Onion Still Life

That's really nice. I love the tonal range D-23 renders in these kinds of lighting situations. I sometimes use it 1:1 for long duration/low agitation Semistand and the results are just beautiful. I'd use it almost exclusively except that Pyrocat-HD gives better grain behavior which is noticeable in smaller formats, especially.

Well seen and executed indeed.
 
@thronobulax I haven't tried it 1:1 yet, this batch was mixed 12 months ago and I've just been replenishing it.

I was thinking of cutting the chemicals by 50% and just mixing up 500ml to experiment with. Any tips on using it 1:1?
 
Ian-Barber said:
@thronobulax I haven't tried it 1:1 yet, this batch was mixed 12 months ago and I've just been replenishing it.

I was thinking of cutting the chemicals by 50% and just mixing up 500ml to experiment with. Any tips on using it 1:1?
Click to expand...


Well, everyone's development discipline is different so you have to take what I say with a tonne of salt, but .... My primary use of D-23 1:1 is for extended/low agitation development when I need more highlight compensation than even dilute Pyrocat-HD offers. Or at least that's it in theory, anyway. So, when I get a scene on a larger format film (where grain isn't much of an issue) where I have 12 or 14 stops of Subject Brightness Range, D-23 1:1 is front of mind.

In such cases, I prewet the film for 3 minutes, and agitate it "vigorously" for 2 minutes in developer. Then, I leave it alone an agitate for 15 sec at 31 min, and - again - let it rest until 60min have elapsed at which time I pull the film out of developer. This gives me full box speed and well-controlled highlights. This is all at a nominal 68F.

But I repeat - this is my workflow and may not be suited to your style of shooting.

As and aside, I mix D-23 1:1 and store it in a brown 2l brewer's glass "growler" with a sealing Polycone style cap. I reuse it over and over. I don't worry much about developer age, but moreso about how many square inches of film has been through it. When it's time to update the current batch, I am going to try something that the Elders Of Photographic Yore apparently did - I am only going to renew 1/2 of the liquid. The claim - unproven by me - is that leaving some of the old developer and thus its byproducts in the mix, improves negatives in some magick way. Since no one can describe how, I want to try it out. It was described to me by someone whose father taught them photography and who NEVER fully replaced their D-23 over many years...
 
Ian-Barber said:
So you don't add 17ml of replenisher then, you simply pour it back into the bottle
Click to expand...

Correct. I just pour it back into the bottle with the idea that - at some point to be determined - I'll just replace half of it with fresh 1:1.
 
I know mine appears to be still going strong after 12 months. Do you think it is the Sodium Sulphite (anhydrous) which is keeping it alive
 
Ian-Barber said:
I know mine appears to be still going strong after 12 months. Do you think it is the Sodium Sulphite (anhydrous) which is keeping it alive
Click to expand...

Well ... yes ... given that the only other thing in the developer is Metol ;) Sodium Sulphite is present because it protects against oxidation. Of course, it also increases alkalinity which promotes development speed.

Something of interest to note here. In it's role as a development agent, Sodium Sulphite acts as a silver solvent which means it's dissolving the surface of the developed silver grains. This keeps apparent grain lower but loses acutance. When you dilute a developer - like D-23 1:1 - you are reducing the amount of both Metol and Sodium Sulphite in solution. This reduces that solvent effect accordingly with the effect of increased acutance but at the expense of visible grain.

That's probably why many of these developer dilutions and esoteric development disciplines fell out of favor when smaller format films like 35mm took over analog photography. I hadn't used a highly dilute developer in years until I discovered Pyrocat-HD. It works - even when highly dilute - because the stain covers a multitude of grain-related sins.

A year or so back, I went back and revisited HC-110 at very high dilution - well beyond what Kodak ever recommeded - for purposes of semistand. It worked really well and pulled in a really big subect brightness range, but the grain was considerably more visible than Pyrocat-HD.

Like all things in techology, we work in a world of tradeoffs. That's why I like having multiple arrows in my photographic quiver ...

P.S. As an example, here's an image shot on 35mm but developed for extended time in highly diluted Pyrocat-HD. Note that the accutance is high but the grain is fairly reasonable, especially from a negative that small. Scan of 8x10 silver print:

 
Last edited:
thronobulax said:
That's probably why many of these developer dilutions and esoteric development disciplines fell out of favor when smaller format films like 35mm took over analog photography.
Click to expand...

