Fiddling With XTOL
Tim Daneliuk
me consistently wonderful results. However, it does have some limitations
which I wanted to be able to work around:
1) N+ processing is tough because it oxidizes so rapidly. I solved this
by splitting long development into two tanks which works but leads
to...
2) Regardless of the "no grain" claims for Pyro, when you push process
with it, the grain can become quite noticeable, even downright
unpleasant. Tri-X even at 4x5 exhibits this, and in 120 it can
be rather nasty. I normally shoot Agfapan APX 100, and even this
begins to show rather gritty looking results when pushed in PMK.
3) Pyro reduces the local contrast in the highlights. This is usually
a very pleasant effect and makes printing a lot simpler. However,
there are times when I cannot get enough contrast to suit me with
such a negative, even with a VC head and lots of darkroom magic like
less dilute developer, more development time, etc...
My old standby for these issues was HC-110 Dilution B, however this too
shows a lot of grain, especially with Tri-X and/or N+ processing.
So... this weekend I shot a roll of 120 Tri-X (as well as calibration
rolls for APX 100, TXP, and TMX) to find out whether the claimed
virtues of XTOL were real. Here's what I found:
EI Tests
========
This was done on a densitometer so that a Zone I placement would
yield about 0.1 DU over Film Base + Fog. Development was in
straight XTOL using a Zone VI temperature-compensating timer
which normalizes results to 68 degrees F for the developer. Film
was developed on reels in an open 1 gallon tank with 5 seconds of
agitation every 30 seconds of development.
Film Development Time EI
-------------------------------------------------
Agfapan APX 100 5 3/4 minutes 50
Kodak TXP 5 3/4 minutes 250
Kodak TMX 5 1/2 minutes 64
I didn't bother to do development time testing for the highlights
because a) These results were subjectively just fine and b) What
little variability there is here I can make up with VC printing.
The Acid Test
=============
As it happens, the day I was out, it was a gray with generally low
ambient contrast. So, I shot on the assumption that I would be
doing about N+2 processing. I used TXP which I consider a worst
case grain test for N+ processing of any kind. I shot it at
an EI of 250 - I was guessing, because I'd not yet done the
tests above - which turned out to be a little pessimistic. I
probably should have shot at an EI of 320 because the jacked up
development moved the shadows up a bit. This is close
enough for experimental purposes. I developed the film using
the setup mentioned above for 8 minutes - about 40% greater
than N processing. Again, I "guestimated" this to approximate
N+2 movement of the highlights. In actual fact, it didn't,
of course - has anyone seen a film you can actually move around
this much these days? It was more like N+1 1/2 at most.
Results
=======
I've now printed some of the negs, and I gotta say, I'm impressed. The worst
of the bunch was a 6x6 negative enlarged to an effective size of 24" x 24" or
a magnification ratio of about 10x. For an N+ processed 120 negative,
this is begging for trouble. Is there grain? Yes, but nowhere nearly
as objectionable as the aforementioned other developers would have
given me. Tonal fidelity is excellent. I did notice some breakup
in the fine details, but this may well have been the lens. The image
in question was shot with a Hasselblad 250 f5.6 'C' Sonnar which is
primarily intended to be a portrait lens and which, in my observation,
is nowhere near as sharp as Hassy's other lenses.
Other images, printed at a more reasonable 8x or less and shot with
the (really fine) 40mm f4 'C' Distagon and the (really, really, fine)
120mm f4 'CF' Makro-Planar were tack-sharp, full of detail, and showed
little objectionable grain.
Based on what I've seen so far, I'm guessing that N processed negs,
especially in 4x5 ought to be essentially "grainless" with lots
of tonality and detail. As I said, I'm impressed - enough so,
that I doubt I'll ever used HC-110 seriously again.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
tun...@tundraware.com
ArtKramr
>From: Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com>
>Based on what I've seen so far, I'm guessing that N processed negs,
>especially in 4x5 ought to be essentially "grainless" with lots
>of tonality and detail. As I said, I'm impressed - enough so,
>that I doubt I'll ever used HC-110 seriously again.
Yup, XTOL is the most important developer advance in 50 years. In fact, it may
even, all things considered, outperform D-76, and that is really saying
something.
Arthur Kramer
Las Vegas NV
SPECTRUM
>Yup, XTOL is the most important developer advance in 50 years. In fact, it may
>even, all things considered, outperform D-76, and that is really saying
>something.
