Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Gaifana@aol.com wrote: > > 290 ml (10 oz) per. And they're a lot easier to use, especially with the > larger-size films. They're pretty much the norm now. And by the way, why use > Xtol if you can use standing Rodinal? Are you push processing? > > In a message dated 12/9/99 7:58:56 PM, jimbrick@photoaccess.com writes: > > << I don't know the capacity of the plastic Patterson or Jobo tanks... perhaps > they hold more solution per reel than SS tanks. > > Jim > > At 07:03 PM 12/9/99 -0500, Jeff Moore wrote: > > > >Of course. And you said Xtol wasn't formulated with them in mind; > >hence my question. I was wondering if Kids Today use some kind of > >weird higher-volume plastic lashup like those Paterson [sp?] things I > >tried briefly some years ago and hated. > A reason to use Xtol instead of Rodinol is for the grain; the lack of. It's hard to resist Rodinal for its extreme sharpness and glow but for it's extreme grain. Xtol gives you the edge of Rodinol but with excellent fine grain which doesn't become part of the statement of the picture itself. Thus 400 films look like the results of the 100 or slower films I'm used to getting with Rodinol. It's a nice present for the new millennium for me. Mark Rabiner As far as tanks go I think the Jobo use less chemical then metal tanks and Patterson plastic tanks use more. Tanks for the memory.