This is interesting to me because I now seem to use more 35mm than I do 5x4 so I need to keep an eye on how the grain is increased on these smaller formats.

I do have another question which you may be able to answer...

12 months ago I mixed up 1L of D23 and used it solely as stock and topped it up with the DK-25R replenisher at a rate of 17ml per so many films.

Question:
Is my 1L still classed as stock meaning, could I pour 250ml into a new bottle and add 250ml of water and class that as 1:1
 
Ian-Barber said:
This is interesting to me because I now seem to use more 35mm than I do 5x4 so I need to keep an eye on how the grain is increased on these smaller formats.

I do have another question which you may be able to answer...

12 months ago I mixed up 1L of D23 and used it solely as stock and topped it up with the DK-25R replenisher at a rate of 17ml per so many films.

Question:
Is my 1L still classed as stock meaning, could I pour 250ml into a new bottle and add 250ml of water and class that as 1:1
Click to expand...

I actually don't know, though it should be pretty close. But the components of D-23 are relatively inexpensive. Why not make a fresh litre and add another 1 litre of distilled water (or 500ml and 500ml) and avoid the question altogether?
 
Ian-Barber said:
This is interesting to me because I now seem to use more 35mm than I do 5x4 so I need to keep an eye on how the grain is increased on these smaller formats.
Click to expand...

Ian, have you tried Perceptol? 35mm Fp4 in Perceptol diluted 1+3 is absolutely exquisite. No grain, very sharp, and mid-tones expanded and very bright, resulting in beautiful tonality. No need for any semi-stand malarky. Just one inversion every 30 seconds. Development time is quite long so I go to 24 degrees C. 12.5 minutes for film exposed in sunshine.
35mm Hp5 is also wonderful in Perceptol. I use a dilution of 1+2. Great sharpness and very fine grain.

I have never found anything to better this. Pyrocat HD 1+1+100 comes close, but is not as readily available as Perceptol.
 
Alan Clark said:
Ian, have you tried Perceptol? 35mm Fp4 in Perceptol diluted 1+3 is absolutely exquisite. No grain, very sharp, and mid-tones expanded and very bright, resulting in beautiful tonality. No need for any semi-stand malarky. Just one inversion every 30 seconds. Development time is quite long so I go to 24 degrees C. 12.5 minutes for film exposed in sunshine.
35mm Hp5 is also wonderful in Perceptol. I use a dilution of 1+2. Great sharpness and very fine grain.

I have never found anything to better this. Pyrocat HD 1+1+100 comes close, but is not as readily available as Perceptol.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, Perceptol is Ilford's reimplementation of the old Kodak Microdol-X. Microdol-X was more-or-less D-23 with salt and some antifogging agents added to it according to my readings. Dilutions of 1:3 were common. The thing about Microdol-X - much like D-23 - was that you either got low grain a full strength or you got high acutance when diluted but with more grain. At 5x4, I don't think that's a huge issue.

Use what works for you.
 
Last edited:
Just a followup here on old D-23. I have 2 litres of 1:1 D-23 mixed over a year ago and stored in a brown glass bottle in a dark area.

That bottle isn't full, and does have some air at the top. It's been used to develop the equivalent of 24 sheets of 5x4 film.

Today, I semistand developed a 120 roll of Neopan 100 and it worked just fine.

It is likely now time to try the experiment of replacing only half of the solution with new developer.
 
Ian-Barber said:
Have you done much semi-stand with 35mm with it, I am curious as to whether you suffered any un-even development
Click to expand...

Not with D-23 but with Pyrocat-HD I have. The trick seems to be to use an oversize tank that has plenty of room for the reel, and to raise the reel off the bottom while standing. I use a rubber stopper inserted in the reel center opening to raise it about 1/2 inch
off the tank bottom.

For example, the "Teed Off" link I provided above was Agfapan APX 100 Semistand processed in Pytrocat-HD 1.5:1:200 for 60 min with an initial 2 min agitation and a single 10-15 sec agitation at 31 min.
 
Last edited:
Ian-Barber said:
@thronobulax do you mean something like this

View attachment 3974
View attachment 3975
Click to expand...

Yes, something like this. However, I'd experiment some with unimportant images if you're going to use plastic reels of the sort depicted in your examples here. These reels provide a relatively large support area along the edges of the film and have channels along which developer can get trapped. This can make it difficult for the developer byproducts to "drain" toward the bottom of the tank as the film stands. My consistent experimental results have been that the more support structure in contact with the film, the more likely you are to see streaking and bromide drag.


