D23 Developer

Barney

Barney

Messages
3,043
Name
Wayne
Edit My Images
No
MY home made developer has gone a bit green, I have only used it with Fomapan 100 and its about time to add the replenisher.

I wont bother if its buggered and will make a fresh batch.

What do you think?
 
Some Fomapan films are well known for turning developers green. Braver folk than me have re-used them successfully, but I have always used one shot devs for Fomapan since my first experience.
20190930_165647_resized-tp.jpg
 
Last edited:
Peter B said:
Some Fomapan films are well known for turning developers green. Braver folk than me have re-used them successfully, but I have always used one shot devs for Fomapan since my first experience.
View attachment 477856
Click to expand...

Wow!

Mines not that bad but its getting there after three rolls
 
Barney said:
MY home made developer has gone a bit green, I have only used it with Fomapan 100 and its about time to add the replenisher.

I wont bother if its buggered and will make a fresh batch.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
See if you can find the Watkins factor and test the developer with a scrap of film.
 
I'm about 10 rolls in to a batch of D23, replenished since the fourth roll. I haven't got green developer (no Fomapan has been through it) but I do find that the colour changes over time. When I first pour it back in the colour it may be less than purely clear but it becomes clearer within a few hours. After 9 rolls I noticed it was going grey and I decided to decant it to another bottle, passing through a coffee filter paper in a funnel. The filter paper turned grey and the developer was more clear.

I've just been developing Adox HR50 in HC110 and that turns the developer red, but HC110 is one-shot so the question of whether to reuse it doesn't apply.

It may be worth pre-soaking the Fomapan before development, so that the green anti-halation layer comes off when you drain out the pre-soak water, leaving the developer less affected. However I don't have any Fomapan at home now to test this out.

When I first started with the replenishment routine for D23, I was so used to throwing developer out after one shot, I kept throwing it out when I meant to put it back in the bottle, so it took a while before I got properly into the replenishment cycle.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
See if you can find the Watkins factor and test the developer with a scrap of film.
Click to expand...
I found a reference to the Watkins factor and it gave an overview, the section redirected me to another chapter and I fell asleep before getting to the relevant part. Will give it another try tonight.
 
Kevin Allan said:
I'm about 10 rolls in to a batch of D23, replenished since the fourth roll. I haven't got green developer (no Fomapan has been through it) but I do find that the colour changes over time. When I first pour it back into the colour it may be less than purely clear but it becomes clearer within a few hours. After 9 rolls I noticed it was going grey and I decided to decant it to another bottle, passing through a coffee filter paper in a funnel. The filter paper turned grey and the developer was more clear.

I've just been developing Adox HR50 in HC110 and that turns the developer red, but HC110 is one-shot so the question of whether to reuse it doesn't apply.

It may be worth pre-soaking the Fomapan before development, so that the green anti-halation layer comes off when you drain out the pre-soak water, leaving the developer less affected. However I don't have any Fomapan at home now to test this out.

When I first started with the replenishment routine for D23, I was so used to throwing developer out after one shot, I kept throwing it out when I meant to put it back in the bottle, so it took a while before I got properly into the replenishment cycle.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the tip Kevin, will try that pre soak idea!

I must say you are getting excellent results with D23r, you must be very happy.
 
Peter B said:
That was a few years ago, more recent Foma films have been much better.
Click to expand...
Phew! I would be quite concerned about re-using that, I am already!
 
Barney said:
I found a reference to the Watkins factor and it gave an overview, the section redirected me to another chapter and I fell asleep before getting to the relevant part. Will give it another try tonight.
Click to expand...
What (and who) on earth is making it so complicated that the full explanation can't
a) be explained in one place and
b) needs more than two sentences at most?

My long winded explanation is

If the image first appears after x seconds, then development is complete after x seconds multiplied by the Watkins factor.

I'd need great creativity to make it longer...
 
I'll add - with a touch of bitterness/anger - that to explain something clearly, you have to understand it with at least equal clarity.

Quantum mechanics is regarded as an arcane and highly mathematical subject. The least mathematical book I've come across on the subject (and I mean university text book, not popular science) was written by a professor of mathematics. As the Americans say, go figure.
 
StephenM said:
What (and who) on earth is making it so complicated that the full explanation can't
a) be explained in one place and
b) needs more than two sentences at most?

My long winded explanation is

If the image first appears after x seconds, then development is complete after x seconds multiplied by the Watkins factor.

I'd need great creativity to make it longer...
Click to expand...
Thank you Stephen,

That is exactly what the summary said, its almost as if you could have written it.

But as you have, it failed to give a number for the multiplication factor.
 
Last edited:
Barney said:
But as you have, it failed to give a number for the multiplication factor.
Click to expand...

I find this ambiguous. Do you mean I gave a factor and the other didn't, or we both failed to supply a number? The Watkins factor depends on the developer; as a concrete example, a 1960s test report on Acuprint gave the factor for that developer as 6.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
I find this ambiguous. Do you mean I gave a factor and the other didn't, or we both failed to sipply a number? The Watkins factor depends on the developer; as a concrete example, a 1960s test report on Acuprint gave the factor for that developer as 6.
Click to expand...
The latter, I was under the impression that it is a constant.
I will try to stay awake long enough to finish the referenced section tonight.
 
No, it depends on the developer. You can determine it yourself when you have fresh developer, otherwise it's see if anyone has done it.

It was much used (in some quarters) in the darkroom to see if developer was becoming exhausted. I ended my darkroom days using a Nova processor where developer was drained off and replenisher added.
 
Last edited:
So did I. Treat it the same way most people treat me and just ignore it.
 
Just choose the right employer.

I can say that now, after nearly 40 years...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top