OTOH, it could well be a buggy piece of mucked up engineering
that Kodak has yet to fix. More and more people are still having
trouble with it and I'm firmly convinced that ascorbate is not a good
chemical to use for a developer.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer, webmaster & darkroom wizard !
Fine wedding and portrait photography Black & White our specialty.
Spectrum Photographic Inc. Temp: http://www.cybercomm.net/~spectrum
Bringing the fine art of photography to your wedding !
Tim Daneliuk
Can you elaborate, John? I found it very straighforward to use with no
suprises...
SPECTRUM
wrote:
>Can you elaborate, John? I found it very straighforward to use with no
>suprises...
I think I have quite a bit already and suggest that all
concerned go to Deja.com at http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml and
enter Xtol, rec.photo.darkroom, and perhaps SPECTRUM and you'll see
some 1200 entries a few of which will have information and opinions
like:
>From: spec...@cybercomm.net (SPECTRUM)
>Subject: Re: Delta 3200, Xtol and DD X
>Date: 29 May 1999 00:00:00 GMT
>Message-ID: <3750f5f...@news.cybercomm.net>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>References: <3755fbd9...@news.cybercomm.net> <19990528191435...@ng-fg1.aol.com> <374f5490...@news.magicnet.net> <374F74BA...@earthlink.net>
>Organization: Spectrum Photographic Inc.
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
>
>On Fri, 28 May 1999 22:01:46 -0700, Michael Fraser
><mdfr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Yuck on XTOL???? Next to PMK, XTOL is the best developer out there.
>>Maybe this guy actually likes the soft, 'fine grain' look of D-23. This
>>developer produces very similar results to D-76 and was designed to be
>>more reliable in a 'replenishment' system. No serious darkroom worker
>>would ever consider 'replenishing' developer.
>
> I think you have me confused with a newbie 1 I assure that I
>have a good many reasons for not liking Xtol not the least of which
>are the writings of Grant Haist in "Modern Photographic Processes"
>where he stated that ascorbate was possibly one of the best possible
>silver reducers. Unfortunately it also proved to be remarkably
>unstable. And unlike Amidol and hydroquinone, which will change color
>when oxidized, ascorbates change color very little and gives almost no
>indication that oxidation might have compromised its development
>potential.
>
> Regarding the "softness" of D-23. I suggest that you read
>through the Deja.com archive for posts made by Michael Gudzinowicz. He
>and Richard Knoppow have quoted the works of many an engineer and the
>information is quite accurate and valuable.
>
> D-76 and D-23 are virtually identical in development. D-23 is
>a one shot formula and D-76 is a replenishable systems developer. D-76
>became the formula of choice for almost all labs after much testing
>was done by Kodak and they found that D-76 was quite durable and
>produced the best mix of film speed, sharpness and granularity. You
>can find more info on D-76 at :
>
>http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.shtml
>
>and I have the D-76D formula and some times posted on my site at :
>
>http://www.spectrumphoto.com/darkroom/filmdevindex.html
>
> Just for your information I utilize the D-23 formula at 1:3
>where the sulfite has almost no effect on edge definition.
>
> About PMK, well it can be an excellent developer but as far as
>it being one of "the best developers out there." I think not. It may
>be for the "old tech" emulsions such as Tri-X and Plus-X but for the
>"new tech" emulsions such as TMX, TMY, D100 and D400, a PQ-type
>developer such as Microphen is as good as it gets.
>
> As far as "No serious darkroom worker would ever consider
>'replenishing' developer." well that's simply remarkably inane as you
>did not qualify what, in your opinion is a "serious darkroom worker" .
>Not that I'd agree with that either ! In the future I suggest you ask
>yourself if this post is contributory to the group as a whole or
>perhaps a flamboyant opinion that could use a little modification.
>
>Regards,
>
>John S. Douglas
Along with a letter(s) to and from Kodak and myself.
>Just to follow up as to why I prefer most other developers to
>Xtol, I dug out my notes to Kodak on the subject.
>
>>>>>>
>To Kodak Rep. ,
>
>I would like to suggest that someone re-evaluate the formula for Xtol. I assure you I don't make such a statement lightly as I am fully aware of the standards of Kodaks outstanding quality control and production facilities. They are excellent.
>However after using Xtol for several months (actually since its
>inception) I've found several inconsistencies.
