Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/12

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

Subject: [Leica] Test report: Stand development in XTOL
From: Martin Howard <howard.390@osu.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:23:01 -0500

Just for laughs, I also conducted the stand development test in XTOL.
Going against all Kodak's recommendations, I chose to do this at a 1:3
dilution in a two-reel Paterson Super System 4 tank, which meant that there
was 75ml of undiluted XTOL per roll of film, which is less than the 100ml
per film that Kodak claims is necessary.

Again, the films used were Ilford films: FP4+ and HP5+.  The subjects were
the same as for the stand development test in Rodinal, one medium contrast
and one high contrast.  Exposure indexes ranged from EI 12 to EI 3200 for
FP4+ and from EI24 to EI 6400 for HP5+.  Nominal speeds for these films
according to Ilford are EI 125 (FP4+) and EI 400 (HP5+).

The camera was a Leica R7 and the lens a 60mm f/2.8 Macro-Elmarit-R.
Metering was done with a Sekonic Flashmate L-308B in incident mode.  The
meter was held at an angle to the sun such that exactly half the white dome
was in sunlight and half was in shadow (this how I normally meter).  This
reading was taken at the films nominal speed (or EI 100 in the case of
FP4+) and then used as the basis for all exposures, simply being modified
for EI.

Exposure indexes were varied by shifting the exposure time, while the
aperture setting was kept constant (f/8).  For some of the higher EIs this
was not possible (as the maximum shutter speed of 1/2000s was reached) and
the aperture was then shifted.  If memory serves me, this was necessary for
EI 1600 and above.

The subject was a section of the rear of my car.  For the medium contrast
subject, I photographed a portion of the rear fender, rear window, and some
of the scenery beyond the car, and a portion of sky.  For the high contrast
subject I moved the camera to include the rear wheel, the ground beside
and under the car, and portions of the interior (grey leather) and a black
bag in the back seat.  Highlights were provided by white Post-It (tm) notes
and specular highlights by chrome.

Development took place at 72F (the normal room temperature of my
improvised darkroom) for 90 minutes in XTOL diluted 1:3.  Initial agitation
was for 60s, airbubbles were removed, then the tank cooked for 89 minutes
without being touched.

Proof prints were made on 8x10 Multigrade IV RC paper, with the #2.5 filter
at around 10s.  These were just straight prints with no dodging or burning
(except where noted).  Development, fixing, and washing was all standard.
Prints were subsequently inspected in daylight the following day after
they'd dried completely.


FP4+
- ----
Unfortunately, it turned out that some of the frames had been mis-exposed
during the test and therefore we chose not to print any of the FP4+.  At
some point in the future, I'll repeat this



HP5+
- ----
This is were things got really interesting.  The negatives are quite dense
and contrasty, and our proof prints of anything under EI 1600 had massively
blown highlights.  EI 800 shows detail *inside* the wheel well, and the
texture in the black asphalt under the car is mid-grey.

At EI 1600 the highlights still block up without burning in, but with a
little work it would produce a useful print.  There is still plenty of
shadow detail: separation between wheel and wheel well, visible tire
treads, detail in the asphalt, texture in the black bag.

EI 3200 contrast is still high, but it produces useful prints.  The insane
shadow detail from EI 800 is gone, but there is still a hint of texture in
the asphalt under the car.  Chrome and metal looks pretty amazing with
great tonality.  Sharpness is good, although not as exceptional as with the
Rodinal.  With lower contrast printing filter and a little dodging and
burning, it would appear that HP5+ at EI 3200 is perfectly usable when
stand developed for 90m in XTOL 1:3.

I shall be retesting this combination.  In particular, I intend to shoot
"normal" subjects with HP5+ at EI 800, EI 1600, and EI 3200 to get an
impression of how it behaves in normal picture-taking practice.  I invite
others to give it a try too: it would be great to hear others experience
and to ensure that my results are not some freak accident brought about by
some error in procedure.


Acknowledgements
- ----------------
Many thanks to Tom Abrahamsson who helped me print the proofs and assess
their qualities.

M.

- -- 
Martin Howard                     | "It's such a fine line between genious
Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU       |  and stupidity."
email: howard.390@osu.edu         |        -- David St. Hubbins
www: http://mvhoward.i.am/        +---------------------------------------

Replies: Reply from Jim Brick <jim_brick@agilent.com> ([Leica] Re: Test report: Stand development in XTOL)
Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] Test report: Stand development in XTOL)