Mixing Chemicals & Developing First Roll of B&W

I have used Xtol at 1+1 in a 250ml tank for about 10 years now so that is 120-5ml stock and 25 ml less than the 150 ml minimum mentioned and have never noticed a problem so maybe 150 ml is shall we say overly conservative. Mind you I have used Perceptol at 1+3 in the same tank without a problem as well which is a stock amount that for some comes close to risking disaster

pentaxuser

braxus is also using both 35mm and 120 film. His Paterson tank requires 580 ml to cover a 120 roll. A 1+1 dilution still supplies lots of stock.

bluechromis said:

But 150 ml figure was arrived at for the benefit penny pinching commercial processes that wanted to use the bare minimum to achieve semi-acceptable results. But what was forgotten, according to Anchell,was that the Kodak research showed that much better results would had by using 250 ml of developer per roll

Click to expand...

I think you're very confused about this. First, the figure of merit here (for Xtol) was 100 ml, not 150; second, this was Kodak's research, intended to tell the minimum that would meet Kodak standards for negative quality. Not the "least you can get away with", but the minimum that would produce negatives Kodak (the old Kodak, before the film market crashed) was willing to put their name behind. Third, those "penny-pinching commercial processes" never used diluted developers; they ran replenished, which uses just 70ml of developer as replenisher after each 8x10 equivalent has been processed, while developing in full stock strength developer. Replenishment is by far the cheapest way to run a high volume development line -- not just in developer capacity, but in time as well. It takes much longer to process film in dilute developer than in stock strength solution, and in high volume commercial processing time is a significant consideration -- most film through the system = most money taken in for the same overhead and wage costs.

The other side of this, however, is that by the time Kodak introduced Xtol (1996), black and white commercial processing was no longer a high volume business. It was significantly harder to find a place that would develop your B&W film in house at all than to get color negative film processed with prints in your hand inside an hour. Xtol was, realistically, introduced for the professional photographer who did his or her own film processing and printing in black and white -- a breed that, for economical purposes, virtually vanished over the following ten years. Those are the workers who might, because of the change in character of the negatives, prefer to process in diluted developer and need to know that they were risking having their contrast index vary with the level of exposure of the negative if they used less than 100ml of stock for an 8x10 equivalent, regardless of the dilution (meaning 1+1 was fine, but 1+2 might not be for 35mm or 200 -- but would be for single loaded 120, different because of the ratio of film to solution). These are the same workers for whom Kodak had published this same information going as far back as the introduction of D-72 (commercially sold as Dektol) and D-76 before WWII.

MattKing said:

braxus is also using both 35mm and 120 film. His Paterson tank requires 580 ml to cover a 120 roll. A 1+1 dilution still supplies lots of stock.

Click to expand...

A Paterson tank needs 290 ml to cover 35mm, but only 500 ml to cover 120 (and will accept two rolls of 120 on a single reel, if you load them carefully). The highest loading density (film area per volume of solution) is when you load 220, or load a 120, push it all the way to the core, and load another 120 behind it; that's the same area to volume you'd get with 35mm in a stainless tank (250 ml per 8x10 equivalent). See my other post above concerning actual published minimums for Xtol -- 1+1 is fine even at that loading density; it's 1+2 that may cause change in contrast depending on level of exposure.

Yes its 290ml for 1 35mm, 580ml for 2 35mm, and 500ml for 120. I still like using Xtol straight though. I noticed a couple of my rolls of 35mm (Forte 400 and J&C Classic 400) were still slightly foggy after the films were dry, so I fixed them for another 4 minutes to be safe. Much better. It seems 6 minutes isn't quite long enough, even with fresh fixer. 8 minutes Im having good luck with.

I noticed the old school emulsions like Forte 400, Catlabs X80, and Efke 25, need a prewash. Good thing I did that. The water came out either purple or blue after I drained the prewash.

I also noticed how much fog the 400 speed films have. My Tri-X which is quiet a few years expired, isn't completely clear, but darker in the areas between shots. Im going to have to watch my high speed films, since they dont age so well. Maybe I still need to buy some of the HC110 I was thinking of.

braxus said:

Im going to have to watch my high speed films, since they dont age so well. Maybe I still need to buy some of the HC110 I was thinking of.

Click to expand...

Alternatively, you could just get a small bottle of benzotriazole solution and, since you're one-shotting your developer, add a few drops of the 1% solution to your developer (and add a little exposure) when shooting those expired fast films. Combine that with developing as cold as practical (down to 60F, at least, with time compensation for temperture) and you can apparently clean up all but the heaviest age fog. You'll need to sacrifice a roll or two, exposed on a single scene and cut into shorter strips, to test the process to get controllable results, but if you have a bunch of that old film, it'll be worth it.

