[Leica] Films and Developers

[Paul and Paula Butzi <butzi@halcyon.com>]

At 05:07 AM 4/25/98 , David wrote:
>Continuing this discussion ..... I would be interested in hearing more on
why you
>rejected the Delta films since I have setteled on Delta 100 for my imaging
...
>also ... has anyone tried PMK Pyro developer ...... don't laugh ... it
seems to
>be working well with 35mm .....

I think the Delta films, both 100 and 400 are very, very nice.  In fact, the
reason why I was doing any film comparisons at all is that I have several
good friends who produce beautiful work using the Delta films.  (And one,
I'll point out, who uses HP-5+, which I didn't try, and several more who
use Tri-X, which I did try).

The reasons for rejecting the Ilford films have more to do with *why* I was
testing - for the past few years I've been working primarily in 4x5, almost
exclusively on TMax-100.  For a 100 speed film, I don't feel any need to
change.  But when I bought the Leica M6, I wanted to be able to work
in what someone else in LUG euphemistically called 'available darkness'.
Exposing TMX at ei80 just doesn't cut it.  Ei 200-320 for TMY and 800-1600 for
TMZ can be a big help.  (FYI I think TMZ is a surprisingly nice film).
All I wanted to do with the tests was ensure that I wasn't passing up 
an easy switch to something I'd like far better than TMX, TMY, TMZ.

To be honest, the big problem I had with Delta 400 was that, for some
reason, I had a hard time washing the blue tint out of it, and the extended
wash time made the emulsion pretty fragile.  Another roll with a shorter
wash also seemed fragile to me.  The tonality of the film is nice but
it's not, in my eyes, better than TMY, so I chose not to pursue Delta 400
and solve those problems (which I'm sure could be solved).

As a side note, I should point out that all of the films were developed in
XTOL 1+1, which is probably not the optimal developer for each film.

In the end, it always seems to come down to a lottery, and you just
have to work out a system that seems to work well for you. 

I've not tried PMK.  I have a good friend who, during a period of using
PMK, would regale me with his tales of woe in getting PMK to work well
in a Jobo 3010.  After trying splitting the development into several steps,
so that oxidized developer was discarded and replaced with fresh developer,
he finally started filling the drum with inert gas (argon, in fact) to prevent
oxidation.  I was just not willing to go thru that much work to get a working
film/developer combination, nor was I willing stop using my Jobo, which
is a massively convenient tool.  And I was pretty happy with TMX and
TMax-RS 1+9.

In the end, I suspect that barring some really awful combinations
(e.g. I think TXT (Tri-X Pan Professional Sheet, not  the same as
Tri-X Pan) in d-76 is just bug-ugly) you could pretty much choose
any film, any developer, and be happy once you had worked
out the issue of film speed and had dialed in development to
give the contrast you wanted.  

Gary wrote:
>I noticed that Agfa wasn't mentioned in your post, Paul and Paula. I have
>used Agfa
>APX25 in my M6, especially with the DR Summicron 50/2 (on a tripod) in
>close-up mode. Results are amazing! 11x14s don't show even a trace of grain
>and 16x20s would be outstanding, if I ever get some bigger trays.

A long time ago I was fond of Panatomic-X, a wonderful film.  Friends
assure me that APX25 is a fine replacement.  But it would be far, far too
slow for what I want to do with the Leica.  My examination of prints
makes me think that APX25 is not substantially finer grain than TMX, but
I've not
really looked hard.  If I want freedom from grain and creamy tonality,
and I'm willing to work off a tripod, I'm going to be using 4x5 anyway.
It's far easier than working in 35mm, and I'm too lazy to struggle
with eking a decent print out of a 35mm negative unless there's
a reason to not work in 4x5.

APX-100 is a wonderful film, too - but I'm totally familiar with TMX and
don't want to go through the work of switching.  And although 35mm is
a different kettle of fish from 4x5, I find that the tonality of 35mm TMX is
pretty good if you are careful to never underexpose.  Grainy, of course,
but it's 35mm after all.

The main reasons I didn't examine the Agfa films were: 1) I've been using
XTOL, and the Agfa films are not a good match for that developer 2) the
Ilford and Kodak films seem easier to find, and I'd prefer to be able to
buy what I'm used to if I'm away from home. 3) It was mostly a matter of
examining a few alternatives to what I was using, so I tried the combinations
suggested by friends and colleagues, none of whom use Agfa films.
None of those are firm reasons, of course, but it seems like the current
crop of films are all pretty damn good, and I'm not really interested in
spending my life testing film when I have a new camera to play with :-)

>All processing was done with Cachet's AB55 developer - steel reels and
>tanks with 35mm, JOBO for the 4x5. I've used the AB55 successfully with
>other films and like how it works with 35mm Tri-X. But based on a few
>rolls/sheets, the AB55 and Agfa APX seem made for each other.

Good to know.  AB55 is Cachet's panthermic developer, right?  I haven't
tried it.  I take it from the comment about steel reels and tanks that you
don't run your 35mm films in the Jobo - why not?  I find the Jobo plastic
reels to be miserable, but the Jobo stainless 35mm reels are made by Hewes
and are really, really good.  And running eight 35mm films at once is a breeze
with the Jobo.  I'd never go back.  

- -Paul