Panatomic X Experimental Film Developing Idea

braxus · Jul 9, 2023

Well part of my nutty reasoning is to just have some fun and see what would happen. I dont have any real scientific method on any of this, nor do I have the knowledge to do a elaborate test as you were suggesting in your last post. Some of what you said went over my head. I'd need it in more laymans terms to understand some of it. Im doing this test mainly to see if I can see a difference here on my end with my workflow and what I have available. If I can see a difference, then this test would be valid to me. I could move forward with such knowledge. I wasnt intending on all of this to see how technical this would get, like someone from Kodak testing films would do. It was more for myself, and I'd obviously share this with others in a video. I dont have the background to do this scientifically as some people would. It bothers me when people expect only the most technical methods to get results, as if its all or nothing. I understand why that way, but again Im not of that knowledge to do it that way myself.

koraks · Jul 9, 2023

I understand what you mean. That's why I said this:

koraks said:
There will be an outcome alright, and if it pleases you, I guess it's worth it.

If it works for you, that's fine. You asked me what I would do. Well, I would do it differently. Don't blame me for explaining it if you asked...

braxus · Jul 9, 2023

Im not that upset, Im just not knowledgeable to understand what you would do or why. I appreciate your feedback regardless. And somehow I missed that comment in quotations.

koraks · Jul 9, 2023

That's OK. I really believe that 'anything goes' when it comes to photography. We all have our own ways, preferences, objectives, backgrounds. That of course also means we run into things we'll approach totally differently all the time. I'm fine with that; I'm happy you're fine with it, too

braxus · Jul 9, 2023

Thanks Koraks. I get a lot of people complaining about my testing methods in the Youtube videos I do, so Im a bit sensitive to stuff like that now. I had to delete a lot of their comments because they ended up getting inflammatory. I'll try to scan the whole roll as a contact sheet on my Epson, and then do the high rez scans on my Primefilm XAs. At least I could try to use one of your suggestions.

MattKing · Jul 9, 2023

Interesting results.
Of course if I did the test, I would first make an optical contact proof sheet - so that I had a visual reference that offered the same exposure and contrast.
For one to one comparisons, is it possible to scan two strips side by side in the same holder?
By the way, I believe you mentioned outside the threads that the developer isn't Microdol-X, but rather the Legacy clone Mic-X. That may be important.

koraks · Jul 9, 2023

braxus said:
I get a lot of people complaining about my testing methods

Don't lose any sleep over it, I'd say. Testing is always wrought with methodological issues and as soon as you mention 'test', people will jump on it and point out how the tests are flawed - like I did here as well. Managing expectations does help, sometimes. E.g. replacing "testing" with "experimenting" sometimes takes the edge off, since the latter is often interpreted as less strict (even if there's no really good reason for seeing it that way).

Also, criticism isn't necessarily a bad thing - as long as it's not inflammatory, though. Even if people vehemently disagree, at least this usually means they have been stimulated to think the thing over and decide how it might really work. If they then publish that, it's sort of progress, too - provided they put some thought into it. Even a crappy test can trigger useful feedback.

Andrew O'Neill · Jul 9, 2023

...and if one gets results that they like, then hopefully it will be repeatable. Hence the technical aspect can play an important roll... and that could just be from good old empirical testing and very thorough note-taking

braxus · Jul 9, 2023

I managed to make a 8x10 scan of the negs as a contact sheet. Its not the best managed file, but from what I could see, the negs with the mixed developers are showing more contrast and a brighter image. This also shows visually in the negs with more dense sky, etc.

koraks · Jul 9, 2023

Yeah, that's a nice comparison. So this shows that the activity of your mixture of developers is higher than that of the individual developers by themselves. From here, you could choose to re-do a test while adjusting the development time or dilution of the mixtures to bring the results closer in line with the individual developers. At that point, a direct comparison becomes possible. Alternatively, you could leave it at this and for instance decide you like the added 'punch' of the mixture and stick with that.

braxus · Jul 9, 2023

Its interesting yes on the mixed developer ones. I could always do more testing. Main thing I want to check now is a high rez scan on my other scanner, to see where the grain is at. And yes Matt, I should have said this was a clone developer- Mic X. Im not sure how much it differs from the original Kodak chemistry.

