Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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/ +---------------------------------------