Re: [Leica] Xtol experience

["Tom Schofield" <tdschofield@email.msn.com>]

Way back when TMAX was introduced, I recall reading an article that was an
interview of the Kodak person who developed it, and he stated that TMAX was
perfected in D-76.  TMAX developer came later as a high-energy developer for
push processing.  I have always preferred D-76 1:1 to TMAX developer.

Tom

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Xtol experience


> Erwin-
>
> I was fascinated by your post. I was pleasantly surprised to find that
Good
> Ole D-76 is still such a competitive developer, and was 'almost' as good
as
> Xtol in your test, or so I surmised. (There again, the old saying that
> "almost only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes" comes to mind!)
>
> What puzzled me was the environmental concerns about hydroquinone.
> Hydroquinones, of which the film developer is but one type, are present in
> many plants. Even gallic acid can be derived from a plant source, and
while
> moderately toxic, in the dilutions I've always used, it seem innocuous
> enough, and with the short active life of developers due to incipient
> oxidation, even in storage, I thought that developing agents were rather
> quickly broken dowm, and that only those who suffer from contact
dermatitis
> need worry.
>
> Having worked in a photofinishing lab, it seemed to me that even the
> phenylenediethylamine developers were of little environmental concern, and
> that the only problem we had was to minimize the silver in our effluent.
> This is not to say that silver is a toxic material, but it can inhibit the
> bacterial breakdown in some systems if introduced in sufficient quantitiy.
> Also there is the economic factor since it is easily and economically
> recyclable in even a small scale lab.
>
> Personally, I have always like D-76, and the only significant departure
has
> been my forays into using the PMK formula- which much to my surprise,
seems
> very well suited for making negatives that seem 'designed' for split
> printing!
>
> Alos- your contrast index of .62 seems reasonable- I personally prefer one
> about .50 to .55 since my system of printing was evolved using a step
tablet
> in .15 density steps and corresponds to a one stop film exposure developed
> to a .50 CI. The point is rather moot, however, and really to each
person's
> personal style- I can easily print negatives with CI up to about .80 if
the
> scene is not too extreme.
>
> I did notice that the Xtol tables- or the ones I printed out a year or so
> ago, seemed to give recommended times for the lower contrast indices. I
> don'ty know if this is a trend with the newer thin emulsion films, but I
> never really felt comforatble with the T-Max or Delta films at first. They
> 'LOOKED' thin to the eye- but would always show more density to the
> densitometer than appeared to the eye! It may be similar to the way
> negatives done in the old Microdol-X seemed thinner than they actually
were!
>
> I agree with you, Erwin, that some sort of 'densitometer' is almost  a
> necessity (Sorry, Mark! I gotta disagree with you!- but I still love ya!).
> For most of my needs, and the needs of my friends, the good ole Beseler
> color analyzers make pretty decent 'densitometers', and measure the
density
> of the negative in the printing system- which can vary from enlarger and
> lens combination to another. Using a calibrated step tablet, I found that
in
> the overall range of most of these devices, the readinga are within a 10%
> variation- close enough for 'government work' as we used to say.
>
> Despite all the furor about Erwin's post, I have to 'fess up that I find
his
> approach enlightening, and similar to mine- though I take a more
> 'laissez-faire' approach, and noit as precise as he is. Minimizing
> variables, especially those niggling 'intervening variable' that seem to
pop
> up goes a long way to making it possible to have more control over the
> printing process. This, to me, is a natural extension of having control
over
> the negative making process- why else have a Leica? If you control  as
many
> of these variables- from fiddling with your aperture and shutter speed- to
> getting the precise tone you want on the paper, means that you can more
> often than not determine the outcome of the shot, rather than taking wheat
> you can get!
>
> Keep the faith, Erwin! If you didn't catch some flak, you'd have to figure
> that your were 'preaching to the choir'! At least at the First Church of
> Brother Euphemia of the Five Apertures we don't burn heretics at the
stake-
> We merely archivally fix 'em in ammonium thiosulphate! :o)
>
> Dan ( HOLD IT! Lemme try again! I pushed the wrong button....) Post
>