Im not even sure where I could get my hands on Benzo... solution to be honest. Its not like the stores here sell it. I do have more rolls of the stuff, so I could test.

The Formulary sells it, and therefore you might be able to get it through B&H or Freestyle.
Ask Nicole - they do have a few odd bottles of Formulary stuff on Beau's shelves.

Kodak used to sell BZT as "Anti Fog No. 1" -- in tablets, of all things. Not sure what the dosage per tablet is, but I've got a little bottle of 'em. It may say on the label; been a while since I looked closely.

braxus said:

so I fixed them for another 4 minutes to be safe. Much better. It seems 6 minutes isn't quite long enough, even with fresh fixer. 8 minutes Im having good luck with.

Click to expand...

Are you using Ilford Rapid Fixer? Diluted 1+4 for film, the recommended fixing time is 2-5 min. I use 4 min at 20C and have never had to fix longer with Ilford films (T Max is a different story)

Well I shot my first 2 sheets on the camera today. The lensboard I bought wasn’t fitting into the camera properly. I'll have to get some wood shaved off it to fit. I had the board that was given me with a modified adapter, so I used my Fujinon 210mm 5.6 lens which is wide angle. Took my two shots. The rail wasn't rolling too well when I tried to bundle it all back up.


Developed 1 sheet in Xtol straight. I still have the other sheet to do, but my Unicolor paper drum is leaking. So I was only able to use it the one time. Needless to say the film sheet turned out ok regardless. Its still drying as we speak, but here are a couple pics while its hanging in the bathtub.

As you work at it, it will improve. Good start.

If I ever win the lottery, an 8x10 camera and suitable lenses and kit is on my short list. 4x5 seems so small these days...

braxus said:

Im not even sure where I could get my hands on Benzo... solution to be honest. Its not like the stores here sell it. I do have more rolls of the stuff, so I could test.

Click to expand...

I get all my chemicals from Jacque, at Argentix dot ca. Great guy to deal with.

braxus, if you're going to develop in Xtol straight, why not consider a replenished regime? I've been using one for about a month. Not only economical, but turns out great looking, sharp negatives.

Andrew O'Neill said:

braxus, if you're going to develop in Xtol straight, why not consider a replenished regime? I've been using one for about a month. Not only economical, but turns out great looking, sharp negatives.

Click to expand...

We have another believer!

Sirius Glass said:

We have another believer!

Click to expand...

It's been excellent so far. I used Xtol 1+1 exclusively from '97 to 2002. First time replenishing it. So, does this mean I have to trade in my RB67 for Hasselblad?

Andrew O'Neill said:

It's been excellent so far. I used Xtol 1+1 exclusively from '97 to 2002. First time replenishing it. So, does this mean I have to trade in my RB67 for Hasselblad?

Click to expand...

Nope.

Andrew O'Neill said:

It's been excellent so far. I used Xtol 1+1 exclusively from '97 to 2002. First time replenishing it. So, does this mean I have to trade in my RB67 for Hasselblad?

Click to expand...

Yes, you deserve the best in life.

Andrew O'Neill said:

So, does this mean I have to trade in my RB67 for Hasselblad?

Click to expand...

Why would you do that? The RB can do anything a 'Blad can, but with a bigger frame. Sure, it's heavier, but it's essentially a 7x7 SLR instead of a 6x6. Almost makes me wish there was a 116 back and film still available to shoot that format.

Donald Qualls said:

Why would you do that? The RB can do anything a 'Blad can, but with a bigger frame. Sure, it's heavier, but it's essentially a 7x7 SLR instead of a 6x6. Almost makes me wish there was a 116 back and film still available to shoot that format.

Click to expand...

I was only joking. I would NEVER give up my RB.

Andrew O'Neill said:

I was only joking. I would NEVER give up my RB.

Click to expand...

Now you're talking. If I could only keep one camera (kit), I'd have to think long and hard between the RB67 and my Graphic View. Fortunately, I don't have to make that choice (at least any time soon).

Donald Qualls said:

Now you're talking. If I could only keep one camera (kit), I'd have to think long and hard between the RB67 and my Graphic View. Fortunately, I don't have to make that choice (at least any time soon).

Click to expand...

At some point I will sell my LF gear, and return 100% to my RB gear. So glad I didn't get rid of it. I put it up for sale here several years ago, and someone offered me $350 for everything. I told him to get stuffed.
I'll most likely hang on to my Holgas, and Mamiya 6 (same as yours).

I don't plan to get rid of my LF -- I very much like huge negatives and movements. But I like the ease of use of the RB compared to my Speed Graphic or Graphic View, too.