>
>1) In the initial recommendations for processing in the J107 document the exposure/development for Tech Pan indicated a substantially higher shadow detail development potential. This potential subsequently "vanished" and the result is shown in the current J109 where the EI of 10 is 1.3 stops less than originally projected. And further this EI 10 requires an increase of development time of nearly 50%.
>
>2) I've also found that the capacity of Xtol is somewhat wishful. I have found this through trial and error, mostly error, with the
>results being flat, low contrast negatives that require at least a grade 3 printing paper to achieve a decent tonal spread. Some
>negatives were much worse and a few were completely unusable. Michael D. D'Avignon has these.
>
>As I am somewhat knowledgable about photo-chemistry, it is my opinion that the amount of the developing agent Dimezone
>(4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone)is somewhat
>lacking. As I understand it this agent is needed in only minute
>quantities, possibly as little as 0.5g per gallon of stock developer. And it is also my understanding that this developing agent is also responsible for the initiating of development, particularly in the shadow area densities. It would seem to me that doubling the amount of this agent would effect an increase in film speed and simultaneously minimize any likelihood of a packaging problem that might be faced when utilizing such small amounts of a chemical. This change would have little if any effect on densities above a mid-tone as Dimezone is known to shoulder off in that area of the characteristic curve.
>
>Thanks !
>
>John S. Douglas
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>My answer to their reply.
>
>On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 12:16:07 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>
>>Here's what the development group has mentioned...
>>
>>The new, lower EIs for Tech Pan are correct. The earlier information was
>>wrong.
>
>This is not exactly accurate. What it should say is that "The new, lower EI's for Tech Pan are correct for the current formulation of the developer, Xtol in utilizing the times and temps. provided in the J109 ."
>
>>If there are some specific situations for which the capacity of XTOL was
>>not as desired, we may be able to address those. We would need details of
>>the quantities of film processed and the quantity of developer used, the
>>dilution, etc. As indicated in J-107, the capacity of this developer is
>>limited, and even this capacity can be reduced by agitation and storage
>>details.
>
>Kind of knew that was coming. Oh well. I tried !
>Such silliness !
>Michael has/had all of the info including the film that I
>sent him and Thom Weber who both sent me the samples of Xtol before it was even available on the mass market.
>And Michael himself confirmed the exposure indexes for Tech
>Pan that were reported in the initial J107 through his own testing. When I finally tried the combo using Xtol that I had purchased from B&H Photo-Video I received the "new" readings which means that the negs were thin putting it mildly.
>The whole issue of capacities is somewhat silly as I'm
>certainly not skimping on developer that was given to me for free. I think I received 3 - 1 gallon mixes and from Weber/D'Avignon and I also purchased 3 more gallons later. Big deal ! It cost me $21 and I had 6 gallons of stock developer which I dilute 1:3 (or more
>accurately 200:600 ml) which I use to develop 1 roll of 120 or 2 rolls of 35mm in a Super System 4 tank.
>Also the limited capacity of Xtol is a myth that should be
>disproved sometime. To actually have such a limited capacity one would have to calculate the average number of halides developed in a roll of film and the reducing capability of the developer in use and finally add only enough developing agent to develop that number of halides. Of course allowing for other factors such as bromide and other
>by-products released as well as oxidation generated during the
>development process.
>And one other little fact should creep in here as well. The
>two agents used in Xtol have the highest potential for halide
>reduction of any developing agents on the current market. In fact the only agent that I'm aware of that is higher in reducing potential is Amidol and that's not likely to make a comeback anytime soon !
>BTW, if you perform a DejaNews search you will find some 800
>headers have been posted to the r.p.d. group and quite a few mention that Xtol tends to produce flat, thin negatives
>I look forward to further conversation on these and other
>points but I would ask that these facts be considered with an open mind. Error is possible even in Kodak.
>
>Regards,
>
>
> John S. Douglas
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>>Subject: Re: xtol
>>Regarding the processing of Technical Pan film in XTOL, diluted 1:5:
>>
>>If you followed the initial recommendations, and exposed the film at ISO 25
>>and developed in a small tank for 12.5 minutes at 70F, you would end up
>>with negatives that were underexposed by about a stop and a half, and
>>somewhat low in contrast. This would be true no matter what batch of XTOL
>>you used, including the MX material made before the product was given a
>>name.
>>
>>This does NOT mean you would have useless negatives.
>
>Well the negs that I developed were completely useless. No
>shadows. No highlights. Almost nothing.Totally unprintable. Even dipped in toner there wasn't enough to get an image. Michael and/or Thom should have the films.
