Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 07:47:33 +0100 > From: Nathan Wajsman <wajsman@webshuttle.ch> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: If you had only one B&W film/developer combo, which would it be? > Message-ID: <3C36A185.E5354B60@webshuttle.ch> > References: <200201041904.LAA02870@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> <3C36580B.8070201@ldp.com> > > Rolfe Tessem wrote, in part: > > >> First, in a Jobo you're really limited to Xtol at 1:1 >> dilution because of the requirement of 100ml of stock per roll and the >> need to respect the tank capacity. > > > Not necessarily true. I use XTOL 1+3. In a small tank, with one roll of film, this works out to > 400ml of solution. Works fine. If I have two rolls of the same film, I can either do it in the > larger tank while still respecting Kodak's "rule" which means 800ml of solution, or use the > smaller tank and 500ml of solution which implies 62.5ml XTOL per roll but seems to work OK (this > is what Mark Rabiner, our resident High Priest of XTOL, does). Nathan, You're correct insofar as you can do this if you're willing to sacrifice much of your reel capacity in the process. My comment was meant to apply to the situation where you want to use the tank capacity for the maximum or at least a reasonable number of reels. You don't say what model of Jobo you have, but the ATL-1000 I use (the newer model is the ATL-1500, but it is virtually the same) comes with two tanks -- a small one and a big one. The small one can do up to two rolls of 35mm, two rolls of 120, or 6 sheets of 4x5. This is on 2502 or 2509n reels (in the case of 4x5). I'm quite sure that tank will not hold 400ml of solution, although I've not tried it. The big tank will go up to 5 rolls of 35mm, 6 120, or 12 sheets of 4x5. The maximum solution Jobo lists for this tank is 660ml, although the bottles in the ATL will hold 750ml when completely filled. It is worth noting that the design philosophy behind the Jobos is to use the *mimimum* amount of one-shot chemistry. So all this discussion of how much we can get in a tank is sort of at odds with what the machines were designed to do best. >> The 1:1 dilution allows greater economy over using straight stock along >> with reasonable developing times. This dilution additionally arguably >> provides *some* additional accuance and edge effect. Nowhere have I seen >> any evidence that the additional dilution to 1:3 provides any >> incremental benefits over 1:1. > > > I see huge benefits in my negatives from going from 1+1 to 1+3. With the new Delta 400 I used to > develop in 1+1 and suffer blown-out highlights and overly dense negatives. When I develop it at > 1+3 I get really nice, scannable/printable negatives. With the slower films I get visibly better > acutance and edge effects with the higher dilution. I think the benefits of higher dilution are > especially apparent if you use a Jobo and hence continuous agitation. As I noted in my response to Mark, I'd love to see someone post high quality comparitive scans of Leica negs done at 1:1 and 1:3. I'm getting beautiful results from the new Delta 400 done in Xtol 1:1, but everybody's darkroom is slightly different. - -- Rolfe Tessem | Lucky Duck Productions, Inc. rolfe@ldp.coom | 96 Morton Street (212) 463-0029 | New York, Ny 10014 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html