On my 3rd replenishment of the original I tried after getting your book. I have also given bottles to 3 people in my camera club and they use nothing else. Used on FP4 and HP5 and very happy with it indeed. I wish you well.
The way you share your outstanding expertise on black and white developing here John is amazing. I just ordered your book and I am very much looking forward to it.
Fine presentation, John. When I returned to photography some years back, to create natural light "environmental" portraits on location, I had to streamline both equipment and processes. Though I center my work on 4x5, I use 645 as well, and 35. For a variety of considerations pecuniary, technical, and aesthetic, I chose HP5 (and old friend) and D-23 (new). The latter I use mostly 1:1 or, for N-minus, divided. It is a versatile developer, and my plans called for being able to handle any lighting, from overly flat to extra-long-range. It's easy to mix and use (I discovered that the high mixing temp is unnecessary and confirmed this with chemists) and has good keeping properties and consistency. Hard to beat, for my work.
Thank you for these detailed developer videos and comparisons. My first observation was the denser shadow areas in FX55 negs and that the D23 has more contrast. I know you made the print to your liking, but the FX55 print with a little added contrast would have been interesting to see. At the end of the video when comparing the leaf, I can clearly see the difference of the curve. I prefer the curve of D23 but love the FX55 crispiness. I think I could use both these developers, but I recently went back to Xtol/XT3 for HP5.
D23R for me please. Even with the questionable video quality of YT, the difference is clearly visible. Once you see it, it is hard to miss the glow. Thank you very much for this comparison!
Another wonderful examination of the subtle differences development can bring to the negative. I'm currently working through a batch of Delta 400 looking for good shadow detail while retaining highlights, it's a film I've used quite a bit over many years and when correct exposure and development occurs I am always pleased. HP5+ is another favourite emulsion.
John this is amazing, I'm a 99% d23 guy (occasionally some rodinal) but I've avoided using it with hp5 assuming it would be a bad combination (for no reason whatsoever) but I'm glad to see how well this combo works. D23 is just magic with my usual fp4 and panf. I'm actually taking some time away from film instead opting to use a Canon 5d classic because I just don't have the time or money for film at this stage of life. I know I will come back to film eventually as I just love the process but it sure is nice shooting digitally and being able to really work on my lighting and composition skills without the financial penalty for every shot! All the best to you as always ❤️
I’ve never used D23 but often use Perceptol. It seems to be D23 ++ in terms of composition. I wonder exactly what the difference might be in terms of results.
Great comparison John. I prefer the D23 tonality for my personal taste. I recently started processing HP5 in 510 Pyro and am very happy with the results. Thanks and best wishes from the Rhondda.
I really enjoyed that. I've used D23 (as well as many others!) but currently developing with Thornton's two bath variation. I have the ingredients to make up FX55 and will be getting to that soon. I will be looking out for those subtle effects.
Thank you John. Very timely for me. My first yer back to developing after a 50yr break was Finesse 400 in HC110 dilH. Last year was HP5 in BT2B. D23R and FX55 have been waiting in the wings for a chance. I’m going to have a go with D23R first before moving on to TGrain films
As soon as I saw the negatives in the video, I noticed that the negatives developed with D23R appeared more contrasty and the base layer was clearer than those developed with FX55. Somehow, the photos developed with FX55 looked flatter. I imagine that an exposure with maybe 600 ISO and a slightly extended exposure time would also create that glow and bite, like the images produced with D23R, although probably with more pronounced grain. But the significantly higher speed would be a clear advantage in many cases.
FX55 definitely gives better speed with HP5, FP4, and PanF and it is sharper. I use it more for all my work now. I agree with you that longer development time makes up the difference enough to be useful.
Funnily enough a comparison between these 2 developers was the thing that I was curious about and you have provided that very video. So very much appreciated. That extra bit of speed from FX55 may be just what is needed in certain cases but where it is not needed then D23 wins for me if only by a short head While replenished D23 is slightly below box speed of 400, can I ask if unreplenished D23 gets to box speed at stock and if not does either the 1+1 or 1+3 dilutions give 400 rather like Perceptol which at 1+3 seems reach a higher speed, albeit only 320 like replenished D23 ?
Hi, I have just bought your book, it is great and I am looking to start to use it in my new darkroom (shed). Could I ask you who are the suppliers you get your chemicals from? Many thanks, Simon
No problem, Larry, good question. For me pictorial tonality is full tonality from rich blacks to delicate whites without the compression of tones often seen with high acutance developers. Pushing films (underexposing), which I think I mentioned, also compresses the tonal range, especially in the low zones creating sooty shadows. I like a film to have full exposure and for the tonal range to be long and rich. This I call pictorial tonality.
