D23 with Phenidone?

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Anscojohn, Feb 2, 2008.

  1. Anscojohn

    Anscojohn Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,727
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Hello All,
    My favorite film developer is Eastman D23 replenished with DK25R. Would I gain anything by substituting Phenidone for the Metol? I understand it can be done at about a 1:10 ratio.

    John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA
     
  2. gainer

    gainer Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,726
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    My best luck was with a phenidone-hydroquinone-sulfite mixture. Phenidone is great in the shadows, but hard as heck to get much contrast out of. It has an advantage over most othe agents in that it is not much affected by bromide, so you don't really need a replenisher. I used it until it got to looking so bad my conscience hurt, but never wore it out. I used 0.65 grams phenidone, a bunch of hydroquinone, mixed in a 10% sulfite solution. The bunch was 8 or more grams. It seems that, like the Metol-hydroquinone combination, the activity of the developer does not change perceptibly after the ratio of hydroquinone to phenidone exceeds about 10:1. The hydroquinone, in the presence of sulfite, replenishes the phenidone much better than sulfite alone, or at least that was my interpretation of some data I found in a book in the NASA library some time in the 60's. It seemed to work. If you want to give it a Q&D trial, 1/4 tsp phenidone, 4 or 5 tsp hydroquinone and 4 tbs sodium sulfite in a liter of water will develop film in about the same time as D-23. The phenidone will dissolve in water easier if you mix it with a little alcohol or glycerine first. Dry, it's about like talcum powder. It just floats there. Maybe even a few drops of liquid dish washing detergent would work as well.

    The next step would be phenidone-ascorbate-sulfite, or even phenidone-ascorbate-borax. See the side article on experiments with metol-ascorbic acid-borax. It includes phenidone as well.
     
  3. Anscojohn

    Anscojohn Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,727
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Many thanks, Gadget Gainer. I guess, considering your suggestions, I'll just stick with D23. I really do like to keep things very simple and unless you think there are some real advantages to using phenidone, I guess I'll just keep what has worked for so long for me. BTW, I do not suffer from metol poisoning, so that is not an issue.

    John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA
     
  4. el wacho

    el wacho Member

    Messages:
    445
    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Location:
    central anat
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    ... you would probably gain a stop in speed ( from the lost stop with d-23 that is ...)
     
  5. gainer

    gainer Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,726
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    It's your choice, of course, but I did use D-23 a lot before I tried this mix. IMO, replenishment is more complicated. Many old timers added a certain amount of used developer to each new batch. Some used replenishment, and I tried it for a while with D-76, but not with D-23. I do think you ought to try a batch just to convince yourself it's not worth the trouble. I just mixed a batch using 1 tbs ascorbic acid and 1/2 tbs baking soda in place of the hydroquinone. That's about 12 grams of sodium ascorbate after the fizzing subsides. I'll let you know how it works.

    You need not tell me if you agree or disagree. What knowledge I put forth has to be tested in any case. It's cheap enough, and you can always use the baking soda and ascorbic acid around the house.
     
  6. Murray Kelly

    Murray Kelly Member

    Messages:
    447
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Location:
    Brisbane, QL
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    In a previous thread on diluted D-23 by ?jancqu? which we kinda hi-jacked, the Phenidine/C/Borax as a replacement for D-23 is so easy and works so well it is now my base developer. Easy, cheap, effective.

    Murray
    Brisbane, Oz
     
  7. Lowell Huff

    Lowell Huff Inactive

    Messages:
    170
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    35mm
    If you guys are going to try to "update" formulas to the technology of the mid twentieth century, why not go all the way and use modern formula chemistry? You might be pleasantly surprised how well they work with modern emulasions!
     
  8. eclarke

    eclarke Member

    Messages:
    1,972
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Location:
    New Berlin,
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    Hi,
    Just curious, what do you like about replenishing as opposed to just using fresh D-23??..Evan Clarke
     
  9. Murray Kelly

    Murray Kelly Member

    Messages:
    447
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Location:
    Brisbane, QL
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Uh? We are talking modern film and environmentally acceptible brews here?
    We are afterall in the 21st centuary. Well, I am! :smile:

    Modern emusions admittedly need special handling compared to old timer stuff, but as a challenge, what would you profer as a '21st' century advancemant to say, Rodinal or HC-110? That leaves you wide field of opportunity. Sieze it if you can.
    Surely in 100 years since Rodinal you can come up with something that leaves everything else dead in the water?
    Murray
     
  10. Lowell Huff

    Lowell Huff Inactive

    Messages:
    170
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    35mm
    D 23 falls between Rodinal and HC 110, chronologically. When i describe "modern formulas"; they are much more sophisticated in structure than just exchanging phenidone for metol. There are antifogs, restrainers, accelorators, water treatments and antioxidents to mention a few additions. These are part and parcel of modern developer/ replenishers that do not require starter or split packaging. These items allow us to maximize the capabilities of the various films and their spectral responses. My point is if you don't try to expand your experience you will never know how much better you can be. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, that work has been done. There is a reason that Kodak is trying to get away from the powders and it is not just because they are not profitable to make but they really are not as good as the modern formulas and how they enhance the films. I learned long ago, better negatives give better prints. So much for my rant.