Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/04/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Disfromage@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 4/11/01 9:27:35 AM, you wrote: > > <<I gleefully ignore that advice from Kodak, Guna! > The only time i use a stronger dilution is with Delta 3200 which i run 1:1. > > The only advantage to following this 100 ml per roll advice is if you are just > as likely to put one roll in a tank as several and don't want to compute > different times for the different situations. > I've had no problem compensating for that.>> > > Mark and Guna, > I have to disagree with Mark on this as it relates to Neopan films. I have > found that if I don't use 200ml of stock Xtol per roll my film is > underdeveloped, sometimes to the point of being so thin I can't print it. > Agfa films for some reason seem to need much more developer to work properly. > They are the reason I broke down and bought a 2500 series drum and plastic > reels (sob!) for my JOBO. > Regards, > Richard Wasserman I have to disagree with Richard having disagreed with Mark! (me being Mark): Richard were these thin negs not made thicker by running the next batch with more time? This had always been the case for me which indicated that I am developing with active developer; not developer which is critically near exhaustion or exhausted. When that's the case more time does not give you more contrast, more snappy density; it just adds fog. Diachronic fog which you'll see also around your sprocket holes. So far for me it is only Delta 3200 exhausting Xtol at a rate feared by Kodak. Neopan 1600 I've done fine with at 1:3 in metal tanks. 62.5 per liter per 35mm film instead of 100! I've even rolled one or two reels back to back so I'm doing 6 rolls in a 4 roll tank! That's about half! Tanks anyway! Mark Rabiner to be continued.... Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/