That was interesting. I could take either one. BTW, why your FX55 ipart B n glycol uses more TEA to stoichiometric amount as per Gainer etc? Faster solubility of ascorbic acid or modifying pH slightly would be my guesses.
HP5 gives me an EI of 320 with D23R whilst FX55 gives me an EI of 500 (not the 400 that you said). Different developers give different speeds with all films. I cover how to test for your film speed with your chosen developer in my book and other videos.
Interesting, I haven’t tried either of these developers yet. I started with HP5+ in HC-110 which worked great, but I’ve now got some XTol that I’ve been using with Tri-X and I’m interested to see how HP5 looks in it. However, I also tried some Acros in the XTol and that gave my best results yet, with very little grain, so I’ll probably be buying more 100 speed film from now on to see if I can get similar results.
@alanreid208 good, no real development time adjustment then. The new version is about the same development time as the original FX55 with dry part 2. I use the original version (dry pt 2) but you should be fine around my timing.
On my 3rd replenishment of the original I tried after getting your book. I have also given bottles to 3 people in my camera club and they use nothing else. Used on FP4 and HP5 and very happy with it indeed. I wish you well.
Great tuition.
Great images.
The way you share your outstanding expertise on black and white developing here John is amazing. I just ordered your book and I am very much looking forward to it.
Thank you, Mikael, for your comment and for buying my book. You are supporting the channel!
Fine presentation, John. When I returned to photography some years back, to create natural light "environmental" portraits on location, I had to streamline both equipment and processes. Though I center my work on 4x5, I use 645 as well, and 35. For a variety of considerations pecuniary, technical, and aesthetic, I chose HP5 (and old friend) and D-23 (new). The latter I use mostly 1:1 or, for N-minus, divided. It is a versatile developer, and my plans called for being able to handle any lighting, from overly flat to extra-long-range. It's easy to mix and use (I discovered that the high mixing temp is unnecessary and confirmed this with chemists) and has good keeping properties and consistency. Hard to beat, for my work.
Great comment! Thanks!
Thank you for these detailed developer videos and comparisons. My first observation was the denser shadow areas in FX55 negs and that the D23 has more contrast. I know you made the print to your liking, but the FX55 print with a little added contrast would have been interesting to see. At the end of the video when comparing the leaf, I can clearly see the difference of the curve. I prefer the curve of D23 but love the FX55 crispiness. I think I could use both these developers, but I recently went back to Xtol/XT3 for HP5.
D23R for me please. Even with the questionable video quality of YT, the difference is clearly visible. Once you see it, it is hard to miss the glow. Thank you very much for this comparison!
What's your opinion on XTOL ? Do you know it's clone from Czechia (W27, Fomadon Excel) ?
Another wonderful examination of the subtle differences development can bring to the negative. I'm currently working through a batch of Delta 400 looking for good shadow detail while retaining highlights, it's a film I've used quite a bit over many years and when correct exposure and development occurs I am always pleased. HP5+ is another favourite emulsion.
Thanks for your interesting comment, Stephen.
John this is amazing, I'm a 99% d23 guy (occasionally some rodinal) but I've avoided using it with hp5 assuming it would be a bad combination (for no reason whatsoever) but I'm glad to see how well this combo works. D23 is just magic with my usual fp4 and panf.
I'm actually taking some time away from film instead opting to use a Canon 5d classic because I just don't have the time or money for film at this stage of life. I know I will come back to film eventually as I just love the process but it sure is nice shooting digitally and being able to really work on my lighting and composition skills without the financial penalty for every shot!
All the best to you as always ❤️
Thanks for your comment. Rodinal will be used again on Monday for a special reason.
Interesting results John. Out of curiosity, have you tried any of the FomaPan films with D23?
I’ve never used D23 but often use Perceptol. It seems to be D23 ++ in terms of composition. I wonder exactly what the difference might be in terms of results.
Great comparison John. I prefer the D23 tonality for my personal taste. I recently started processing HP5 in 510 Pyro and am very happy with the results. Thanks and best wishes from the Rhondda.
hey john,can i ask u a question ?
my phenidone work very good in my FX55 but when i try to use E-72 with phenidone it did not work
I really enjoyed that. I've used D23 (as well as many others!) but currently developing with Thornton's two bath variation. I have the ingredients to make up FX55 and will be getting to that soon. I will be looking out for those subtle effects.