>
>> I have seen some very
>>nice enlargements of negatives that were reportedly produced using these
>>recommendations. If I had some Tech Pan negatives of my own, exposed at ISO
>>25 and I did not have Technidol Liquid developer available, I would
>>certainly go ahead and process them in XTOL 1:5. I would, however, use the
>>new recommended development times (15 or 16 minutes, depending on quantity
>>of film and tank size), since these would yield more normal contrast and
>>would be easier to print. The prints of some scenes might well show some
>>lack of shadow detail, but other scenes would very likely look quite
>>normal, since many scenes do not have critically important shadow areas.
>>
>>But the fact is that if you evaluate the speed of this film and developer
>>combination using the procedure and at the contrast specified in the ISO
>>standard for film speed, you find that the "real" ISO speed is 10, not 25.
>>The originally published speed was, simply, wrong.
>
>So increasing the developing time 30% and reducing the ISO by
>over .5 stop is indicative of a mistake ? I would say that is an understatement !
>
>>Regarding the Use of 600 mL of diluted XTOL (1:3): According to the
>>information in J107/J109, one roll of 120 film should process
>>satisfactorily using the time and temperature combinations given. Two rolls
>>of 135-36 film, however, would exceed the capacity of the developer.
>
>This is an astonishing revelation. Why would the two most
>potent chemicals used in the reduction of a silver halide have such a limited capacity in your developer ? The only answer I can think of is that their is to little of those chemicals being used.
>
>> In
>>other words, the published development times would not be long enough to
>>allow the film to reach the intended contrast, because of the slowing of
>>development caused by the higher level of bromide given off by this larger
>>quantity of film.
>
>It is generally understood that the amount of bromide
>generated by the development of a film is so minimal that it has almost no effect whatsoever as long as a good agitation regimen is followed.
>The only effect it _might_ have would be on highlight
>separation and adjacency/edge effects and that would only be apparent if the developer were allowed to stand and the bromides to restrain the development on a local basis.
>I have never heard of a case were a film developed enough
>bromide to actually halt the developer from reducing the halide. In any event some development would have to take place or their would be no production of bromide.
>Also of note is the fact that bromide has almost no
>restraining effect on Dimezone/Phenidone derivatives.The chemical that Kodak uses to develop the minimum densities.
>
>> Some longer development time would likely compensate for
>>this, but it becomes rather impractical to build an accurate table of
>>recommendations that would give the appropriate longer times for all of the
>>possible combinations of films and tank sizes.
>
>BTW, I specified that I use 200:600 which gives a total
>working solution of 800ml which should have more than enough stock solution to develop any films on a one shot basis. And further I find it somewhat unlikely that a developer would lose its capacity as quickly as Xtol is said to.
>However I certainly do admit that there is the possibility
>that this developer is so unique in concept that it cannot be compared to the "average" developer such as HC110 or T-Max developers. If this were the case I believe that G. Haist would have noted the differences in iso-ascorbic acid in it's reduction potential.
Dan Smith, Photographer
> >>Yup, XTOL is the most important developer advance in 50 years. In fact,
it
> >may
> >>even, all things considered, outperform D-76, and that is really saying
> >>something.
> >
> > OTOH, it could well be a buggy piece of mucked up engineering
> >that Kodak has yet to fix. More and more people are still having
> >trouble with it and I'm firmly convinced that ascorbate is not a good
> >chemical to use for a developer.
I have spent time with the Yellow Godfather B&W darkroom types going over
problems with Xtol. We found many problems with inconsistant results, BUT,
were able to work them out.
It seems most problems encountered are at dilutions of 1:2 or 1:3, possibly
coupled with folks not using a minimum of 100ml of stock in the mix.
Water quality plays a major part in the troubles. Hard water and varying
chlorine content in tap water from mix to mix cause problems. I switched to
Culligan water(has some added trace minerals) and suddenly all my processing
variations disappeared. I had been using 1:1 or stock after getting the
lousy unpredictable results at 1:2 and 1:3, and the change in water made the
stuff suddenly very predictable. No more screwups-none. It appears the
developer is quite sensitive to hard water and some additives.
