- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,307
- Format
- 35mm
You sure imply that you possess a “visualimpactomerer”. Good for you, as you seem to be married to Xtol.
Not me. Thanks but no thanks.
You sure imply that you possess a “visualimpactomerer”. Good for you, as you seem to be married to Xtol.How was that determined? Do you possess a "visualimpactometer?" Did you conduct double blind trials between prints from XTOL-developed negatives and those processed in other developers, using "calibrated observers?"
You sure imply that you possess a “visualimpactomerer”. Good for you, as you seem to be married to Xtol.
Not me. Thanks but no thanks.
Hey, I'm ready to switch from Xtol-R/Adox XT-3 as soon as you let me know your non-staining developer formula that's so much better than Xtol-R. Of course, I'm just pulling your leg. Just a little. I'd be hard-pressed to find a non-staining developer that would work better for my type of photography. I could probably get along just fine with Ilford ID-11. I also really like Perceptol, but don't like the slight loss in the film speed department.
You sure imply that you possess a “visualimpactomerer”...
...you seem to be married to Xtol.
Very interesting. I agree that storing the five liters of XTOL is not particularly convenient. I use one-liter glass bottles, an amber one as my stock solution, and four as "replenisher." It's a lot of developer! Fortunately, I am going through it very quickly, with all those tests I've been doing. Even though XTOL is considered chemically safe, I find its smell to be a bit strange/irritating. It also tends to leave white stains all over the place, even from very tiny quantities that somehow find their way onto the surfaces in the darkroom. It's a minor gripe, just a personal experience kind of thing, but it makes me want to obsessively clean after each use.XTOL seemed to have gotten a bad rep years ago. Elsewhere I have post where I have used XTOL that was many years old and still worked fine. I have used many developers and I find XTOL to be good all around and lasts plenty long. I do mix mine different, my stock solution is double strength. I do that for two reasons, one, easier for me to store, second, I have this notion that it lasts longer that way. HC-110 used to be my main developer before trying XTOL, have also tried FX-39, T-MAX ( when using T-MAX or Delta film ), DDX. Ilfolsol, D76... For me XTOL just works, even on Delta film.
Very interesting. I agree that storing the five liters of XTOL is not particularly convenient. I use one-liter glass bottles, an amber one as my stock solution, and four as "replenisher."
I use wine bags I get at a home brew store. They are sealed, collapse as I use the developer, and have a convienient tap to dispense the developer. I use mylar bags I bought off ebay for the used/replentished developer, again they collapse to keep out air and match the volume of the developer
I do wish I could find a cheap reusable box to hold the wine bladders - the cardboard ones inevitably get a bit wet and deteriorate.
Try the StopLossBag™ www.StopLossBag.com and buy the collapsible funnel with them. They make it easy to keep XTOL free of air and that helps it last a very long time.
Very interesting. I agree that storing the five liters of XTOL is not particularly convenient. I use one-liter glass bottles, an amber one as my stock solution, and four as "replenisher." It's a lot of developer! Fortunately, I am going through it very quickly, with all those tests I've been doing. Even though XTOL is considered chemically safe, I find its smell to be a bit strange/irritating. It also tends to leave white stains all over the place, even from very tiny quantities that somehow find their way onto the surfaces in the darkroom. It's a minor gripe, just a personal experience kind of thing, but it makes me want to obsessively clean after each use.
I am curious as to your experience with the T-MAX Developer and DDX, particularly in pushing P3200 and Delta 3200. We have a thread devoted to that. I'd love to hear your perspective.
I'm looking for a replacement for the role that the outer cardboard box plays with box wine, not for something to help with filling the bags.
I can easily obtain the bags themselves from my local winemaking supply place - the last couple of bags were given to me for free!
. Also, while I can be sure of TRI-X being in date, I have to take Photo Warehouse's word that their product is fresh, as well. I have no reason to distrust them, and, judging by the low B+F values, I'd have to say the film seems fresh.
ofyou check the edge print on current 5222 you will see a line about every 18 inches Starting "EASTMAN 5222" which has the emulsion Number and a 4 digit Year of Manufacture. the lines every foot starting KE are the footage numbers used in editing (and they are accompanied six inches later buy the same number with +32, indicating the middle of the foot. Kodak used to use a silly code of Dots, squares, triangles and Plus signs to indicate Year of Manufacture, but I guess they got tired of folks asking them to translate.
