Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Re: Re: Xtol dilution
From: "Steven L. Alexander" <alexpix@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:24:27 -0500

Try ss reels in Jobo tanks with Jobo adaptor.

Steven

> From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>
> Organization: Mark Rabiner Productions
> Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 18:02:35 -0800
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re:  Re:  Re:  Xtol dilution
> 
> Gaifana@aol.com wrote:
>> 
>> 290 ml (10 oz) per. And they're a lot easier to use, especially with the
>> larger-size films. They're pretty much the norm now. And by the way, why use
>> Xtol if you can use standing Rodinal? Are you push processing?
>> 
>> In a message dated 12/9/99 7:58:56 PM, jimbrick@photoaccess.com writes:
>> 
>> << I don't know the capacity of the plastic Patterson or Jobo tanks...
>> perhaps
>> they hold more solution per reel than SS tanks.
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> At 07:03 PM 12/9/99 -0500, Jeff Moore wrote:
>>> 
>>> Of course.  And you said Xtol wasn't formulated with them in mind;
>>> hence my question.  I was wondering if Kids Today use some kind of
>>> weird higher-volume plastic lashup like those Paterson [sp?] things I
>>> tried briefly some years ago and hated.
>> 
> A reason to use Xtol instead of Rodinol is for the grain; the lack of.
> It's hard to resist Rodinal for its extreme sharpness and glow but for it's
> extreme grain.
> Xtol gives you the edge of Rodinol but with excellent fine grain which doesn't
> become part of the statement of the picture itself. Thus 400 films look like
> the
> results of the 100 or slower films I'm used to getting with Rodinol. It's a
> nice
> present for the new millennium for me.
> Mark Rabiner
> As far as tanks go I think the Jobo use less chemical then metal tanks and
> Patterson plastic tanks use more.
> Tanks for the memory.