When you did try Xtol-R at 1600 what were you unable to achieve? A pic if you have one would be helpful. I don't want to get into Xtol-R v Microphen in terms of which is better at 3200 but simply to work out why it worked for Andrew but not for you
I am trying to get to why it works/worked for Andrew and not for you because only that way can an outsider such as I, begin to make up his mind if there is a problem with D3200 at 1600 in Xtol-R
Thanks
pentaxuser
Yes, Ilford does recommend Microphen for Delta 3200. I haven't tested it in Microphen, but I am planning to, at some point. I am really curious about how it will perform. In XTOL, Delta 3200 was quite a bit slower than T-MAX P3200.Did you add Delta 3200 to your testing? I could not get it to work with Xtol-R and switched to Microphen (massive difference) but I never tried Delta 3200 in stock Xtol so it could just be unrelated to replenishment.
Yes Sirius but the 70ml per roll was never in contention as far as I am concerned. On the other hand I am presuming that over 100 rolls is not a figure derived from one pack of 5L. If I am wrong in this assumption, let me know
Thanks
pentaxuser
Delta 3200 exposed at 1600 and developed in Xtol-R did not give me more shadow detail than similarly exposed and pushed HP5+, but significantly flattened the highlights (peoples faces in interior shots look unnaturally flat). Visually it simply looks like a thin negative.When you did try Xtol-R at 1600 what were you unable to achieve? A pic if you have one would be helpful. I don't want to get into Xtol-R v Microphen in terms of which is better at 3200 but simply to work out why it worked for Andrew but not for you
Replenished XTOL provides a better result than 1:1. The other big savings is cost. I use 1 liter of replenished XTOL and the rest is kept as stock XTOL for replenishment.
On the cost side it appears that the Kodak info allows for 15 films per litre using its table on page one of this thread so that is 75 films. Can I ask what your replenishment method results in developing?
Thanks
pentaxuser
I'll trust you on that. I haven't done any of the high speed stuff since I got my xtol seasoned. I know you've used it plenty.
I really don't care about cost. It's all super cheap compared to sending it to the lab and, frankly, it just works. Though replensihed, once you have a process down, is ridiculously cheap.
I'm something close to 20 rolls into Xtol replenished now and the process is easier for me than keeping count and doing 15% or another 15%... seriously, I just add 70ml to a graduate for each roll out of a wine bag I stuffed the remaining 3L in when I mixed the xtol.
I think I'm less worried about minutiae than many folks here, I just like something that's easy, consistent, and works for me. Just did some Delta 100 at 11 min and it came out exactly as I expected, so job done.
There certainly is to me. I know I save money by not dumping my developer down the drain. Of course I'm talking about when I use my large Yankee 4X5 tank to process 10 or 12 sheets or so. Now I use my SP445 most of the time and much less volume of developer. If I were just doing a couple of rolls of 35mm or 120 it might not make a difference, but a big volume tank is a whole different ballgame.There's no cost benefit for replenished over stock. It's 75 if you never use any xtol one shot or let it sit so long it goes bad. Math in my head is something over 70 rolls at 5L /70ML. So 71 rolls or 75 rolls, it's essentially a wash there, cost wise. Either very affordable, or very affordable.
YMMV. But at the recommended replenishment volume it's essentially the same.
Thanks for the comprehensive reply, Steven. Interesting point about D3200's shadow detail in Xtol-R at 1600 v HP5+ pushed shadow detail and something for me to remember. It would appear that Microphen might well be the best developer to take advantage of D3200's speed and I understand why your pics have to remain privateDelta 3200 exposed at 1600 and developed in Xtol-R did not give me more shadow detail than similarly exposed and pushed HP5+, but significantly flattened the highlights (peoples faces in interior shots look unnaturally flat). Visually it simply looks like a thin negative.
Microphen, on the other hand, gives you visually fuller and thicker negatives with more shadow detail and wider range of tones. The highlights become better defined, people's faces look 3-dimensional as they're supposed to. In fact, EI3200 looks better in Microphen than EI1600! You still get somewhat crushed shadows, but the highlight compression disappears.
That's the best I can describe it. Sorry I can't share scans because they are all interior family portraits exposed at 4-5EV.
There's no cost benefit for replenished over stock. It's 75 if you never use any xtol one shot or let it sit so long it goes bad. Math in my head is something over 70 rolls at 5L /70ML. So 71 rolls or 75 rolls, it's essentially a wash there, cost wise. Either very affordable, or very affordable.
YMMV. But at the recommended replenishment volume it's essentially the same.
There's no cost benefit for replenished over stock. It's 75 if you never use any xtol one shot or let it sit so long it goes bad. Math in my head is something over 70 rolls at 5L /70ML. So 71 rolls or 75 rolls, it's essentially a wash there, cost wise. Either very affordable, or very affordable.
YMMV. But at the recommended replenishment volume it's essentially the same.
I get 33 rolls with Paterson and 1:1 one shot. But considering the difference is just $6 I don’t know if it is worth it.
Whoa, Donald, there is no need to make what appears to be an unwarranted jib at what you term me being "tight" and what the consequence will be in terms of my hobby, when my interest was in finding out which process, the replenishment or re-use one is the most cost effective and that is all I was trying to do.
Obviously you get half that out of 120
Are you sure! It's six whole dollars!
Obviously you get half that out of 120, and sheet film less. And some folks may care about the economy for other reasons, like having to mix up another gallon less often. But my perspective is that cost is the least of the reason for me to choose one developer over another.
All of it works, folks should use what they like best, and it is hard for me to argue the genuine benefits of anything other than "if it looks better in your opinion, use that."
I heard people use to roll 2 120 on a Paterson tank but I remember a friend that I respect telling me not to use diluted developer with 2 120 films in a paterson.
1+1 120 is 250 per film. So 20 120 films with 5 liters.
I heard people use to roll 2 120 on a Paterson tank but I remember a friend that I respect telling me not to use diluted developer with 2 120 films in a paterson.
Maybe next time I pork a roll of 120 doing something dumb I'll practice double loading in the light and see if I can learn how to do that and keep them from overlapping.
To me it's pretty clear that Ilford wants you to expose it at 3200 and be picky with the chemistry for it
Ok.
I WAS WRONG.
I found a VERY GOOD reason to use Seasoned XTOL.
I have been experimenting with HP5+ bulk loading. “Got 100 feet that expires in 2025 for $70”
And experimenting with 4-5 and 9-10 frames waist a lot of chemistry when using one shot 1:1 xtol.
I will also approach the seasoned XTOL the same way I started using my fixer “filtering everytime it gets back in the bottle. $15 for 100 filter is a small price to pay to ensure my chemistry is clean.
In theory, by developing only a small number of frames an not a whole 36exp. roll, less replenishement is needed each time than the standard 70ml that kodak suggest. Like 10ml for 5 frames. Has anyone have experience doing this ?
Could you give me a hint how exactly are you developing D3200 in Microphen? Stock or 1+1, times, agitation? Thank you
In theory, by developing only a small number of frames an not a whole 36exp. roll, less replenishement is needed each time than the standard 70ml that kodak suggest. Like 10ml for 5 frames. Has anyone have experience doing this ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?