Thank you John. Very timely for me. My first yer back to developing after a 50yr break was Finesse 400 in HC110 dilH. Last year was HP5 in BT2B. D23R and FX55 have been waiting in the wings for a chance. I’m going to have a go with D23R first before moving on to TGrain films
As soon as I saw the negatives in the video, I noticed that the negatives developed with D23R appeared more contrasty and the base layer was clearer than those developed with FX55. Somehow, the photos developed with FX55 looked flatter. I imagine that an exposure with maybe 600 ISO and a slightly extended exposure time would also create that glow and bite, like the images produced with D23R, although probably with more pronounced grain. But the significantly higher speed would be a clear advantage in many cases.
FX55 definitely gives better speed with HP5, FP4, and PanF and it is sharper. I use it more for all my work now. I agree with you that longer development time makes up the difference enough to be useful.
I prefer the D-23 over FX-55; as you said, D-23, it is the glow that makes it more 3-dimensional...great video.
Funnily enough a comparison between these 2 developers was the thing that I was curious about and you have provided that very video. So very much appreciated. That extra bit of speed from FX55 may be just what is needed in certain cases but where it is not needed then D23 wins for me if only by a short head
While replenished D23 is slightly below box speed of 400, can I ask if unreplenished D23 gets to box speed at stock and if not does either the 1+1 or 1+3 dilutions give 400 rather like Perceptol which at 1+3 seems reach a higher speed, albeit only 320 like replenished D23 ?
Agreed
Hi John
I am using d23 replenished on xray film and every other film I shoot
awesome as usual
My post seems to have been repeated for some reason I cannot work out. Apologies for that
Hi, I have just bought your book, it is great and I am looking to start to use it in my new darkroom (shed). Could I ask you who are the suppliers you get your chemicals from? Many thanks, Simon
Hi Simon and thanks for buying my book. You'll find a list of suppliers on my website as well as errata for the book.
Www.pictorialplanet.com
@@PictorialPlanet many thanks, much appreciated 👍
John, I am curious about your comment about “pictorial tonality”. Could you explain what that statement means to you?
No problem, Larry, good question. For me pictorial tonality is full tonality from rich blacks to delicate whites without the compression of tones often seen with high acutance developers. Pushing films (underexposing), which I think I mentioned, also compresses the tonal range, especially in the low zones creating sooty shadows. I like a film to have full exposure and for the tonal range to be long and rich. This I call pictorial tonality.
Thank you for sharing, so much to learn?
I haven't mixed my own developer yet. FX55 will be the one. Have you tried it with Kodak 400TX?
You won't go wrong with FX55. I haven't tried it with 400TX but will later in the year :)
@@PictorialPlanet Great, will try!
That was interesting. I could take either one.
BTW, why your FX55 ipart B n glycol uses more TEA to stoichiometric amount as per Gainer etc? Faster solubility of ascorbic acid or modifying pH slightly would be my guesses.
Yes, modifying PH. Gainer's pH was too low.
Why was the roll exposed to 320 ASA with the D23 development while with FX55 it was exposed to 400?
HP5 gives me an EI of 320 with D23R whilst FX55 gives me an EI of 500 (not the 400 that you said). Different developers give different speeds with all films. I cover how to test for your film speed with your chosen developer in my book and other videos.
Interesting, I haven’t tried either of these developers yet. I started with HP5+ in HC-110 which worked great, but I’ve now got some XTol that I’ve been using with Tri-X and I’m interested to see how HP5 looks in it. However, I also tried some Acros in the XTol and that gave my best results yet, with very little grain, so I’ll probably be buying more 100 speed film from now on to see if I can get similar results.
Did you use the FX-55 Mod for the time of 10.5 minutes John? Or would I still have to add the 10-15% to my time?
Are you using the updated formula for the FX55 Mod - that has 30g TEA instead of the old 10g?
@@PictorialPlanet yes
@@PictorialPlanet I am using the updated version.
@alanreid208 good, no real development time adjustment then. The new version is about the same development time as the original FX55 with dry part 2. I use the original version (dry pt 2) but you should be fine around my timing.
@@PictorialPlanet Oops, I think I need to re visit my notes and edit them. I was adding 15% to my FP4 time of 7mins as well.
Agree with you about D23 and HP5+ but I find DD23 brings up accutance without losing "the glow".
I’m just amazed at your ability to cut the film and not go through an image.😮
Xray film too
the d23 replenished seems to have more punch on my screen.
D-23 for me as well. It's all about that glow. Need more detail, use sheet film.