Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/23

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Re: Delta 400 vs Tmax 400
From: "Julian Thomas" <>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:49:23 +0100
References: <> <>

Thanks Jim,
I normally use 3 rolls in a 5 roll tank - 8mins 1;1, 24deg. I think I'll
stick with it as it works and I like it!

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Brick" <>
To: <>; <>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 2:06 AM
Subject: [Leica] Re: Re: Delta 400 vs Tmax 400

> At 11:41 PM 2/22/01 +0100, Julian Thomas wrote:
> >> Want a good 400 film... Tri-X in Xtol 1:3 by hand, 1:1 in a JOBO.
> >>
> > I use xtol 1:1, 24deg 8 mins for Trix. I see a lot of people using 1:3.
> >What differences would I see if I dev 1:3 - are people doing this for
> >economy only?
> >
> >Julian
> There is no economy in using Xtol 1:3. It takes the same amount of raw
> developer per roll (100ml per 135/36 roll) regardless of the dilution.
> Rabiner compensates by extending the time.
> I have always used 1:3 in Stainless Steel hand tanks and I currently use
> 1:1 in my JOBO. But I will also use 1:3 in the JOBO, I just haven't taken
> the time yet to do the appropriate tests.
> 1:3 gives a little more edge effect than 1:1, and a little more grain
> makes the result look sharper. But in reality, the difference is easily
> missed. You have to know what you are looking at.
> If you have a 1000ml tank which holds four rolls of 35mm film. Mix Xtol
> 1:3. In 1000ml of 1:3 Xtol, you have 250ml of raw developer. This will
> properly develop 2.5 rolls of film. I put three rolls in plus an empty
> reel. In a 500ml tank, I put in one roll and an empty reel. In an eight
> roll tank (2000ml) I put in six rolls plus two empty reels. This is
> a little bit.
> Mark doesn't. He fills them up with film and extends the time. And it is
> useless to ask people what their development times are for these kinds of
> situations. This is at the edge of Xtol's capabilities and the square
> inches of emulsion vs milliliters of raw developer will make a big
> difference. If you have a time that works for four rolls in 1000ml of 1:3
> Xtol, this time will not work if you only put in only three rolls. You are
> working at the exhaustion point of the developer for the last 25-50% of
> development time, bromide is at it's highest concentration, and a fine
> is walked to get consistent results. Change anything in the equation and
> you get something you did not expect. Either very thin, or very heavy
> negatives.
> This is why personal testing, trial and error, lots of mistakes, will
> eventually give you your own "formula". Not necessarily suitable for
> else.
> My JOBO can deliver 1000ml so I need to experiment for development times
> for 1:3 dilution and four 135/36 or two 220 (four 120) rolls.
> Kodak used to publish data for 1:2 and 1:3 dilutions but because people
> didn't read the fine print (100ml per roll) they were getting
> underdeveloped film. And complained. So Kodak said screw it... we'll pull
> support for higher dilutions.
> Jim

In reply to: Message from Jim Brick <> ([Leica] Re: Delta 400 vs Tmax 400)
Message from Jim Brick <> ([Leica] Re: Re: Delta 400 vs Tmax 400)