I just found myself looking at this website with fascination, although I expect it has been flagged on Photrio before. Like many people on this forum, I have rung the changes of films and developers in the past, but I never had the drive to do systematic testing like @aparat or like this Norwegian website. Characteristic curves do show appreciable differences, but visually the differences between different developers on the same film are far more subtle than I thought.
So, yeah, I get it. It's hard to move on from your X. But I want to make it easier for you to see the light and get out of Dodge (or whatever the cliché is). It's a toxic relationship. You need to put yourself first. It doesn’t mean completely quitting your X. It’s all a matter of priorities and understanding the interplay between taking care of yourself and your X. Having said that, total freedom is just a mouse click away. I am talking about switching to ILFORD.
You can start by ordering some ILFORD FP4 Plus and ID-11. This combination of film and developer will enable you to see yourself in a new light, full of new possibilities.
EASTMAN DOUBLE-X 5222 in XTOL-R:
View attachment 324121View attachment 324122
ILFORD FP4 Plus in ID-11:
View attachment 324123View attachment 324124
As you can see, with ILFORD, you can still get some of the benefits of that old relationship, i.e., similar film speed and price (if you're willing to shop around), but you can have performance that's sufficiently different and, frankly, refreshing, that it will extinguish whatever feelings of guilt and remorse you may be struggling with after walking out on your X.
I realise you are having fun, but nevertheless explain something to me. Why are you suggesting that FP4's straight line response to log(exposure) is better? And actually, why compare it with Double-X in XTOL-R rather than your earlier curve of Double-X in XTOL stock? A straight line means clean separation of tones throughout the range, but you will have to compress that scale somewhere to squeeze it onto printing paper. Sure, you could develop to an overall lower contrast, but the result will be lifeless. Having a shoulder on the curve is arguably a good thing if it means highlight details are easily printed without sacrificing mid-tone separation.
In a recent Photrio poll I named FP4+ as the one film I couldn't live without. But recently I fell in love with Double-X too, so I'm feeling kinda defensive.
Kodak sold it's chemistry division years ago, first was outsourcing, now Sinopromise owns the label. I doubt if any Kodak patents for B&W are still enforceable. Freestyle most Kodak formulas are offered under house brand or Legacy brand.
EASTMAN DOUBLE-X 5222 in XTOL-R color chart. I am sure you'll agree that it's a very nicely rendered tonality.
View attachment 324131
And some sample photographs. It was a dull, overcast day, so I exposed and developed the film at N+1 to give it a bit of extra contrast. These are Vuescan scans using default settings. Overall, I am really pleased with how XTOL-R handles this film. It gives it a very smooth, extended tonality, with ample shadow detail and nicely controlled grain. I would not hesitate to call this a classic kind of look, if that make any sense.
View attachment 324134View attachment 324135View attachment 324140View attachment 324136View attachment 324137View attachment 324138View attachment 324139
There is clearly tonal information throughout the scale, including the light bulb in the last shot, and the tonality of the fifth (coiled hose) shot is especially pleasing to the eye. The others - dare I say? please don't be offended! - are nice but have a kind of concrete-grey monotony, which I sometimes get with this film too.
Tinkering with your images in GIMP, I confirmed what I'm sure you already realise, that they can be given a distinct lift by slightly increasing brightness and contrast - but then of course in printing you would have to do some burning in to avoid blank highlights.
I wish someone could explain to me why the tonality of an image can sometimes be so eye-catchingly beautiful and sometimes dull as ditch-water. I used to think it was only a matter of sticking with one combination of film and paper and learning how to get the result I wanted, predictably. My own combo of choice was Ilford FP4+/HP5+ and Multigrade paper. But then I started to notice how different photos by other people on Double-X looked, and I wanted that too. It does give a different result. But what exactly is it exactly that is different?
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?