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: 1,532,437   Online: 1161
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37
  1. #11
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Anscojohn View Post
    Brad,

    DK25R.

    John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA
    yeah. Been there. Done that. When the the working solution gets really dingy looking, it makes me...well...not feel too good about putting my film in it. I wish I had a set of deep tanks -- like in the darkrooms aboard Navy Aircraft Carriers.

    But, I have to agree, it does work wonderfully.

    Even un-replenished, D-23 gives beautiful results. I like it "seasoned" but not dingy. When metallic silver starts to fall out of solution, I do a few more sheets of film and then make fresh.

  2. #12
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,401
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    155
    Brad, I've tweaked the Ansco 135 fomula to make a single 850ml batch that's already 2:1 dilution for one shot use. It uses 10G Sodium Sulfite and 10 G Sodium Carbonate. Very cheap. And if you're called away prematurely (as family men often are) it pours into an empty wine bottle and keeps for about 6 weeks with no air space. That's why I did it in the size I did. 135 is for slightly warm tones.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    D-23 works fine at 1:3. IIRC there is a different developer that is almost the exact same formula as D-23 1:3 [Winchel?].

    But at 1:3 it will be different then at stock. I'm all in favour of lower cost but considering the cost of film etc the first choice has to be the way things look. No?

    A better way to lower cost IMHO instead of changing formulas is to buy your chemicals in larger bags. Price per kg goes down quite a bit the more you buy.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SE London.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    585
    Images
    22
    Just how much does a litre of developer cost you, and how much film will it process?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by BradS View Post
    In prior experiments, I've reduced the Metol to 3g / liter
    and the sulfite to as little as 75 g/liter with good results
    but, I want it to be less expensive still.
    On a liter basis I use 1 and 10 grams metol and sulfite;
    half liter per 120 roll. My D-23 is an 8-80/liter on a full
    strength basis. I've not tested below 10 grams/liter
    working strength but think 5 or even less may do.

    A half liter of .3, .9, .9 grams metol, sulfite, and
    carbonate gave more than enough development.
    Those are the ingredient ratios for Ansco 120.

    If you're in a devil may care mood you might try
    a liter at .5, 5, metol, sulfite. Slow film and 20
    minutes. Doesn't take much. Don't need or
    want the solvent effect? Carbonate. Dan

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,132
    Quote Originally Posted by BradS View Post
    Why do so many B&W film developers contain so much sulfite? Is it because, historically, devs like D-76 (with 100g/Liter) were used in replenished deep tanks?
    It seems the high sulfite is needed to obtain the solvent action.G.W.Crawley, BJP Dec 16 1960,found the solvent action became detectable at about 45 g/L sulfite.
    In 1902 'The Metol Developer' had about 30 g/L sulfite in the working solution,see p0294 below, they do not seem to have recognised the solvent effect at that time. Perhaps Kodak discovered it.
    http://www.rodsmith.org.uk/photograp...ary/index.html

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,054
    Brad, check out cost of devs, a bit out date with prices, but perhaps it's all relative:http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/De...Cost/cost.html

    TryD-76H, or a variation. D-76 uses less metol than D-23, and when you cut out the H, it costs even less. You can cut the sulfite as low as you want.

    There's also the Beutler Formula, FX-1 and Windisch D-23, 1+3.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    (Frigid) Ottawa, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    52
    Check out this link, for a very interesting article on D-76, and its many variations: http://silvergrain.org/wiki/D-76.

    There is some good information about how developers like Ansco 17, particularly about the sulfite concentration.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    (Frigid) Ottawa, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    52
    That should have been, "...about how developers like Ansco 17 came to be developed..." Pun intended.

    Sheesh! And I'm the person who deplores sloppy grammar!!

  10. #20
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,043
    Images
    38
    One way to reduce the cost of Sodium sulfite is to buy it bulk from a chemical supply house. I use a lot of it for paper developer and for hypo clear and buy it in 60 pound bags for about a dollar a pound. Less than a third what it costs in a photo store. You might be able to get sodium carbonate the same way.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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