Why don't you use 2-bath developers?

[donald_maldonado]

It seems, that because of their simplicity of use, they would be more

highly used, especially when using roll film where images are of

varying contrasts and subjects. Yet, the 2-bath developer is often

disregarded on this and other B&W forums.

[scott_eaton]

Because more modern films like Tmax and Across, and to a lesser extent the reformulations of Tri-X and Plus-X don't respond to water bath reduction like classic B/W films do.

 

I aso hate to state the obvious, but any situation that requires a water bath or Pyro type development can usually be equally served by using a chromogenic film like XP-2.

[don_sigl]

Sorry Scott;

 

Substituting xp-2 for pyro development is not the same, or obvious. Frankly, there is no substitute for pyro development. There really is no comparison between the two. I find your statement bordering on the outrageous. We obviously have a considerable difference of opinion in understanding terms associated with negative quality and archival permanence. I really don't know how you can say a c-41 process falls in the same category.

[nacio_jan_brown3]

There seems to be a confusion here between 2-bath developers and water-bath development. These are not the same thing. In response to the original question, I can't think of a reason that 2-bath developers don't get more press. Diafine is great with many films. The main drawback, which can be largely overcome in printing, is that it isn't possible to jack up the contrast of a negative by much. njb

[Troll]

My only problem with Diafine is the inability to buy it. B&H has it, but won't ship it due to "hazardous materials" regulations. I'll be darned if I'm going to order a couple of boxes for $15, and pay another $15 for shipping if I order from Calumet or many smaller dealers. Get it at my local dealers -- HA (they don't even stock Dektol)!

[john_fleetwood]

Bill, I asked my local camera store to order some Diafine for me, and they bought a case. Tell them you'll take the whole case if they balk. We still have a few customer-service camera stores here in NOLA (very few).

[henry_a]

I think 2 bath developers don't get that much publicity for a couple of reasons. One is that other than Diafine you have to mix your own and to many that seems a strange idea. The other is a reduced ability to control deveolpment, you kinda get what you get and thats it. Which can be a good thing! I like Divided D23 and D76 and use then both from time to time.

[joe_lipka3]

I have been using divided D-23 with TMAX 400 (4x5 and 5x7 sheet film) for over ten years. Primarily used it for platinum printing, but it also will give a usable negative for silver prints. Lots of time and temp details (plus variations in formulae) in an article Ed Buffaloe and I wrote for his web site, www.unblinkingeye.com

 

If you do a search on divided D-23, I bet you will find more than a few hits. Also check the Large Format and Alternative Process forums.

[john_hicks___]

I've found that some two-bath developers don't offer anything significantly different than a standard developer such as D-76.

 

Actually there are a couple of two-bath types. With the common "split" D-23 or D-76 they're not really classic two-bath in that part A is really a complete developer in itself, and the idea is to develop less than normal in part A, then use part B to boost shadow density to "normal" without increasing highlight density. While this "works," I've found that essentially the same curve shapes can be obtained using a standard developer, therefore there's really no advantage in using the "split" version. Also, since part A is a complete developer time/temperature compensation is still required.

 

The other type of two-bath developer is that in which part A isn't a complete developer or the pH is so low that no development occurs; I think Diafine may be of this type. It's been almost 30 years since I tried it so have no opinion on it.

[ryuji_suzuki]

I think two bath doesn't allow me a full range of control like one bath, and I haven't spent much time in it. However, if you like the simplicity of processing procedure but discouraged by some trouble associated with mixing your own two bath solution, there is something that can be done by a bit of chemistry and reverse engineering.

 

Here's a quick and clean two bath formula. You don't need a balance, you don't need to call your chemical supply company.

You'll need: one package of Kodak Microdol-X (a quart or liter), Ilford ID-11 (one liter package) and a box of 20 Mule Team Borax from your local quality supermarket (those environmentally and globally concious ones usually have it).

 

Bath 1: Microdol-X and Ilford ID-11 package A dissolved together

in specified amount of water (1 liter).

 

Bath 2: Ilford ID-11 package B only in double the specified amount of water (2 liters). In that, dissolve a table spoonful of borax per liter (so two spoonfuls in 2 liters). Not too critical, but you can increase borax if more contrast is desired.

 

If you try it and like the result you can mix the same thing later, either in the same way or from bulk chemical. If you can get sodium sulfite, you can make bath 2 by mixing two big tbsp of sodium sulfite and one tbsp of borax.

 

If this doesn't work for you, please don't call Kodak or Ilford. Do this at your own risk. Shoot one test roll with the same image entirely, cut and load a 4 to 5 inche long strip into your reel and test process it. Repeat it with varying amount of borax in bath 2 and/or varying processing time in each bath, until you get desirable result. Well, you should read Anchell and Troop and other books (like Vestal) for details anyway.

 

Ok, here's the thing. Microdol-X is basically 5g metol, 30g sodium chloride, 100g sodium sulfite in a liter of water. The packaged one uses a sequestering agent and boric anhydride to get minerals into the solution without affecting the solution pH. It's a very slow working developer, and can be considered as a D-23 with extra silver halide solvent. Addition of ID-11 part A adds 2g more metol and 5g hydroquinone. You don't have to add it if you don't want. The bath 2 consists of part B of ID-11 dissolved in double the amount of water. It would make 50g/l sodium sulfite, 1g/l borax, but you should have 10g/l or more borax in it to get enough contrast. This way, small quantities of developing agents are already measured out for you, and the main control parameter in terms of chemical composition, borax, is not too sensitive to quantity error. Only the thing is you'll have to pay some extra bucks.

[xav]

I do use Tetenal Emofin essentially for night and scene photography and I'm very happy with the results I get with Fuji Neopan 1600 and 400.

 

But as said by somebody else, you don't have much control with a 2 bath dev., which is the reason why I keep using a mono-bath developer when I want more control.

[adrian_pateman3]

Barry Thornton mentions an even quicker two bath formula on his website at http://www.qa63.dial.pipex.com/main.htm

You use your standard developer for half to two thirds of it's usual time to develop up the highlights then use an alkaline post bath, consisting of two teaspoons of sodium metaborate in a litre of water for 3 minutes, to build up the shadows.

 

I've only put a couple of test films through this so don't have chapter and verse on it but it does seem to provide the automatic control of highlight density that seems to be the 'holy grail' of two bath development. I'm using it with (my last bottle of) Phototec Unitol and Pan F Plus. I think it has some promise with certain subjects e.g landscapes and is certainly worth a try.

 

Adrian Pateman

[vartan_grigorian]

Because variable contrast paper, compensating developers, and C41 process b/w films have rendered it unecessary as a tecnique. Why make things more difficult or complicated?

[john_fleetwood]

Diafine is easy to use - no time or temperature calculations required.

[scott walton]

2 Bath developers have been around for a real long time and to this day are excellent. This fact and the "new" developers that abound are usually the reason why people don't use "..the antiquated ones because the new ones should be better..." which unless you try the different developers and experiment your losing out on some great stuff. Divided D23, Divided D76 and Diafine are excellent in their own right and should be at least tried but I know what I like and what I use and it really boils down to what a person is happy with. Divided D76 is an ultra fine grain developer whereas Difine is a high acutance developer and all are compensating so there are really no worries of over development. They all are superb with normal to high contrast situations! As for why a person wouldn't use them is beyond me! Just my opinion...