Below are two rough scans on the flatbed. I had to auto levels and change contrast a bit, but I was curious if I could get the images to look better. I'll do these all on my other scanner now. First one is Mic X on its own, and second is the swamp water one.

braxus · Jul 9, 2023

koraks said:
So this shows that the activity of your mixture of developers is higher than that of the individual developers by themselves. From here, you could choose to re-do a test while adjusting the development time or dilution of the mixtures to bring the results closer in line with the individual developers.

I think part of the problem was the temp inside was so hot, the developing time wasn't short enough to develop the film properly. One of the strips was literally 2:30 minutes which is way below the min recommended time of 4 minutes. I dont know how I could shorten the time any further. That said the times for the mixture ones were longer than the 2 minute one, because they were a diluted developer. So instead of 3 minutes per developer (per the mixing developer ones), I could maybe try 2:30. Basically cut 30 seconds off the time. Total time for the two developers was 6:30 mins, so again I could cut it down to 6 minutes or even 5:30, which would make it 2:30 for the one developer, and 3 mins for the other.

Andrew O'Neill · Jul 9, 2023

Years ago I experimented with two developer/two-bath system, with sheet film. One developer was Xtol and the other was Rodinal. I varied the times in each. I remember settling on one combo... the one that gave a bit more punch, and sharper grain. Once I started using diluted Pyrocat-HD, that was the end of that...

braxus · Jul 9, 2023

Andrew O'Neill said:
Years ago I experimented with two developer/two-bath system, with sheet film. One developer was Xtol and the other was Rodinal. I varied the times in each. I remember settling on one combo... the one that gave a bit more punch, and sharper grain. Once I started using diluted Pyrocat-HD, that was the end of that...

I think Pyro is fairly toxic, so I wouldnt want to use that while in this place here.

What was the film Andy and what times did you settle on for that? My curiousity is that Xtol is pretty close to the best at all aspects of developing, while Microdol X is basically good at making grain mushy and small. Will Xtol still prevail?

Im scanning my negs now at 10,000 dpi. Im doing the highest setting for buffer, as the optical rez on my scanner maxes out at 5000 dpi anyway.

Andrew O'Neill · Jul 9, 2023

braxus said:
I think Pyro is fairly toxic, so I wouldnt want to use that while in this place here.

What was the film Andy and what times did you settle on for that? My curiousity is that Xtol is pretty close to the best at all aspects of developing, while Microdol X is basically good at making grain mushy and small. Will Xtol still prevail?

Im scanning my negs now at 10,000 dpi. Im doing the highest setting for buffer, as the optical rez on my scanner maxes out at 5000 dpi anyway.

Yes, you need to not breath in the fumes, or dust... I'm going to check out Pyrocat-HDC sometime after Japan. It's supposed to be nicer on the environment (omits Sodium Metabisulfite, and Potassium Bromide)
The film for the test would have been with HP5, or TMY-1 (no TMY-2 yet). Times? Couldn't tell you. It was 25 years ago. Time in Xtol was a bit longer than Rodinal... I could go digging for my notes, but I don't have time... maybe after Japan...
10,000dpi?? No wonder it takes you all day to scan Xtol prevail? Personally, I think it's an outstanding developer, especially at a 1+1 dilution or replenished (I prefer 1+1 )
When you have gone through all the results, let us know your conclusions!

braxus · Jul 9, 2023

I normally scan at either 2500 or 5000 dpi most of the time. I only do 10000 when I need that extra buffer or for videos. Again half that rez is filler, as my scanner (though rated to 10000), only has an optical limit of 5000 dpi.

I'll work on getting my screen caps of the images in comparison for the video. I might be working on this another day or two. Im halfway done my scans at the moment.

braxus · Jul 10, 2023

Well I got my results from the 10000 dpi scans. And I was able to see small differences between using each developer. But all of this is basically stuff we already knew about these two developers. First off- Microdol X (or in this case Legacy Mic X) has finer grain. Its a softer, smaller, mushier grain then Xtol. Sharpness is noticeably less in the Mic X pics. And the tones are more compressed there as well, but not by much. Xtol gives a sharper image with larger crunchier grain and brighter highlights. Its not a mushy image in comparison. Grass is even brighter slightly in Xtol, as is the sky itself. In the combination set where I basically did a two bath situation, where one developer was used first for half the time, dumped, then the second developer put in for the second half. What I noticed is that the first developer retained all its attributes in the image, where as the second developer had little affect afterwards. So what ever developer you started with, is how the image will look when done. The only real noticeable trait was contrast seemed a little higher in the two bath setup. So I saw no benefit doing a dual bath situation. What did make a small difference was the swamp water developer. It seemed to be a half and half situation where the grain was smaller and smoother, but the sharpness was slightly better than just Mic X on its own. Grain wasn't quite as small as Mic X, but still noticeably better than Xtol on its own. So in small ways, it compromises between the two developers. And it retains the bright sky of Xtol. Contrast seems a little higher on this set too.