The clean water made all the difference and since the switch and a couple
hundred rolls of TMax and various 4x5/5x7 sheet films, it is nice and
steady.
dansmith
Michael Fraser
flamers ;-)
The following is my experience with 4X5:
I use PMK with N+ 1 without any serious grain increase. With 'normal'
emulsions, N+2 shows grain that I find objectionable. I'll admit that
I'm very picky; for me, grain is an anathema. However, using Delta 100,
I can easily get N+2 without any visible grain. Because the delta grains
develop at a quicker rate, you need only increase by 15% rather than the
30% per stop of 'normal' films.
If you want to get a real N+3 (!) try the Bergger BPF200 (@100, of
course.) This is very similar to Kodak Super-XX. View Camera Magazine
published a test done by (our hero) Gordon Hutchings a few months ago. I
really like this film. I tested it and it's exactly what Gordon said.
Delta 100 (50) is my favorite film unless I just have to have more
speed. In PMK it is the sharpest, lowest grain I've ever seen. It stains
less than HP-5, BPF-200, but still has at least 40% stain.
If I have to push film, I have found that Xtol is excellent (even better
than it's cracked up to be.)
MDF
ArtKramr
>From: SPECTRUM <spec...@cybercomm.net> (SPECTRUM)
>Date: 6/9/99 5:48 AM PST
>Message-id: <3765704e...@news.cybercomm.net>
>may
>>even, all things considered, outperform D-76, and that is really saying
>>something.
>
> OTOH, it could well be a buggy piece of mucked up engineering
>that Kodak has yet to fix. More and more people are still having
>trouble with it and I'm firmly convinced that ascorbate is not a good
>chemical to use for a developer.
>
>
>John S. Douglas Photographer, webmaster & darkroom wizard !
>Fine wedding and portrait photography Black & White our specialty.
Seems that the problems that most people have with XTOL is screwing up the
dilutions on both mixing and use.
SPECTRUM
>Seems that the problems that most people have with XTOL is screwing up the
>dilutions on both mixing and use.
>
>Arthur Kramer
As I stated in my post and mail to Kodak I used the 1:3
dilution using 200 ml's stock to 600 ml's water. IMO there was
absolutely no reason other than developer oxidation or mis-compounding
the formula to account for those negs. In either case, I won't depend
on something that I can't trust.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer, webmaster & darkroom wizard !
Fine wedding and portrait photography Black & White our specialty.
SPECTRUM
<sho...@brigham.net> wrote:
>Water quality plays a major part in the troubles. Hard water and varying
>chlorine content in tap water from mix to mix cause problems. I switched to
>Culligan water(has some added trace minerals) and suddenly all my processing
>variations disappeared. I had been using 1:1 or stock after getting the
>lousy unpredictable results at 1:2 and 1:3, and the change in water made the
>stuff suddenly very predictable. No more screwups-none. It appears the
>developer is quite sensitive to hard water and some additives.
We have iron in our water but generally not enough to worry
about. I mix all stock solutions with distilled water.
Any idea what effect minerals have on Xtol ? I can't think of
any reason they should other than a very modest pH shift. And that's
usually toward the alkaline isn't it ? From carbonates ?
>The clean water made all the difference and since the switch and a couple
>hundred rolls of TMax and various 4x5/5x7 sheet films, it is nice and
>steady.
Congrats, but for my money Microphen is just about as good,
half the price and time proven consistent.
John Hicks
>Seems that the problems that most people have with XTOL is screwing up the
>dilutions on both mixing and use.
I've had nothing but success with Xtol. Some, however, have reported
using clear (as in not discolored) Xtol and finding it to be dead
"before its time."
I suspect that Kodak's specified keeping times may be somewhat
overoptimistic and/or storage conditions play a much more important
part in its keeping than with many other developers.
I mix up a liter, divide it into four-ounce "ready to go" containers
and store it in the refrigerator since my darkroom averages 85F a lot
of the year.
---
John Hicks
John's Camera Shop
Adrian Tanovic
problem. Generally I've found that if the solution displays more than a
very mild amber colour, it is dangerous to use: I've had a few blank rolls
result because of it. I live in a semi-tropical country so storage
conditions are far from ideal. Five months on the shelf is the very longest
I've had XTOL last. Even after three or four months, I find the contrast of
my negs declining a bit.
I will try your suggestion John, and store it in the fridge.
Best,
A.
John Hicks wrote in message <375f3f16...@news.magicnet.net>...
SPECTRUM
Hi John !
