioned by Mr. Erlick. Ansco 120 and Beer's 1 are the same developer and the two are the low contrast blends of Beer's contrast control 1 to 7 series developers. Best to use a carbonated developer. I think a little carbonate can substitute for a lot of sulfite. But if fewest ingredients is a priority, metol + sulfite will do. BTW, the need for bromide depends upon the paper. I've found that none is needed for some papers. Dan >>> i like to heard any of your opinions about the D-23 as film developer. >>> Adams seemed like it mentioned in his book Negative. but, people said, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > okay, thank you! well, how you compare it with D-76 ? When I used those, I greatly preferred D-76. Since it works faster, the mushy grain structure of D-23 is greatly reduced in D-76. Thus, the images appear sharper with D-76. I do not like going to the extreme of using Rodinol, though. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 17:25:01 up 81 days, 19:58, 3 users, load average: 4.11, 4.24, 4.25 > >>> i like to heard any of your opinions about the D-23 as film developer. > >>> Adams seemed like it mentioned in his book Negative. but, people said, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > appear sharper with D-76. I do not like going to the extreme of using > Rodinol, though. but many reported that a divided d-23 is sharp. - woody >>>>> i like to heard any of your opinions about the D-23 as film developer. >>>>> Adams seemed like it mentioned in his book Negative. but, people said, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > but many reported that a divided d-23 is sharp. I wonder under what conditions. When I first started T-Max when it came out, I tried D-25 for bath 1 and 2% Kodalk plus 2% sulfite for bath 2. The negatives were so mushy I could not stand it. Using that combination on 4147 Plus-X was not so bad, but I did not like the curve shape. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 21:25:01 up 90 days, 23:59, 4 users, load average: 4.09, 4.19, 4.16 > > but many reported that a divided d-23 is sharp. That doesn't mean much ... One man's sharp is another man's oatmeal. Sometimes one user is taking about developing 4x5, another 120 and a third 35mm. Unless this is clear at the outset each will think the other two to be barking mad in their observations. And some photographers _are_ just plain barking mad. TTBOMK, there is no accepted resolution, grain and speed testing method for developers. Any description of a developer's characteristics is almost entirely subjective. If you ask around enough you will find someone who thinks D-23 is best served with a mild soft cheese and another who will opine it goes well with stilton. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >>> but many reported that a divided d-23 is sharp. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > at the outset each will think the other two to be > barking mad in their observations. I did my tests with 4147 (4x5) Plus-X and 4164 (4x5) Tri-X. While I got about a 1-stop speed increase, I did not like the low-contrast toe I got, so I gave it up. When I tested the 4x5 size of TMax-100 and TMax-400 when they first came out, the grain was so mushy I decided not to use it anymore. I used TMax-RS developer on it for a while and it was good. I later switched to Xtol and liked it better, not for grain, but for curve shape. > And some photographers _are_ just plain barking mad. I sometimes feel this is so. Much of the trouble is that people and editors of popular photography magazines repeat what they hear without accurate testing. And much of what people hear is just plain wrong. These things are not refereed by technical experts as they are when publishing in professional journals. > TTBOMK, there is no accepted resolution, grain and > speed testing method for developers. Any description > of a developer's characteristics is almost entirely > subjective. As reported on the Internet and in the popular press, perhaps. I would think a fairly good method would be to develop according to a standard procedure, such as the one used for testing ASA ratings, and then measuring granularity or acutance with a microdensitometer. Dr. Henry did something like this. Of course, I cannot afford a microdensitometer, so I assume they are not in widespread use except in research labs. And who knows how much work gets done in research labs for photographic (wet process) purposes anymore? But considering Tmax films in 4x5 size, you do not even need a microdensitometer to compare D-23 in two-bath development vs. HC-110, D-76, TMax-RS, or Xtol. I can see it with my 9x Edmund's magnifier, or on the baseboard of my enlarger when set to make an 11x14 print. > If you ask around enough you will find someone who thinks > D-23 is best served with a mild soft cheese and another > who will opine it goes well with stilton. I prefer Morbier, myself. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 09:15:01 up 91 days, 11:49, 4 users, load average: 4.18, 4.17, 4.18 Steven Woody Wrote: > i like to heard any of your opinions about the D-23 as film developer. > Adams seemed like it mentioned in his book Negative. but, peopl [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > - > woody D-23 is probably the simplest of all developers to mix from ra components and is effective, it also is used as a fore-bath in man two-bath developers with 5-10 grams of Metol and 75-100 grams o Sulfite per liter being typical. For the after-bath, a 1-2% solution o either Borax, Sodium Metaborate or Sodium Carbonate is often used. I all depends if you like the tonality ( I don`t). I feel that there are many developers that provide a much bette balance of speed, grain, gradation and sharpness over D-23 althoug that doesn`t make it a bad developer -- Keith Tapscott. > Steven Woody Wrote: > > i like to heard any of your opinions about the D-23 as film developer. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > either Borax, Sodium Metaborate or Sodium Carbonate is often used. It > all depends if you like the tonality ( I don`t). For any and all formats? > I feel that there are many developers that provide a much better > balance of speed, grain, gradation and sharpness over D-23 although > that doesn`t make it a bad developer. For any and all formats? As stated within this thread, results appear to be dictated by format size, I find the D23 to be rather similar to PMK without some of the downsides, its more predictable,.....but can be flat if printed without adding subsequent contrast.... it also seems much more granular when using smaller formats than say 4x5. & this may vary depending on film choice. SignatureGeorge W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had. > i like to heard any of your opinions about the D-23 as film developer. > Adams seemed like it mentioned in his book Negative. but, people said, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > - > woody I've had good luck with D-23, but for most things, I'll stick with D-76. D-23 has something of a different look. Overall, it's pretty soft, but there are some distinctive local contrast effects, which may depend on the film. The results are pretty well always easy to print, and D-23 can be used with just about any film. While not actually as sharp as some of the acutance developers, D-23 gives sharp appearing negatives (in part, no doubt, to those local contrast effects). It isn't known for it's ability to push film, but D-76 used to be used a lot for pushing. D-76 is closely related to D-23, and the lower contrast of D-23 might make it attractive for pushing some films so long as local contrast does not do strange things. The only way to really find out is to do some experiments. A disadvantage would be the long development times needed. > > i like to heard any of your opinions about the D-23 as film developer. > > Adams seemed like it mentioned in his book Negative. but, people said, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > to do some experiments. A disadvantage would be the long development > times needed. I've been using it with Tmax 100 which I typically don't shoot. The negatives are a touch thinner than I normally like, but they scan well. Good contrast at 11 minutes 21C in the Jobo. SignatureGeorge W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.