Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Charcoal black (Dassonville D1) paper developer |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Charcoal black (Dassonville D1) paper developer
Okay, I've finally got around to mixing up and trying this developer, which is listed in The Darkroom Cookbook and caught my eye, just by it's name.
Interestingly, google could only find a few comments, all of which ask about it but no one else seems to have left feedback after making it and then using it. Well I made some up and to be honest, I was a little disappointed with the end results. The prints looked quite different to ones made with more modern developers, being quite low in contrast and have a soft look to them. The best I can describe them is to say, they look as if they have been developed in an exhausted developer with maybe a lower contrast filter, with overall tone being a lot lighter. Not my cup of tea at all, but I had to try it. But, the situation was saveable, as I added some extra bits to make it into a solution of D72, which I really like, and the results are much more to my liking, to my eyes at least. I've attached a picture of the two prints made from the same negative, printed on Ilford FB matt and then developed in the D1, as well as home mixed D72. I've tried to get the images on screen to match the prints, but believe me the results really are quite extreme. Apart from D1, is there any other mixes in the book, that people have tried and liked or dis-liked, as I do like mixing up and trying these concoctions. Terry S |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the post Terry. I had never heard of this one and probably never would have without someone like you willing to give these lesser known developers a try
I need to be honest here and say that based on your two prints I actually prefer the D1. The shadows and what appears to be a woodland and slightly softer sunshine scene have more detail which I imagine was closer to the actual scene on the day It may simply indicate that my tastes favour softer contrast and more open shadow detail than do yours. It may not be dissimilar to my reaction to the video of identical scenes shot on HP5+ v Tri-X where in nearly every case I preferred the softer contrast and more open look of the shadows in HP5+ I found only a couple of the shots taken where I rated Tri_X as good and none where I rated it better than HP5+ In the comments and there were many of the video they invariably split on the grounds of whether the person was prepared to sacrifice some contrast for more open shadows Mike |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the post Mike.
Just re-looking at the two images on my screen, I think that the D72 print is bit darker than in real life, although the top one, done in D1, is quite close. I think we all prefer one type of contrast. You'll never get everyone to agree on this subject for sure, especially when we can't all agree that our monitors all show the same picture in the first place! Terry S |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Yes the only real solution to this is that "Kirk" ( NB my fellow Scots, nothing to do with religion ) device that instantly transposes us to each other houses/ darkrooms while we examine actual prints for a few moments. Mike |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Interestingly, I have looked at the prints again, a few days later and to be honest, the softer one has grown on me a little.
They are quite dramatically two different types of prints and I can see why some might like the lower contrast, which in turn doesn't look too bad if I look at it first before holding the two prints side by side. I think that I will keep an open mind and in the future if I have a really contrasty negative that needs toning down, rather than reach for a lower grade of filter to put below the lens, I'll knock up another small batch of this developer and put a print through that instead. Terry S |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
I too like the look of the D1 print. I take it from what you have stated that exposing the paper for longer does not increase the contrast or enrich the black enough.
I will add that I'm a fan of crisp blacks that the other print shows.
__________________
Mitch http://photomi7ch.blogspot.com/ If you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable must be the truth. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It was only when they were washed and then dried, that I noticed such a difference between the two prints. As stated, everything was printed on Ilford FB Matt, which would subtract a little of the dmax of the prints as well. So I don't know off hand, if extending the exposure or the developer time would add anything more to the print. But, now that you've asked, I might just make up a small quantity of the developer again and see, out of curiosity, if nothing else. This would have to be when I have some spare time in my darkroom sessions, so a further update might take a while. It would also be interesting if someone else who makes up their own brews from individual chemicals, had a go by making up a small amount and then telling us what they thought. Terry S |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Looking at the formula it's main difference is a significantly lower Sodium Carbonate level so a lower pH and slightly softer working.
Dassonville D1 was their published developer formula for Dassonville Co Ltd's Charcoal Black Bromide paper, a paper with a similar surface to the old Kentmere Art. So the name is perhaps confusing leading one to assume it'll give Charcoal Black tones with other papers. Dassonville were a New York based company manufacturing more art based photo paperes. apart from Charcoal Black Bromide there were also Charcoal Ember a warm tone chlorobromide, Opaline Parchment on a transluscent base. Dassonville started coating Silver based papers when Platinum became unavailable during WW1, the company continued into the 1950's veing takenover by another small company Anken at some point. Terry if you don't want to waste that developer just add the same amount of Carbonate again and it'll be a lot better. Ian |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But it's a shame, as with a lot of things for the darkroom, that their well named speciality papers are gone for good, just like Kentmere Art paper, that so many mention regularly on posts like this. Terry S |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Hi,
Actually I've been mixing Dassonville developer for a good few years with really good results = good contrast. I often deepened blacks in selenium toner, but it wasn't necessary every time. In your picture, selenium could do good job for blacks leaving open shadows as you like, I think. Slawek |
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Foma Universal Developer and MG paper | bertodsera | Darkroom | 5 | 25th April 2017 06:41 AM |
Ro9 paper developer | photomi7ch | Monochrome printing techniques | 8 | 5th August 2016 10:00 AM |
Life of paper developer | Chrisvclick | Monochrome printing techniques | 14 | 12th March 2016 03:48 PM |
OD-62 paper developer | Domingo | Chemical formulae | 4 | 12th October 2013 02:24 PM |
Metol developer for paper | Domingo | Chemical formulae | 5 | 3rd October 2012 05:04 PM |