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

[Johnny Deadman <john@pinkheadedbug.com>]

See this is why I tell everyone you should listen to every word Rabiner says
when he talks about darkroom stuff (and most other things) because what he
writes below is ABSOLUTE GOSPEL from beginning to end... I only have a
couple of comments...


on 2/11/00 2:12 pm, Mark Rabiner at mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com wrote:

> There was much discussion by the inventors of Xtol of Xtol being a speed film.
> The real point was that it was not the opposite.
> Many would have thunk such extreme high quality results would be at the
> expense
> of some speed like with Pyro.
> Not to be the case.
> With Tri X you get a full as a 400 out of it. No more no less.

Film speed's a personal thing... I'd rate Tri-X at 600 in Xtol... but we're
talking 1/2 a stop here which could be down to the phases of the moon. In
any case Rabs is TOTALLY right when he says that you finally get the box
speed out of the film with Xtol. You may get a slightly higher speed out of
the higher dilutions but that could be a myth. You won't get any LESS speed
that's for sure.

> The times I've overdeveloped it has not brought out any additional shadow
> density. Only highlight density.
> So its speed is right on.
> I shot over a hundred rolls of it at 1:2 and my shadow detail was never an
> issue.
> And shadow detail is where we determine if we are giving the right exposure or
> not.
> So with Xtol I'd trust the numbers on the Box first.
> Except delta 3200 which I've found to be 1200.

Yeah, like most of the push films. If your read the datasheets carefully
they admit this. The only exception seems to be Neopan 1600 which seems to
be very close to the box speed in Xtol.

> Used straight or even 1:1 Xtol will be too smooth for many people despite it's
> grainlessness the lack of edge effects will fool the viewer into thinking he
> is
> not getting the sharpness he is used to getting with standards like D76 1:1 or
> Rodinal 1:50+. The smoothness is mistaken for softness. Check the print with a
> lupe and the detail is there.

Yes, that's what I mean by smushy. Very well put.

Incidentally, if you scan the neg then you can un-smush it with a bit of
unsharp mask (like 70% at 1 pixel radius). But this wacks up the grain so
you might as well just go with a higher dilution in the first place.


- -- 
Johnny Deadman

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com