Yes, really. No matter how you develop them, very slow films have less latitude. The reason is that the range of grain sizes is small, unlike faster films, which have a wider range of grain sizes.What you've found is the reality that a very big percentage of the claims from home darkroom users about acutance often boil down to people failing to identify intermittent vibration or alignment problems in enlargers, or using consumer grade scanners that are fundamentally unsharp.
I'd agree that XP2 Super (having printed and scanned a lot of images from it in adequately tightly controlled conditions, and in comparison to many conventional BW films and developers) is very sharp and fine grained in the highlights (just with more apparent granularity in the shadows as usual for chromogenics) - I think the main reason people don't like it is that it very firmly demonstrates the abilities of real photographic engineering to deliver an actual compensated highlight curve without mucking up the toe or midrange (assuming the end user has the baseline ability to expose it sensibly enough to get a print with decent highlights on less than G5) and they deliver their most optimal results in utterly normal C-41, not something cooked up in a garden shed by people in active denial of post-1945 photographic science. What's more amusing still is that there's an article to be found in the depths of some US photo magazine or other from the early 1980s where one of the creators of cookbook-repeated POTA derivatives for Tech Pan states that he's given up on technical films and specialist developers in favour of XP1...
The big discovery seems to have been that specific PQ ratios could do what very dilute (0.5g/l) metol only developers could do, but with the ability to be used across a much wider array of circumstances (and especially in replenished systems), with an easier choice of pH optimisations for fine grain or sharpness. And emulsions changed to maximise developer interactions for beneficial inhibition effects in the manner of the DIR couplers in chromogenic/C-41.
Not really, at least not those made with reasonably modern technology. They do tend to develop faster (and may go to higher max densities), so it's more accurate to describe some as being rather less resistant to gross user error (and some have engineered-in components to regulate the development time for this reason).
Yes, really. No matter how you develop them, very slow films have less latitude. The reason is that the range of grain sizes is small, unlike faster films, which have a wider range of grain sizes.
Basically yes, although D-23 would likely be slightly coarser grained than Perceptol and perhaps give very slightly higher emulsion speed.
Perceptol without salt isn't Perceptol - it's integral to the formula itself. And dilute D-23 doesn't give the same effect as dilute Perceptol, so there's that. Some of the comments on this thread seem like armchair quarterbacking - opinions without the experience to back it up (and I don't mean smudgy web scans as alleged "evidence" for this or that).
It wouldn't be the worst option in the world to use TMY for everything either.
I thought chromogenic XP2 was the least versatile, most characterless film I ever encountered. Soft-edged is an understatement in its case. I also wonder how long those dyes will hold up. But to each his own. I at least tried it ... kinda like the brief Tech Pan rage in pictorial photography - another mismatch - but in the opposite direction, contrast-wise.
I just tried to google the date of transition from old tmax to TMY-II and I do not trust the results I am seeing. I have a chance to get some 2008 confirmed frozen Tmax 400 in 4x5 for a really attractive price compared to current retail.
Despite my age (30) I unironically forget about the digital editing side; but shooting B&W for the sake of darkroom printing down the line.Indeed. With a hybrid "darkroom," just shoot color and convert to B&W. Outstanding. FWIW, the best color negative film Kodak ever made was a consumer product, HD400 in 24 exposure rolls. Very sharp, hence the HD.
I still have quite a few rolls frozen, although I've not shot any in a long time.
Why - the coarser grain of D23 being the result of sodium chloride but that brings us back whether sodium chloride does reduce the size of grain salt to which the answer was No hence my original question?
If the inclusion of sodium chloride is not responsible then what else causes D23 to have coarser grain than Perceptol?
Thanks
pentaxuser
The basic principle on which Perceptol and earlier Microdol are based is the addition of sodium chloride to a metol-sulfite (D-23 type) developer to produce finer grain at the slight expense of emulsion speed and traditionally acutance.
I think we’re all in agreement Perceptol is intended to produce finer grain, and that this effect will be lessened as the developer is diluted from stock strength, as it would for any solvent developer.
At issue seems to be whether or not the dilution of Perceptol enhances/produces edge effects with TMX, and if it does, why this would be unique to Perceptol. Aside from metol, sulfite and NaCl Perceptol doesn’t appear to contain additional photographically active ingredients, which would mean if it is behaving differently than say D-23 to any significant degree it would have to be the NaCl doing something special. I think Drew said he mixes his own, which is further support for the only potentially magic ingredient being NaCl.
NaCl is a relatively mild silver halide solvent and also a weak restrainer. Based on the research I’ve seen I have my doubts it can produce more meaningful TMX edge effects at 1+3 than similarly dilute D-23 etc. and I haven’t observed anything remarkable myself but anything is possible, I suppose, and there’s no point arguing about it. You also have to buy into the notion TMX isn’t a sharp film to begin with. That is perhaps worth more of an argument since it just isn’t the case.
pentaxuser,Thanks for this So from what you say Sodium Chloride( let's call it salt for simplicity) has to be responsible for Perceptol's alleged finer grain compared to D23 but why is that?
Others seem to say that salt does not have this effect Has anyone tried to make darkroom prints of the same size of identical negatives processed in Perceptol and D23 and from this, can state that the salt makes a difference?
