Re: [Leica] xtol results?

["Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com>]

Marc-
My limited experience with Xtol reminded me of my first encounter with
Kodak's Microdol -X many years ago where the soft looking brown images on
the film belied the true nature of the negatives.
That and the fact that many of the newer thinner emulsion films LOOK thin,
but actually are quite printable/scanable- a trompe d'oeul (sic) that can
perplex you at first!! :o)
I think the flat crystal technology makes a lot of lore about what a good
negative  should look like pretty much moot. I recall seeing a shot of Ansel
Adams holding one of his negatives up, examining what to me looked to be a
completely black sheet of 8x10 film. I had heard that his negatives were
very dense. So it is on the one hand, a matter of taste to a certain extent,
and a matter of the results you get from you negatives.... can we say-
latitude?
Good Luck- hope we see some of the results so we can pontificate further!
Dan
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Attinasi" <marc@attinasi.org>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 4:00 AM
Subject: [Leica] xtol results?


> Just out of the darkroom where I processed two rolls of TMAX 400 in XTOL
> 1:3 and the results are surprising.  Having never used XTOL I did not
> know what to expect.  I used dev times from the Massive Development
> Chart - 15 minutes for the roll shot at 800 and 13.5 for the one shot at
> 400 - 70deg, agitation every minute by hand.
>
> The negs look a little thin, and much flatter than I expected from that
> film, especialy the pushed roll.
>
> Is this normal XTOL behavior, or is something wrong with my times /
>  technique / camera / expectations?
>
> Thanks all,
> - marc
>
> --
> ***     Marc Attinasi     ***
> * mailto: marc@attinasi.org *
> *  http://www.attinasi.org  *
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html