Re: [Leica] Tri-X in divided Xtol (!)

[Christer Almqvist <christer@almqvist.net>]

John:

This was interesting. Please let me know how you agitated.

I just tried a commercially packaged divided developer (Emofin from
Tetenal) and I was not pleased with the result I got when using it with
HP5. With HP5 I clearly prefer Rodinal 1+25. It has that extra 'bite'.

Contrary to you, I liked the results with thin emulsion film which in my
case was Delta 100. I will continue to use Xtol 1+1 when I know that the
whole film is evenly exposed, but I will use the two bath developer in what
you call 'challenging light situations'. If I want that extra 'bite', then
it is Rodinal, but  Rodinal is one stop slower than Xtol 1+1 with Delta
100. And the divided devloper seems to get even more real or effective
speed out of Delta 100 than does Xtol 1+1

Before shooting real life situations I shot  series of grey cards and
measured the negatives with a densiometer. The curve for Delta 100 was very
close to my ideal curve, and the nominal speed was the true speed which
means that I will shoot at 200. For that test I used the 3 second agitation
method (invert the tank, wait 3 secs, then invert again etc etc).

For the real life shots I decided to agitate 10 secs every minute and I
increased the development times  as per the instructions or from 3 to 5
mins. I gave the tank a good shake, then inverted it four times, changing
the direction by 90° for each inversion. All this takes 10 secs and I did
it once a minute. The film came out very dense, so thus my question above
re agitation. Have you found tha agitation has a great effect on film
over/underdevelopment (i.e. density)?

I'll try you method, and in the meantime would you please send me the
details you offered in your message

>Some of you may know of my fondness for pseudo-divided D76. For those of you
>who don't, it's a bastardised version of properly divided D76, or D76-D. In
>this and most divided developers, the first bath is the developing agent,
>the second the alkali (accelerator).
>
>Pseudo-divided D76 uses straight D76 stock as the first bath, followed by an
>alkali (typically 1.5% sodium metaborate or 'Kodalk', though some people
>swear by borax). The effect is very similar, except the negs are a bit
>snappier, which is a good thing in my experience.
>
>I won't go into the advantages here, but they are legion -- especially for
>street photography or 'challenging' lighting situations where a whole roll
>of 35mm film is exposed under different conditions -- and I will fill anyone
>in who's interested by private email (I posted a long description to the LUG
>about this about six months ago).
>
>This was my standard process until I went over to Xtol. It doesn't work with
>thin-emulsion films, so Tri-X is kind of mandatory. Results with TMY in
>particular are horrible.
>
>For a long while I've wondered what would happen if Xtol, which is a great
>developer, was pseudo-divided, so today I tried the following, all @ 68F. I
>don't know anyone else who has tried this... maybe I'm the first. Anyway:
>
>Xtol    stock   3'
>Kodalk  1.5%    3'      (transferred without rinsing)
>
>stop/fix as normal
>
>I exposed a couple of rolls of Tri-X @ every EI from 100 to 1600, and dunked
>them as above.
>
>I kind of thought it couldn't possibly work, but it does. In fact it works
>perfectly. Gives me an EI somewhere between 400-600, which is about what I
>get from Xtol anyway. But all the negs from 100-1600 were printable, with
>*no* blocked highlights. Gradation in both highlights and shadows looks good
>and grain is what you would expect from Xtol stock (very fine).
>
>There is probably some slight sacrifice of sharpness, but I'd say it's a
>fair exchange for the very marked compensating effect and printability.
>
>Maybe someone else would like to try this and give their comments?
>
>
>--
>John Brownlow
>
>       photos:    http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
>        music:    http://www.jukebox.demon.co.uk