D-23 or D-76H.

[kevin_thompson3]

<p>Has anyone compared these two developers and what advantage (if any) does one have over the other?<br>

Has anyone uploaded any D-23 or D-76H processed images?<br>

Kevin.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>This is probably not a good example, but this print's negative was done in D-23, and then printed in a high contrast developer. There are individual tree leaves in there that were a hundred yards away from the camera position. I found, pretty much, if you can see it, it's a detail that will come out in D-23. http://www.photo.net/photo/7779828 I think the film was Pan F+.</p>

<p>I had a look at that D-76H recipe on APUG. My guess is that looks very weak; to the point that I wouldn't see about making it any weaker. Probably has a long development time. That's got the Metol amount for a superadditive recipe, but no other component to make it superadditive. This implies that's about 1/4 or 1/5 of what would normally be in there. Dilute it much further, and I imagine you would start to see an increase in development failures.</p>

<p>2.5 grams of Metol per liter, alone, is really going to be close to the bare bones minimum for getting anything done.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>By 1/4 or 1/5, I mean, what would be in there as a single component developer recipe.</p>

[kevin_thompson3]

<p>Thanks John, I thought D-76H looked odd compared to D-23. Does D-23 give nice sharp negatives like Ilford Perceptol when it is diluted?</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>With those fine-grain developers, you may want to compose the picture to take that development style into account from the beginning. It will be possible, maybe even common, to create a picture so busy that it's hard to tell what it is.</p>

<p>This photo would be one of my examples of that problem: http://www.photo.net/photo/7779829<br /> I like the detail, you can see cracks in that cliff face a good bit away, but the tonal pattern is so complex, people don't like it. I probably would have been better off simplifying, instead of showing more detail. It never occurred to me at the time because I was in a trend where I thought I wanted to convey detail.</p>

<p>It's one of those tools that's so powerful that when you succeed, you can fail.<br>

* * * * *<br>

I have never used Perceptol; but, if someone's got something that's sharper than D-23, I wouldn't know what it is. It's sharp enough to be detrimental.</p>

 

[jpo3136b]

<p>Keep in mind, now, that when I used those, I made a very detailed negative, and then printed it under a high-contrast scheme. So, there was a lot of tonal recording, followed by an aggressive printing.</p>

<p>More of a midrange process, with the initial recording set up to catch selective details; and a basic midrange process to preserve them; I think that general purpose approach will probably work out a lot better in most cases. I'm just crude and heavy handed with my materials. Nature of my beast, I guess. Someone will probably provide you a much better example by tonight, I'm sure.</p>

<p>For some reason, at the time, I was using D-23 when I was in a trend where I thought I wanted, "More detail, more detail, more detail." Well, I got more detail alright. I made pictures so detailed that I'm sure some people have no idea what the picture is. I liked those, but I built a communications failure into my photographs by being excessive with my application of techniques. Keep that in mind if you're in one of those "more detail" trends.</p>

<p>"More detail" sure sounded good when I read about it. You can see, though, what more detail can get you.</p>

[jim_appleyard]

<p>" Does D-23 give nice sharp negatives like Ilford Perceptol when it is diluted?"<br>

Yes. In theory, diluted D-23 should produce a sharper image than diluted Perceptol. Sulfite levels in each are about 30g/liter; 50g/liter is generally the cut-off point to when sulfite begins its fine-grain work. Plus Perceptol contains sodium chloride, salt, which ascts as a silver solvent. <br>

I say theory because I've never compared negs done in these devs side-by-side. And, IMHO, sharpness has more to do with lens quality, film flatness and how well you focus.</p>

[jim_appleyard]

<p>" Does D-23 give nice sharp negatives like Ilford Perceptol when it is diluted?"<br>

Yes. In theory, diluted D-23 should produce a sharper image than diluted Perceptol. Sulfite levels in each are about 30g/liter; 50g/liter is generally the cut-off point to when sulfite begins its fine-grain work. Plus Perceptol contains sodium chloride, salt, which ascts as a silver solvent. <br>

I say theory because I've never compared negs done in these devs side-by-side. I don't think yu'd see much of a difference, if any, between the two. And, IMHO, sharpness has more to do with lens quality, film flatness and how well you focus.</p>

[john_stockdale2]

<p>Although D76H has less metol than D23, it has a higher pH due to the borax. There are plenty of developers that can be used very dilute indeed as long as the pH is high enough.</p>

<p>I have read, but not tested, that D76H gives results indistinguishable from D76.</p>