Your approach is quite sensible. Just to note though, I can
use a gallon of stock developer in under 8 weeks and such was the case
with the Xtol that I was using. It was stored in two glass bottles, 1
large 2.5 L and the other a large 1 L bottle. As my darkroom is in my
basement, it never gets very warm. Rarely above 80 in the summer. And
it was winter when I was testing the Xtol so my DR temp was around 55
F. Of course the developer wasn't sitting out in room light very much
either. In the end I have no idea why it pooped out.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer, webmaster & darkroom wizard !
Fine wedding and portrait photography Black & White our specialty.
Spectrum Photographic Inc. Temp: http://www.cybercomm.net/~spectrum
Bringing the fine art of photography to your wedding !
Michael Liczbanski
<3765704e...@news.cybercomm.net>...<snip>
>I'm firmly convinced that ascorbate is not a good
>chemical to use for a developer.
>
Your longish second post doesn't explain the basis for the above statement
either...
As a personal conviction -it is OK, but are there any reasons firmly based
in chemistry?
As an aside, densitometer testing means nothing without specifying the
target enlarger illumination. I've seen densitometrically "perfect"
negatives which were virtually unprintable with a condenser enlarger.
I'm biased, because I have never had any problems with fresh Xtol (I did
goof once and tried to reuse a month-old solution...But there are *many*
developers that don't store well...)
Michael
SPECTRUM
<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
>Your longish second post doesn't explain the basis for the above statement
>either...
>As a personal conviction -it is OK, but are there any reasons firmly based
>in chemistry?
I believe I did paraphrase Grant Haist who stated in "Modern
Photographic Processes, Vol. 2" that ascorbate is not very stable.
Considering that he did the homework for Kodak as their Senior
Photographic Engineer" I tend to think he had good reason for saying
so.
>As an aside, densitometer testing means nothing without specifying the
>target enlarger illumination. I've seen densitometrically "perfect"
>negatives which were virtually unprintable with a condenser enlarger.
In what way were they unprintable ?
>I'm biased, because I have never had any problems with fresh Xtol (I did
>goof once and tried to reuse a month-old solution...But there are *many*
>developers that don't store well...)
I know of no current developer that isn't able to last at
least 3 months in a full stoppered bottle. And Kodak does give Xtol a
life expectancy of 1 year in a full stoppered bottle. OTOH there are
many, many reports of under developed negatives. And in fact Ilford's
ascorbate-based formula for Ilfosol S also has a similar track record
of "bonking" with almost no indication of oxidation .
ArtKramr
> And in fact Ilford's
>ascorbate-based formula for Ilfosol S also has a similar track record
>of "bonking" with almost no indication of oxidation .
>
>Regards,
>
>John S. Douglas
Just checked volume 2 of my copy of Grant Haist and couldn't find the comments
you refer to, What pages were they on? BTW, I have had nothing but disasters
with Ilfosol-S. Blank negs for example. But no problems with XTOL.
SPECTRUM
>Just checked volume 2 of my copy of Grant Haist and couldn't find the comments
>you refer to, What pages were they on? BTW, I have had nothing but disasters
>with Ilfosol-S. Blank negs for example. But no problems with XTOL.
>
>Arthur Kramer
I'll have to dig it up from Princeton and get back to you.
That's inter-ligrary loan so you'll have to wait a couple-three weeks.
There was one page that was full of info on ascorbate. I remember well
as I chatted with Thom Bell at Kodak about it. Seems ascorbate and a
Xtol-like developer has been around for quite some time but Kodak
didn't bring it out until it had addressed the issue of stability.
FWIW, he also wrote the rather clinical reference in the
"Focal's" 3rd edition.
BTW, were their many reprints of M.P.P. ?
Cor Breukel
kept at 4degC, well stoperred (sp?) bottles, in the dark.
No problem, and no difference with the freshly brewn stock as far as I can
tell..
Adrian Tanovic <atan...@nospamgenre.com> wrote:
: I like XTOL, but also find the shelf-life of the stock solution a bit of a
: problem. Generally I've found that if the solution displays more than a
: very mild amber colour, it is dangerous to use: I've had a few blank rolls
: result because of it. I live in a semi-tropical country so storage
: conditions are far from ideal. Five months on the shelf is the very longest
: I've had XTOL last. Even after three or four months, I find the contrast of
: my negs declining a bit.
: I will try your suggestion John, and store it in the fridge.
: Best,
: A.
: John Hicks wrote in message <375f3f16...@news.magicnet.net>...
:>On 10 Jun 1999 03:15:28 GMT, artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
:>
:>
:>>Seems that the problems that most people have with XTOL is screwing up the
:>>dilutions on both mixing and use.