For this reason, when doing 35mm or rollfilm (120 or 220 - I've done both), I use only the older stainless steel Nikor reels that have much less film-to-reel contact surface and no channels in which developer can get trapped. That, combined with putting these reels in a large open 2 litre tank full of developer has pretty much eliminated streaking or bromide issues for me.

1684683608678.png


I hasten to add that I've not tried your style of reel myself with 35mm, though I have tried it with sheet film in a similar reel type and I had streaking issues. It could possibly work, though, so experimentation is your friend here.

If I had to summarize my now multi-year findings on getting streak free negatives using low agitation, they would be:
  • Minimize contact between the film at its support structure
  • Raise the film above tank bottom so that it is not in contact with development byproducts as they settle
  • Prewet for several minutes
  • Agitate actively and continuously for the first 2 minutes
  • Do at least one (semistand) or more (EMA) agitation over the duration of the stand. Doing no agitation at all after the initial 2 minutes (true "stand") is still somewhat prone to streaking and serves no purpose.
 
Last edited:
I decided to do a test with 35mm mainly out of curiosity.

I poured 250ml of my 12-month-old D23 into a new bottle and added 250ml of water.
I wasn't testing for compensation at this stage, I was interested to ascertain if I got any un-even development or streaking.

Although I never measured the SBR, the image of the shells shows a hard-edged shadow so you can see the light was harsh

The film tested was FomaPan200 35mm rated at ISO 125

Followed your times @thronobulax as a starter which was
  • 3 min pre-soak
  • 2 min continuous strong agitation
  • Let it sit for 30 minutes
  • 15 seconds of normal agitation
  • Let it stick for another 30 minutes
The negatives show no signs of uneven development and no streaking. The sprocket holes and film edges are very clean.

D23-Semi-Stand-2.jpg

D23-Semi-Stand-1.jpg
 
Ian-Barber said:
I decided to do a test with 35mm mainly out of curiosity.

I poured 250ml of my 12-month-old D23 into a new bottle and added 250ml of water.
I wasn't testing for compensation at this stage, I was interested to ascertain if I got any un-even development or streaking.

Although I never measured the SBR, the image of the shells shows a hard-edged shadow so you can see the light was harsh

The film tested was FomaPan200 35mm rated at ISO 125.

Followed your times @thronobulax as a starter which was
  • 3 min pre-soak
  • 2 min continuous strong agitation
  • Let it sit for 30 minutes
  • 15 seconds of normal agitation
  • Let it stick for another 30 minutes
The negatives show no signs of uneven development and no streaking. The sprocket holes and film edges are very clean.

View attachment 3978

View attachment 3979
Click to expand...

Great start! You can see the enhanced acutance of the diluted D-23, particularly in the first image. Cannot tell if that is grain on the shell surface or the actual texure. If grain, Pyrocat-HD would reign that in noticeably.

Also, with that much standing time, you should be able to rate the film at full box ASA 200. At ASA 125 you are likely overexposing about 2/3 of a stop which can cause interesting and strange artefacts. Stand/EMA tend to be more demanding of proper exposure control that normal development methods, in my experience.

In general, if there is a high degree of texture in the subject midtones, I find that Seminstand and even moreso EMA will really exaggerate that, sometimes to the point of being objectionable. Then again, it can also be used to considerable aesthetic effect. For example, here's something in that vein:

 
May I interject?
I've just looked at the vines image. Interesting subject, well spotted. However, as an example of exposure and development practice, it seems to fail.
All that follows is subject to the proviso (which we have to keep constantly in mind when viewing on-screen images) that this is on my screen. (a 27" iMac)
1: The shadows are a featureless black. This suggests underexposure. Perhaps the system of development is not giving full box speed after all? I have turned my screen brightness up to its full and uncomfortable limit and can see nothing in there.
2: It's hard to tell from a reduced-resolution image on a screen, but I don't see any enhanced texture here. The bricks look like bricks look in real life. I have not seen the subject, so they may have exhibited much lower contrast. In the photographic armoury, would a filter have worked better?
3: Something funny is going on along the lower edge. Is it over-exposure, a light leak, or uneven development? My own insticct would be to burn it in.
May I repeat that this is all based on what I can see on my screen. I may have been deceived by it.

The original onion image seems to exhibit much more satisfactory tonality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top