Metol in glycol now horrible brown

[Kirk Keyes]

It seems to me that if you area able to see any differences in sharpness or grain in the scan of the print with the

The scans in post #45 (there was a url link here which no longer exists) are from prints, as I read it. And I do see a difference between the two. I see more info in the Microdol example than in the SPF example.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I guess there are two of us Sandy. Now, do you see the same difference? If you do, then you fall into our camp regarding the developers (the scanners are another issue) but if you do not, then there is a problem. I can see it on my 19" flat screen monitor, so it may be an issue of resoluton or size of the image on-screen if you cannot see what Kirk and I do.

PE

 

[gainer]

If you must look at 40 power enlargements of a 35 mm negative to see the difference, how much is the difference worth? My original, personal ,surprise came when a developer with no sulfite came that close in granularity and resolution to a developer with 75 to 100 grams per liter. It is closer to the Microdol Expedient than Rodinal is. I expect to be able to develop at least 8 rolls of film in a liter on the basis of past experience without dilution, but right now I can't afford the film to demonstrate it. Day after tomorow is payday.

Instead of casting slings and arrows at my work, you could do your own comparison. I mean every one of the readers when I say "you."

 

[Photo Engineer]

Patrick;

The only quibble I might offer is that the Microdol Expedient is not Microdol, otherwise the experiment is fine. It is the interpretation that is getting in the way here. I understand and agree with Sandy's reservations about scanning and yours about the image size, but I have to agree with Kirk that there is a perceptable difference between all the cases of the Microdol Expedient and your SPF developer.

Thats all.

PE

 

[sanking]

I guess there are two of us Sandy. Now, do you see the same difference? If you do, then you fall into our camp regarding the developers (the scanners are another issue) but if you do not, then there is a problem. I can see it on my 19" flat screen monitor, so it may be an issue of resoluton or size of the image on-screen if you cannot see what Kirk and I do.

PE

Comparing the prints, yes I see a difference. The Microdol sample appears to have finer grain, but the SPF samples appears sharper. But there are also slight differnces in contrast between the two samples, which complicates evaluation for me.

But the comparison is pretty much what I would have expected comparing Microdol to a standard developer like D76. I personally never have like Microdol at all because of its mushy look. D76 1:1 or Xtol give much superior results overall IMO, though Microdol will win on grain.

Sandy

 

[Photo Engineer]

Sandy;

I see a sharpness difference as well in the spine of the second book from the center.

However, in an earlier post I mentioned the contrast difference as well. And a poor quibble is that D23+NaCl is not Microdol or Microdol-X. An interesting post script to this is that Patrick said they all had the same apparent speed and you would expect the Microdol family to yield lower speed. No?

PE

 

[sanking]

Sandy;

An interesting post script to this is that Patrick said they all had the same apparent speed and you would expect the Microdol family to yield lower speed. No?

PE

Pat may be wrong about the film speed. The Microdol sample print does appear to have more density in the low and mid-tones, suggesting to me that it did indeed yield a lower effective film speed than the SPF.

However, the only way to verify the above would be to expose step wedges with a sensitometer, develop them identically in the two developers, and plot the curves.

Sandy

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, there are too many imponderables then at this point for me. An attempt at a good experiment with some loose ends. BTDT myself. No criticism to Patrick on this one.

PE

 

[gainer]

Contrast and effective film speed are too interdependent to make a firm conclusion from these tests. When I use the term "appears to be" let it be understood from now on that I mean just that.

I could probably supply a little more information about film speed by a contact sheet showing all three negative strips and exposure brackets side by side, but the fact is that using box speed on all of them will get no one in trouble who knows how to use box speed.

If I gave the impression that I was trying to prove something that is not obvious to be true , I apologize for giving the wrong impression. The scientific method is strongest when it demonstrates by evidence that something is false. I had hoped to show that high sulfite content is not essentially a correlary of fine grain. Could we improve the Phenidone-C-Borax by adding sulfite? I didn't try because the solution is nearly saturated as is. I see another argument there, but I'd sooner leave it there. Suffice it to say, if you have a box of borax and some ascorbic acid, you need only a little Phenidone or a little more Metol and some water to develope them. You could probably stabilize the negatives with a strong salt solution long enough to get back to civilization.

 

[gainer]

1:30 AM explains why a lot of what I said above doesn't make good sense.

IIRC, from the start I called the D-23 + salt a "Midrodol X expedient". I should have left it out. I used Rodinal 1+25 as per recommendation of the original Rodinal bottle for HP5+. No time was given for the 1+50 dilution because HP5+ does not reach CI = .65.