:>
:> I've had nothing but success with Xtol. Some, however, have reported
:>using clear (as in not discolored) Xtol and finding it to be dead
:>"before its time."
:> I suspect that Kodak's specified keeping times may be somewhat
:>overoptimistic and/or storage conditions play a much more important
:>part in its keeping than with many other developers.
:> I mix up a liter, divide it into four-ounce "ready to go" containers
:>and store it in the refrigerator since my darkroom averages 85F a lot
:>of the year.
:>
:>
:>
:>---
:>John Hicks
:>John's Camera Shop
--
Cor Breukel
http://ruly70.medfac.leidenuniv.nl/~cor/cor.html
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <37669a76...@news.cybercomm.net>
>
>On 10 Jun 1999 23:43:05 GMT, artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>Just checked volume 2 of my copy of Grant Haist and couldn't find the
>comments
>>you refer to, What pages were they on? BTW, I have had nothing but
>disasters
>>with Ilfosol-S. Blank negs for example. But no problems with XTOL.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
> I'll have to dig it up from Princeton and get back to you.
>That's inter-ligrary loan so you'll have to wait a couple-three weeks.
>There was one page that was full of info on ascorbate. I remember well
>as I chatted with Thom Bell at Kodak about it. Seems ascorbate and a
>Xtol-like developer has been around for quite some time but Kodak
>didn't bring it out until it had addressed the issue of stability.
> FWIW, he also wrote the rather clinical reference in the
>"Focal's" 3rd edition.
>
> BTW, were their many reprints of M.P.P. ?
>
>Regards,
>
>John S. Douglas Photographer, webmaster & darkroom wizard !
I bought Haist's books because he wrote up some work I had done on the use of
iodides in developers to enhance acutance. It is in volume One pages 441-442.
I have the first edition and I don't know if any other editions were published.
Besides, after a lifetime of work on developers I have come to the conclusion
that they are not all that important to creative achievement, and mostly a
wast of time better spent in making images. :-)
Moreno Polloni
Tim Daneliuk wrote in message <375DF560...@tundraware.com>...
>I'm pretty much a true-blue PMK Pyro fan for both 120 and 4x5. It gives
>me consistently wonderful results. However, it does have some limitations
>which I wanted to be able to work around:
>
>1) N+ processing is tough because it oxidizes so rapidly. I solved this
> by splitting long development into two tanks which works but leads
> to...
>
> a very pleasant effect and makes printing a lot simpler. However,
> there are times when I cannot get enough contrast to suit me with
> such a negative, even with a VC head and lots of darkroom magic like
> less dilute developer, more development time, etc...
You may wish to consider Rollo Pyro for your N+ needs, especially if you like
PMK. Rollo is quite a bit more energetic and oxidizes much less than PMK. The
processing times are about 1/3 to 1/2 that of PMK, and oxidation doesn't seem to
be an issue. You don't need to do split runs. And compared to PMK, Rollo has
noticeably more contrast in the highlights.
.
Richard Knoppow
Unfortunately, Haist's book is long out of print and very hard to
find. Someone does offer a photo copy edition at something like $150
US. I think it is a special order.
The LA public library does not have a copy despite having a very
large collection of photography books. There are some other local
library resources, like UCLA, but they can be a pain to deal with.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Glenn Stewart (Arizona)
> I have spent time with the Yellow Godfather B&W darkroom types going over
> problems with Xtol. We found many problems with inconsistant results, BUT,
> were able to work them out.
(SNIP)
> Water quality plays a major part in the troubles. Hard water and varying
> chlorine content in tap water from mix to mix cause problems. I switched to
> Culligan water(has some added trace minerals) and suddenly all my processing
> variations disappeared. I had been using 1:1 or stock after getting the
> lousy unpredictable results at 1:2 and 1:3, and the change in water made the
> stuff suddenly very predictable. No more screwups-none. It appears the
> developer is quite sensitive to hard water and some additives.
> The clean water made all the difference and since the switch and a couple
> hundred rolls of TMax and various 4x5/5x7 sheet films, it is nice and
> steady.
> dansmith
Dan,
If Kodak is aware that water quality is a big factor in the performance
of Xtol, why don't they simply note on the label in large letters: "Best
if mixed using distilled water"?
This might deflect a lot of the criticism and help them clean this small
tarnish spot off their reputation.
