Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> > In my experience N1600 does a lot better in Xtol at 1:1 than 1:3; > that way I seem to get noticeably better shadows. I use a > progressively longer agitation time, so that at the end the film > stands about 6min. without agitation. I use this as well with HP5+ > (1+3) to get an effective 800 speed with good shadows. Xtol seems to > respond particularly well to this treatment, and these two films also > seem very good in Xtol. I agree. Xtol at 1+1 is much more potent than at 1+3 but it also has quite a bit more sulfite (about 40-45gm/L). My problem with Xtol 1+1 is that the grain, and subsequently the edge effects, gets mushy and the percieved sharpness is not as good as the further dilutions. I make my own Xtol clone developer using Tris-borate as buffer and elevate the phenidone/ascorbate levels as high as I want but keep the sulfite under 20gm/L. > > I can't get decent shadows out of P3200 or Delta 3200 when trying for > speed, and find that they have less effective speed than N1600 in my > darkroom. P3200 and D3200 have to be cooked at development to get anything like the rated speed between zones 3 and 8. Grossly overdeveloped. The nice thing about N1600 is that it reponds to normal and mild push development pretty well without having to cook it. The zone system as AA presents it really doesn't fit 35mm performance. The best negatives, in my hands, print with a CI of 0.50-0.55 and zone 1 never shows 0.1D above fb+f. Meaningful shadow and highlite detail is found between zones 3 and 8 (a 6 stop range). JB