Exactol lux and pyrocat dev times

[m_liddell]

I’ve just developed a few rolls of acros in Exactol Lux. The instructions say 7 – 8 mins @ 21C for *any* film depending on if prints will be on VC or graded paper. I deved for 8 mins and stuck to the agitation as per the instructions. My time (after testing) with acros came out at 10mins at 21C with the same agitation. I know these developers are pretty similar so I though this was odd.

On the final frame of the last film I had shot an evenly lit blank wall, 3 stops overexposed, as a zone VIII frame just to have a quick check to see how far out recommended time was. This zone VIII frame is 0.8 above the B+F value. That puts it pretty much between zones VI and VIII?

I used an acid stop and the instructions said to use alkali or water, could this be the reason? I really don't want to have to use water since the only way I can get clean negs is to use distilled water for *everything* and doing this already costs a lot.

 

[lee]

(On the final frame of the last film I had shot an evenly lit blank wall, 3 stops overexposed, as a zone VIII frame just to have a quick check to see how far out recommended time was. This zone VIII frame is 0.8 above the B+F value. That puts it pretty much between zones VI and VIII?)

I would think this is a low value and would need more development. This sounds more like zone V than zone VIII. Zone VIII is generaly accepted to be about 1.3 >fb+f. So, there is quite a difference in density there. Did you by chance actually run a zone I test also to see if you are using .10 >fb+f? That might tell you something also. That density is general found about 4 stops under the meter reading on that wall you shot.

good luck,

lee\c

 

[m_liddell]

No I just did the zone VIII frame on a whim since I had a frame left on the roll. The negs have come out *looking* OK though, maybe a little on the thin side.

Time to do some testing I think...

 

[Blighty]

Did you 're-dunk' the film in the developer after fixing? This is usually only necessary after an acid fixer. Doing this enhances the stain. Maybe this will help. I had a similar problem using Exactol Lux with FP4. My negs were somewhat thin despite following recommended dev times. On the flip side, it produces brilliant negs on HP5 (200asa-8mins@21c). Regards BLIGHTY

 

[m_liddell]

Did you 're-dunk' the film in the developer after fixing? This is usually only necessary after an acid fixer. Doing this enhances the stain. Maybe this will help. I had a similar problem using Exactol Lux with FP4. My negs were somewhat thin despite following recommended dev times. On the flip side, it produces brilliant negs on HP5 (200asa-8mins@21c). Regards BLIGHTY

No I didn't 're-dunk' the film since the instructions didn't mention it. Should I do this or just develop for longer?

 

[Baxter Bradford]

When I switched to using Exactol Lux from DiXactol about 3 1/2 years ago, I noticed how different the negs looked, as you describe, much thinner to the naked eye. But the information was all there.

I phoned Barry Thornton who was extremely helpful, as was his way. He said that this was normal and even sent me a 6x6 negative which he had processed. This looked just like mine achieved by following the instructions.

I was using a water bath stop and his Archevix alkaline fixer for which he said that there was no need to re-dunk the film in the spent developer for stain intensification.

There has been a lot written about the need for this re-immersion in the spent developer process in tanning and staining developers and quite what it achieves other than an overall staining of the negative which isn't beneficial. There are some superb people on this site with an excellent knowledge of sensitometry such as Sandy King, who could make a more informed post about whether you need to do this or not.

I haven't used Exactol nor DiXactol since my stocks ran out after Barry died. Moving to PMK and very recently Pyrocat HD they all produce good, but different negatives and that is part of the joy and frustrations of this medium!

Good luck.

 

[m_liddell]

When I switched to using Exactol Lux from DiXactol about 3 1/2 years ago, I noticed how different the negs looked, as you describe, much thinner to the naked eye. But the information was all there.

Did you do any testing? What kind of zone VIII density were you getting?

 

[Baxter Bradford]

Sorry I didn't do any proper testing. I was just getting into my photography and taking things a bit more seriously. I'd had good results from DiXactol and when my negs were the same as the sample neg, that was good enough for me. I trusted the reputation and experience of Barry Thornton and didn't shoot any proper test images.

However it seems that you are far more experienced than myself and have a densitometer.

This is something which I am now thinking of buying, but currently don't have access to one, from which to provide you with some readings from my existing Exactol Lux negs.

I can't remember the exact sales pitch for Exactol Lux, but this was formulated at a time when he was looking for negs which would scan well. Have just looked this up to remind myself http://www.monochromephotography.com/exactol_lux.htm
Are you getting the rich and subtle tones? Why not contact Peter Hogan if this is where you bought the chemicals. He might be able to better answer your specific queries.

 

[m_liddell]

I'm still pretty new to photography too. Nice seeing the pics on your site since you have photographed quite a few of the same places as me being on the south coast.

My readings were done using a spot meter, I don't have access to a densitometer. I'm just worried that the shots I've taken and developed are going to require grade 5+ paper and since I dont print myself it could be a very expensive way to find out...