Patrick Gainer's test was admittedly with D23 but if this is Perceptol minus the salt and we conclude that salt is the only difference between the 2 it seems a fair assumption that the test with D23 plus salt was a test with Perceptol
I had a look at his article and was hard pressed, as seemingly he wa,s to see the difference between D23 with no salt and D23 plus salt. His examples were the equivalent of two 28x42 inch prints from a 35mm film
It doesn't look from Gainer's tests that there is much of a case for salt reducing grain in Perceptol compared to D23
However if anyone can show evidence that there is a case then can they help me by showing it ?
Thanks
pentaxuser
At issue seems to be whether or not the dilution of Perceptol enhances/produces edge effects with TMX, and if it does, why this would be unique to Perceptol. Aside from metol, sulfite and NaCl Perceptol doesn’t appear to contain additional photographically active ingredients, which would mean if it is behaving differently than say D-23 to any significant degree it would have to be the NaCl doing something special. I think Drew said he mixes his own, which is further support for the only potentially magic ingredient being NaCl.
NaCl is a relatively mild silver halide solvent and also a weak restrainer. Based on the research I’ve seen I have my doubts it can produce more meaningful TMX edge effects at 1+3 than similarly dilute D-23 etc. and I haven’t observed anything remarkable myself but anything is possible, I suppose, and there’s no point arguing about it. You also have to buy into the notion TMX isn’t a sharp film to begin with. That is perhaps worth more of an argument since it just isn’t the case.
Thanks for this So from what you say Sodium Chloride( let's call it salt for simplicity) has to be responsible for Perceptol's alleged finer grain compared to D23 but why is that?
Others seem to say that salt does not have this effect Has anyone tried to make darkroom prints of the same size of identical negatives processed in Perceptol and D23 and from this, can state that the salt makes a difference?
Patrick Gainer's test was admittedly with D23 but if this is Perceptol minus the salt and we conclude that salt is the only difference between the 2 it seems a fair assumption that the test with D23 plus salt was a test with Perceptol
I had a look at his article and was hard pressed, as seemingly he wa,s to see the difference between D23 with no salt and D23 plus salt. His examples were the equivalent of two 28x42 inch prints from a 35mm film
It doesn't look from Gainer's tests that there is much of a case for salt reducing grain in Perceptol compared to D23
However if anyone can show evidence that there is a case then can they help me by showing it ?
Thanks
pentaxuser
pentaxuser,
You just challenged all the "Mad Scientist" here! I'm sure they are tying the stings to their lab aprons as I type this. As for me, I'm just going to keep using my homemade Percptol 1+3 and maybe even try it at 1+4. Life is just too damn short!
I get what you're getting at! The cost difference for me between D23 and my Perceptol clone is about 30-33g of pickling salt, which most people throw over their shoulder and don't think about. I have never run an experiment between D23 1+3 and my Perceptol clone 1+3 since I never had a reason to, but I'm sure somebody here has or soon will. Perctol 1+3 or homemade seems to be the same and I have done that comparison. I should note that when I mix my developers I never use my well water and always use purchased distilled water. For me, I don't know why it works so well with some films when it seems like it shouldn't, but it does. Maybe D23 1+3 would be just as good??? I'll just continue to put a little pickling salt in my D23 1+3. I follow the old saying of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." a lot.Yes that'd fine but given how easy it is to make D23 at home and all its advantages such as its cheapness and ability to make a fresh solution if you have any doubts about its longevity then I was simply wondering what the extra benefits commercial Perceptol really provides that outweighs its extra cost
My posts and the replies suggest to me that there isn't any or at least not enough to make it worthwhile and for that conclusion I thank the collective response I have received
pentaxuser
"Modern evidence" is right in front of my face every time I pull a print made from a TMX100 negative developed in this manner (1:3 Perceptol; I haven't tried the Microdol equivalent). That includes this afternoon. Plain D23 never did that for me. Nor did 1:1 Perceptol, nor Dektol or HC-110 at any dilution , nor even PMK staining pyro. The distinction is as obvious as can be if one compares side by side prints.
The whole point is to give just enough extra "tooth" to the grain as to harden up the edge effect of TMX. But try the same trick with TMY400 or even "fine grained" Acros, or even Delta 100, and the grain can get grossly exaggerated at 1:3.
Today's results with 120 TMX dev P. 1:4 look just like 1:3.
"Modern evidence" is right in front of my face every time I pull a print made from a TMX100 negative developed in this manner (1:3 Perceptol; I haven't tried the Microdol equivalent). That includes this afternoon. Plain D23 never did that for me. Nor did 1:1 Perceptol, nor Dektol or HC-110 at any dilution , nor even PMK staining pyro. The distinction is as obvious as can be if one compares side by side prints.
The whole point is to give just enough extra "tooth" to the grain as to harden up the edge effect of TMX. But try the same trick with TMY400 or even "fine grained" Acros, or even Delta 100, and the grain can get grossly exaggerated at 1:3.
Today's results with 120 TMX dev P. 1:4 look just like 1:3.
All my enlarging is done with top end lenses, including an arsenal of true apo ones; and everything about these enlargers is very well aligned. Strictly full glass sandwich precision carriers. Since that's been the case all along simply as standard procedure, it makes the results of specific development more apparent, especially with respect to microtonality and edge effect. And when needed, certain subtle qualities can be brought out even more through unsharp masking.
"Modern evidence" is right in front of my face every time I pull a print made from a TMX100 negative developed in this manner (1:3 Perceptol;. The distinction is as obvious as can be if one compares side by side prints.
The whole point is to give just enough extra "tooth" to the grain as to harden up the edge effect of TMX. But try the same trick with TMY400 or even "fine grained" Acros, or even Delta 100, and the grain can get grossly exaggerated at 1:3.
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?