Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,222   Posts: 1,532,377   Online: 1110
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,608

    D23 with a little less Metol

    I guess I'll have to try it and see for myself, but I'm wondering if anyone has tried D-23 with say 5g Metol instead of 7.5g.

    It is sometimes used with 5g as the A bath in a divided setup. But I'm more interested in a strange reference to Henn's Microdol research in Anchell/Troop - apparently while working on Microdol it was found 5g Metol in D-23 produced the same results as 7.5g. I'm not sure why this would be the case. Presumably there would be a difference in contrast for given developing time. Perhaps with less Metol there might be a slight increase in sharpness, particularly when diluted. Or maybe not. Maybe the extra 2.5g is superfluous.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,054
    Anchell or Anchell/Troop say somewhere in their books that less metol does work. It may work for a single solution like D-23, but I found that i needed the extra metol of the two-bath.

  3. #3
    Jim Noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,828
    Blog Entries
    1
    Most people use the time/temperature method of development rather than total development.

    Using less metol, the only developing agent in D-23, for the same amount of time will cause less development in the highlights. If you use D-23 to develop to completion, as I often do, it will take longer.

    In the given example it is the same as if the developer is diluted 1 + 1 1/3 approximately.
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Films NOT Dead - Just getting fixed![/FONT]

  4. #4
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,981
    The metol is actually slightly acidic in solution so, using less may have the effect of raising the pH of the solution and thus, DECREASE development times and increase contrast.

    I have used 5 grams of metol with about 80 grams of sodium sulfite and called it "D-23" for years. It works fine and, indeed, gives slightly more contrast.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,044
    There seem to be a number of variations on the D-23 theme that work well, as long as you calibrate your picture taking and development procedures for them. Within limits, the metol concentration more or less controls activity and the sulfite concentration the grain (and, to some extent, activity). D-23 is often diluted 1 + 3 to get better acutance, but the Windisch metol-sulfite formula (2.5 g metol, 25 g sulfite, 1 l water) may be even better in this regard.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,608
    Indeed, I've always liked D-23 1+3 with sheet film. Actually, D-76 1+3 also.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    There are indeed other formulas that contain less metol. Some increase the pH with a bit of borax to account for the loss in activity.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  8. #8
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,230
    Images
    148
    Look at Kodak's original Fine Grain developer, less Metol and Borax as Gerald suggests.

    Ian

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,608
    It's interesting that Kodak did not evolve these formulas into what would have essentially been D76H by simply increasing the Borax, but instead Capstaff went with Hydroquinone.

  10. #10
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,230
    Images
    148
    Kodak did evolve D76 to D76h which contains metol & Hydroquinone with additional buffering but it's not the same as H76 (D76H which is NOT a Kodak formula) and is basically the original Eastman Kodak Research Fine Gran Developer 1927.

    Ian

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin