Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> > Everything was developed in Xtol 1+3 with
>> 3g/L additional isoascorbate. The main problem I experienced with these
>was
>> that try as I might, I cannot get Neopan 1600 to have adequate density or
>> shadow detail when shot at 1600.
>
>N1600, P3200 and Delta 3200 will never test out at the rated speed. They
>are all designed to be pushed sot hat the midtones can be elevated, but
>that's all. If you look at the literature, N1600 et al are made to be
>developed to a CI of 0.60-0.70 or greater where normal film (Tri-X, N400,
>TMX,Y etc) have and optimal CI of 0.50-0.55. Higher CI means higher
>contrast (read no shadows) while low CI means better or fuller shadows.
>This is as applies to 35mm only as the situation changes dramatically with
>larger formats.
>
>BTW, where did you get the trick with adding more vitamin C? Normal 1+3 Xtol
>would have 3g/L ascorbate so you doubled it without increasing the
>dimezone-S any. PH might go down some (better grain, slower activity).
>
>Reply off list if you wish as this seems to have no pixel content ;-)
>
>JB
>
In my experience N1600 does a lot better in Xtol at 1:1 than 1:3;
that way I seem to get noticeably better shadows. I use a
progressively longer agitation time, so that at the end the film
stands about 6min. without agitation. I use this as well with HP5+
(1+3) to get an effective 800 speed with good shadows. Xtol seems to
respond particularly well to this treatment, and these two films also
seem very good in Xtol.
I can't get decent shadows out of P3200 or Delta 3200 when trying for
speed, and find that they have less effective speed than N1600 in my
darkroom.
--
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com