Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Let me too add a point or two. > >Hello Nathan and Grégoire! >mind if I but in on your two issues here? I'm going to leave your whole >post in. >I too am perhaps not getting 1600 out of my Delta 3200 with Xtol 1:3 for 20 >minutes at 70 degrees agitation once per minute. I ran a test to find out how much agitation was needed with Xtol 1+1. Apart from the initial agitation which was equal in both cases, namely 15 secs, I agitated (that is I gently turned the tank upside down and then back) once every minute for one film and four times or ten seconds every minute for the other. The once per minute film was about one exposure stop thinner than the film that I had agitated 10 secs per minute. I also tested agitation 5 secs every 30 secs, which is what Kodak recommend. There was no difference between this film and the 10secs per minute film (Ilford's recommendation) BTW this was with Delta 100 exposed at 200 with a development time of 13 mins. I guess shorter times may need more frequent agitation. I had also runt tests comparing Xtol stock with 1+1 and 1+2 and I found the 1+1 negatives to be 'sharper' than the stock solution ones. With 1+2 I had no improvement but a feeling I had run into capacity problems. >I ran a tank of 8 rolls in a two liter metal tank and got thin negs that will >need another grade and a half of contrast to print but many of them are >thin in >the shadows. (Some are ok in the shadows so I'm a little up in the air as to >what the heck is going on) >So next tank I'm going to go Xtol 1:1 instead of 1:3 and give it 17 minutes. sounds ggod! > I had also gotten some what looked like diachronic fog which I'm >assuming the >higher concentration will remedy. >My Delta 400 1:3 at 17 minutes looks studpendious though like the results >I used This proves mileages can vary! >to get with Pan F and Rodinol only 4 times faster speed. I'm a happy camper on >that front! I am also using that film with studio strobes instead of medium or >slow speed films now. I'm getting that nice glow you want to get from my >results >which have been 8x10 multigrade fiber prints. Those are clean looking negs. > >On the metering of black and white in tungsten I think of it this way. >Meters have varying sensitivity to different wavelengths and so do films. >Your meter may be under sensitive to the warm end but your film (TriX?) >might be >hypersensitive to reds (warm tones) and therefore the two have cancelled >themselves out. >You'll know when you look at your negs if your indoor stuff is coming out thin >or not and to therefore compensate. I photographed grey card both indoors and outdoors with the films I use and exposed them according to the M6meter in all cases. One of the easiest test there is! You just need two blank frames at the end of your film. There was a minimal difference in the densities, but as my old M6 does not have a green dot to show when the exposure is dead on, I am not sure I exposed 100% correctly. Anyway, for my shooting there is no adjustment needed when metering tungsten vs daylight with the M6 >That's why it's good to not use too many films and really know your film. TRUE!!! >these finer points become intuitive. And not have too many meters. ....and to know how they work >That's how I see it! >Mark Rabiner