Re: [Leica] XTOL times/dilutions WAS Developer Question Again

[John Collier <jbcollier@home.com>]

Thanks Johnny!

I did read the instructions carefully and used 400ml of 1:3 XTOL per roll of
film. I used a three roll tank with only two rolls and everything worked
very well. I will experiment with your other suggestions once I decide
whether to go digital or conventional for my final output.

I will be trying out some scanners on Saturday. Conventional is cheap but
somewhat toxic and antisocial while digital lets me work with my munchkin at
my feet but is expensive on a cost per print basis. I will make no prints
larger than 8x10s and very few that size as well....

Yes your right I am "trolling" for suggestions!*

I know that the Nikon LS2000 or Polaroid Sprintscan are the "best" for
"consumer" use but do I need to go that far (squeak, squeak) for the
occasional 8x10?

Be blunt and pull no punches please!

Cheers,

John Collier


*In the positive sense!

> From: Johnny Deadman <john@pinkheadedbug.com>
> Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 10:07:17 -0500
> To: LUG <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] XTOL times/dilutions WAS Developer Question Again
> 
> on 2/11/00 8:57 am, John Collier at jbcollier@home.com wrote:
> 
>> Does anyone know why they changed their mind? I just developed two rolls of
>> Tri-X in 1:3 XTOL* last night and would like advance warning if it is going
>> to mutate and try and strangle me in my sleep one night.
>> 
>> John Collier
>> 
>> *Yes I know it is one of the few films that XTOL does nothing for. I just
>> like the idea of using a relatively non-toxic developer.
> 
> I think Xtol/Tri-X is a good combination but only at the 1:2 or 1:3
> dilution. At 1:1 the grain is, as I have said before, SMUSHY and you will
> peer at your prints wondering why they appear to be simultaneously perfectly
> in focus and queasily unsharp. However, at any dilution you get terrific
> latitude and tonal gradation from this combo.
> 
> The reason they took the dilutions off is, I think, because Xtol is a
> developer which is very easily exhausted and at the working dilutions there
> is a chance that the film will use up all of the developer agent before it's
> done. They say that you need 100ml of stock Xtol to each 35mm 36-exp film.
> My tanks (stainless steel) allow about 250ml of solution to each reel, so at
> 1:1 dilution I'm getting 125ml of stock to each film. AT 1:2 it's around
> 80ml and at 1:3 it's around 60ml.
> 
> Clearly, then, unless you leave some reels empty there is a danger with
> weaker dilutions that the developer will become prematurely exhausted, which
> will show up as thin, flat negs.
> 
> For some reason I think this problem is particularly acute with Tmax films,
> which many people find need longer in Xtol than the datasheet suggests... as
> much as 20% in my case.
> 
> Mark Rabiner says that he just extends the development time to compensate
> for the notional exhaustion and that sounds like a good plan... I haven't
> had time to experiment with it yet.
> 
> Personally I think Kodak are cutting off their nose to spite their face by
> removing the data for the higher dilutions as to me the results are visibly
> better. Certainly on 11x14 enlargements of a conventional film like my
> staple APX400, a 1:2 or 1:3 dilution results in visibly sharper pictures
> plus better highlight control. If there's extra grain I haven't noticed
> it... in fact if anything the grain appears marginally tighter but I can't
> imagine why that would be unless it's the result of lower contrast from the
> lower dilution. 
> 
> Currently I'm using it 1:2 with a full tank and to combat any possible
> exhaustion effects I leave the film sitting for an extra minute or two
> without agitation at the end of the development, which probably bumbps up
> edge effects and compensation a whisker. I also use a water rinse rather
> than a stop bath which might possibly have a very faint effect on shadow
> detail but frankly I doubt it's visible.
> 
> My recommendation would be go 1:2 and err very slightly on the generous side
> with your times, or use 1:3 and leave reels empty or experiment to find the
> correct times. (I would guess adding 20% over the times on the datasheet
> would put you in the ballpark).
> 
> Finally, if you really want sharp negs that have smooth tonalities GO EASY
> ON THE AGITATION. I find three gentle inversions/60s is all it takes, with
> continuous agitation in the first 30s, and cutting back on the agitation to
> 3 inversion/120s for the last 4 minutes to have a crack at edge effects.
> 
> Just some more darkroom folklore for your noggin.
> -- 
> Johnny Deadman
> 
> http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
> 
>