Developing Hp5 plus with Xtol... Conflicting development times?

[remjet5219]

Photoshop is a superweapon. Almost everything can be fixed in Photoshop. Inconsistency becomes an issue is in situations when other confounding errors are present, for example your exposure and scene contrast may put you right on the edge of losing the highlights, and a bump in developer activity may just be the last straw that makes a Photoshop recovery unlikely. But for an average negative this doesn't apply. I would even say that for an average negative in Photoshop even the choice of developer doesn't matter much. Bend that curve to your will.


I am no chemist, but the page on the DTSC website lists photo chemicals and "photo processing waste" as toxic materials (with a code number) that must be recycled properly. So I follow the instructions. They do not discriminate fixer vs bleach vs developer. Besides, from a practical perspective this makes no difference: if you're already collecting fixer for a hazmat trip, might as well take the developer too.

Yes I agree. Good points here!

Also just got my glass jugs and have transferred the developer to them. Thanks so much!

 

[Steven Lee]

@remjet5219 glad I could help. Thanks.

 

[Steven Lee]

So we can generally agree that with replenished formula a safe bet is the small tank 1:1 development times?

Steve, I tried doing the ratio conversions from rotary tubes like you suggested but the numbers don't seem that easy (25:34, 3:4, etc) that I don't want to get it wrong.

Haha, that's why I said that replenishing is a pain in the ass if you want to do it properly, i.e.

1. You have to experimentally find the contrast level you're comfortable with, using the datasheet numbers just as a starting point.
2. Measure that optimal density with a control strip.
3. Keep a log of density readings, replenishing with a variable amount of replenisher keeping the process on aim.

That's what Kodak and Ilford say. That's why they make control strips. But if you don't do it properly, you must admit that your results are not as consistent as 1+1 one-shot. They can't be. You can take shortcuts according to your comfort level, and a lot of people here are comfortable with this variability.

Personally, I do not find 1+1 times to be a convenient approximation. It's close enough for some emulsions, and not good enough for others.

 

[MattKing]

Just to clarify, if I were to just start replenishing from my first roll instead of properly seasoning and measuring, would the inconsistency be so large that it couldn’t be fixed in photoshop? As a beginner to replenishing I’m inclined to do the simplest and learn along the way to make my process more intricate as I continue to understand it more.

Yes, but that may not be what you actually will want.
The goal of all this is to try to achieve reasonable consistency. It may be harder to recognize when you've got close to your goal if the changes are less than predictable and non-linear.
That being said, and speaking in pre-Photoshop terms, the difference between unseasoned stock X-Tol and seasoned for replenishment X-Tol is probably about a single contrast grade.

 

[albireo]

Photoshop is a superweapon. Almost everything can be fixed in Photoshop. [...]

But for an average negative this doesn't apply. I would even say that for an average negative in Photoshop even the choice of developer doesn't matter much. Bend that curve to your will.

Not my experience at all. For example, an underexposed negative cannot be fixed in Photoshop, unless your version of Photoshop has an 'invent shadow detail" button that mine doesn't.

The choice of developer for a scanned negative matters immensely, just as much as in a full darkroom workflow. Unless one is happy with random or subpar results, of course.

 

[remjet5219]

Not my experience at all. For example, an underexposed negative cannot be fixed in Photoshop, unless your version of Photoshop has an 'invent shadow detail" button that mine doesn't.

The choice of developer for a scanned negative matters immensely, just as much as in a full darkroom workflow. Unless one is happy with random or subpar results, of course.

What have you observed or learned from your experiences with developers? Have you tried Xtol replenishment with small tanks? What is your method, temps, etc?

 

[albireo]

What have you observed or learned from your experiences with developers? Have you tried Xtol replenishment with small tanks? What is your method, temps, etc?

I'm confused. Or perhaps you're attempting to build a strawman.

In my comment above, I was responding to a comment of another member who claimed that Photoshop can help you rescue/warp the signal in an average negative to the point that everything can be fixed. I disagree.

 

[koraks]

Or perhaps you're attempting to build a strawman.

I'd take @remjet5219's questions at face value and as genuinely interested in the differences you noted between developers when scanning film, and how your replenishment regime works for you. I'd certainly be interested (genuinely, without ulterior motive) in particularly the first, so please feel free to elaborate!

 

[MattKing]

What have you observed or learned from your experiences with developers? Have you tried Xtol replenishment with small tanks? What is your method, temps, etc?

I sense in your posts a desire to be directed toward the "one true path" while still early on your journey .
And that is totally natural!
But I think you will find that a vast majority of these sorts of explorations are better for tweaking or refining approaches that are already working.
I'd suggest starting out with an approach that is relatively simple and commonly used by many. After that is working well for you, it may be time to explore further.
I am a big advocate of replenished X-Tol, and you won't hear from me any discouragement about starting there. But X-Tol 1 + 1 used one shot is really good, and slightly (in my opinion) simpler, so if you decide to start there and switch to replenishment only after your 5 litres are down to 2 litres, than that would be sensible too.

 

[Anon Ymous]

@remjet5219 I'd also suggest using Xtol diluted 1+1. Replenishment offers greater economy, but IMHO not much more.

 

[remjet5219]

I sense in your posts a desire to be directed toward the "one true path" while still early on your journey .
And that is totally natural!
But I think you will find that a vast majority of these sorts of explorations are better for tweaking or refining approaches that are already working.
I'd suggest starting out with an approach that is relatively simple and commonly used by many. After that is working well for you, it may be time to explore further.
I am a big advocate of replenished X-Tol, and you won't hear from me any discouragement about starting there. But X-Tol 1 + 1 used one shot is really good, and slightly (in my opinion) simpler, so if you decide to start there and switch to replenishment only after your 5 litres are down to 2 litres, than that would be sensible too.

Hey Matt,

Yes you are correct, I'm very early on my home film development path. And I'm enjoying it so much! Thank you for all your support!

I have already done a whole batch with the 1 + 1 one shot so I'm just trying to set myself up for success with replenishment. I've been learning so much.

 

[remjet5219]

I'm confused. Or perhaps you're attempting to build a strawman.

In my comment above, I was responding to a comment of another member who claimed that Photoshop can help you rescue/warp the signal in an average negative to the point that everything can be fixed. I disagree.

I should have expanded more, my apologies. I started this thread because I'm interested in hearing people's experiences with development methods such as replenishment. Your opinions seemed to suggest you have had some experience with this and I was just curious.

I am genuinely so happy and grateful for everyone's participation and generosity with their knowledge!