Re: [Leica] ReFP-4+ & Plus X pushed one stop

["Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com>]

Hello Mark:

I will be very interested in the results you obtain from FP-4+ in Extol.
Please let us know.

Roland Smith
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] ReFP-4+ & Plus X pushed one stop


> Christer Almqvist wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Is pushing a medium speed preferable somehow to just using a 400 speed
film?
> > >mark rabiner
> > >:)
> > >http://spokenword.to/rabiner/
> >
> > YES! ........ unless you push the 400, because then the 400 will be
faster.
> >
> > Sources:
> >
> > 1. The Film Developing Cookbook by Anchell and Troop ISBN
> > 0-240-80277-2 page 54, 2nd para; I thought you said you had read the
> > book ;-)
> ><Snip>
>
> He says that run in FX1 or 2 rated at 200:
> FP4 or Verichrome will give better results than Tri x at 200 with a speed
> loosing developer like Microdol X or Perceptol. Both are being shot at
200.
> You're not really doing a push or a pull but in a way you are.
>
> Among the many problems with this comparison is that Microdol X is a
solvent
> developer. A fine grain developer with much Sulfite  (125 grms per liter
> straight) which smooths grain edges by melting them down destroying
resolution.
> People seldom use solvent developers any more or developers not diluted so
it's
> sulfite content approaches 100 grams per liter because they don't like
fried
> mush film. The "fashion" is now films with LESS fine grain but better
"sharpness".
> (Xtol seems to give us both, a rule breaker) FX1 a stronger grain to match
it's
> extreme sharpness.
>
> FX1 is a High definition non solvent developer almost identical to my
Beutlers
> formula i used for years. Might be exactly the same. Are we getting a real
one
> stop speed increase with a High definition film developer?
> Not in my experience and I've never seen it.  I'm a touch incredulous on
it.
>
> But what if it was the case that you could get 200 out of 100 films with
the stuff?
> Would you compare those results against Tri x melted down in Microdol?
> A pushed film against a pulled?
>
> Pulling for the most part is over exposing and under developing; a
compression
> of tones; mush negs.
>
> But giving a neg minimal but adequate exposure and adequate development
will
> render a clean well separated neg, easier to print.
> Many feel a pulled neg gives a neg with more infirmation and easier to
print.
> This is not my experience.
> More info maybe. But murder to seperate out on paper.
>
> The slower the film the better the result. I don't agree with always using
a 400
> film and not being tested at all out on slower films for very well lit
scenes or
> tripod stuff. The thinner the emulsion the better i like it.
> I've done shoots in the studio where I've run out of plus x and had to
shoot a
> few rolls of Tri x.
> Even in the contact sheets the Tri x looked terrible in direct comparison!
>
> I've said often I'm getting 100 speed film results with Delta 400 with
Xtol 1:3.
> But when i do shoot Delta 100 which I've shot 20 rolls in the studio with
in the
> last 10 days;
> it comes out a whole lot better than the Delta 400. that's for sure!!!
It's a
> thinner film. NO grain. a cleaner looking image.
> It looks like slow single emulsion films like Pan F, Panatomic, APX 25.
> It comes so close I've pretty much stopped using them.
>
>
> But one more test of Pan F in Xtol just to make sure it doesn't blow me
out of
> the water.
> mark rabiner
> :)
> http://spokenword.to/rabiner/
>