Best regards,
Stew
--
Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart
UNIX: It's not just 'User-Unfriendly', it's 'Proactively User-Hostile'!
Nothing generates so much silence as confronting a person with an
undeniable truth which is contrary to that person's beliefs.
Manual cameras, Luna-Pro's and stick shifts.
Please send e-mail responses to the following address ONLY:
gste...@inficad.com E-mail responses to my Intel address will be
cheerfully ignored (Intel policy).
The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of Intel Corporation.
Dana Myers K6JQ
>
> I live in Las Vegas where the water is loaded with minerals and very, very
> hard. And I have had no problems with XTOL at all. In fact I just ran through a
> batch of TMY last night. The stuff was beautiful.
I'd never been a big fan of TMY, until I souped it in Xtol. What a delightful
combination!
Dana K6JQ
Da...@Source.Net
ArtKramr
>Date: Fri, 11 June 1999 03:45 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37617560...@inficad.com>
>
>Dan Smith, Photographer wrote:
>
>> I have spent time with the Yellow Godfather B&W darkroom types going over
>> problems with Xtol. We found many problems with inconsistant results, BUT,
>> were able to work them out.
>(SNIP)
>> Water quality plays a major part in the troubles. Hard water and varying
>> chlorine content in tap water from mix to mix cause problems. I switched to
>> Culligan water(has some added trace minerals) and suddenly all my
>processing
>> variations disappeared. I had been using 1:1 or stock after getting the
>> lousy unpredictable results at 1:2 and 1:3, and the change in water made
>the
>> stuff suddenly very predictable. No more screwups-none. It appears the
>> developer is quite sensitive to hard water and some additives.
>
>> The clean water made all the difference and since the switch and a couple
>> hundred rolls of TMax and various 4x5/5x7 sheet films, it is nice and
>> steady.
>
>> dansmith
>
I live in Las Vegas where the water is loaded with minerals and very, very
hard. And I have had no problems with XTOL at all. In fact I just ran through a
batch of TMY last night. The stuff was beautiful.
Arthur Kramer
Las Vegas NV
ShadCat11
Date: Fri, 11 June 1999 07:28 AM EDT
Message-id: <7jqrtr$8ct$1...@highway.leidenuniv.nl>
>..Just finished the last of my (5 ltr stock) of Xtol, made in march 1997,
>kept at 4degC, well stoperred (sp?) bottles, in the dark.
>No problem, and no difference with the freshly brewn stock as far as I >can
>tell..
My 5 liter mix lasted 1 year and 3 months and was good to the end. Apart from
dividing the batch into 1 liter bottles and using inert gas to avoid
oxygenation in partially full bottles, I took no special storage measures. My
darkroom temperature varies during the year from 80 to 55 degrees F. Perhaps I
am living in a fool's paradise, but so far the snake hasn't bit.
William Hopkins
pushes and pulls very well and has greater shadow detail than D76. Try TMAX
100 AT ASA 25 IN XTOL 1:1 OR 1:3 for truly beautiful results. great mid
tone range and gobs of shadow detail. Also Tmax 100 At asa 400 dev. in xtol
1:1 plus 30ml of excel dev enhancer from photographer's formulary. It beats
Tmax 400 hands down........Bill
Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
news:375DF560...@tundraware.com...
> I'm pretty much a true-blue PMK Pyro fan for both 120 and 4x5. It gives
> me consistently wonderful results. However, it does have some limitations
> which I wanted to be able to work around:
>
> 1) N+ processing is tough because it oxidizes so rapidly. I solved this
> by splitting long development into two tanks which works but leads
> to...
>
> with it, the grain can become quite noticeable, even downright
> unpleasant. Tri-X even at 4x5 exhibits this, and in 120 it can
> be rather nasty. I normally shoot Agfapan APX 100, and even this
> begins to show rather gritty looking results when pushed in PMK.
>
> a very pleasant effect and makes printing a lot simpler. However,
> there are times when I cannot get enough contrast to suit me with
> such a negative, even with a VC head and lots of darkroom magic like
> less dilute developer, more development time, etc...
>
> especially in 4x5 ought to be essentially "grainless" with lots
> of tonality and detail. As I said, I'm impressed - enough so,
> that I doubt I'll ever used HC-110 seriously again.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Tim Daneliuk
> tun...@tundraware.com
Lee Carmichael
William Hopkins wrote:
--
As usual,
Lee Carmichael
mailto:cl...@flash.net
check out http://www.pgtopg.com/filmbytes