I'll have to do more testing, and maybe reduce dev time on the swamp water mixture, to see if it still improves a bit more. But for best overall image quality, with a slightly larger grain, Xtol still seems to be the best choice between these two. It has slightly more spread out tones as well. It took me 30 minutes in video screen recording, to show all the combinations I had. I'll have to cut out parts to tame the time used on the video. So this video Im doing will be a long one.

koraks · Jul 10, 2023

braxus said:
I think Pyro is fairly toxic, so I wouldnt want to use that while in this place here.

You don't ingest developer though, do you?
As I understand, you've worked in a color lab for several years. The developers you used there are in the same league of toxicity as a pyro developer. The main difference is that you went through many gallons of the stuff in your lab, while you'd use at most a quart at a time at home.

Some very basic precautions (do not mix developer in glassware you use for drinks etc.) are really all that's needed.

Not to say you absolutely must use a pyro developer. There's really no need; XTOL does fine for pretty much everything.

braxus · Jul 10, 2023

I knew Pyro was toxic, but I didn't know by how much. I think Andy was warning more when your mixing the stuff up then using it.

koraks · Jul 10, 2023

Handling powders is always a concern - however, all the pyrocatechol I've bought so far came in the form of flakes, not a powder, and there's never any dust when I mix it.

Andrew O'Neill said:
I'm going to check out Pyrocat-HDC sometime after Japan. It's supposed to be nicer on the environment (omits Sodium Metabisulfite, and Potassium Bromide)

The metabisulfite and bromide are of no particular concern in any way. The only nasty things in pyrocat are the pyrocatechol and the phenidone (in regular pyrocat HD). The phenidone is present in a relatively small amount, so replacing it by vitamin C (pyrocat HDC) doesn't help all that much in mitigating the toxicity issues.

In terms of environmental issues: I doubt the use of pyrocat has any measurable influence on waste water systems. Zero waste is of course always better than a little waste. Viewing things in proportion is also a good idea, IMO.

Andrew O'Neill · Jul 10, 2023

Catechol fumes are pretty strong, so it helps to be in a ventilated space, when mixing it up... I also wear a respirator, and nitrile gloves.

lamerko · Jul 10, 2023

I don't think there are any dramas. In the classic formula, we have 50 grams of Pyro and 2 grams of Phenidone for 1 liter of concentrate. At a standard dilution of 1:100, we get 0.5 g of Pyro and a very insignificant amount of Phenidone for 1 liter of working solution. Personally, however, I do not prepare a whole liter - according to needs - between 300 and 500 ml. I believe there is much more toxic, higher concentration stuff in the sewers…
For mixing... yes, they have to take all the protective procedures. But this is true in general when mixing (especially powdered) chemicals, not just Pyro.

Donald Qualls · Jul 11, 2023

koraks said:
the activity of your mixture of developers is higher than that of the individual developers by themselves.

If you were (able) to control for pH and total (corrected for activity -- the usual replacement is 10% as much phenidone as metol, for instance) developer you might be able to draw a conclusion about superadditive activity -- you're getting multiple developing agents involved, after all (Xtol has phenidone derivative and ascorbate, Microdol-X is, IIRC, metol and hydroquinone), with at least the hydroquinone and ascorbate known to superadd with both metol and phenidone.

braxus · Jul 11, 2023

Donald. So your saying the mixture of the two in the so called swamp water mix, acts like a super charged mixture because of the dual active ingredients? Next time I might do less time just to see if contrast goes down a little.

Donald Qualls · Jul 11, 2023

braxus said:
So your saying the mixture of the two in the so called swamp water mix, acts like a super charged mixture because of the dual active ingredients?

It's not just dual developing agents, it's three or four -- phenidone, ascorbate, metol, and possibly hydroquinone (I don't recall for certain whether Microdol-X had Q). The reason metol/hydroquinone and phenidone with either hydroquinone or ascorbate are so widely used in combination is because the second developing agent recharges the first and produces more developing action (and higher true film speed) than any of them singly.

Panatomic X Experimental Film Developing Idea

braxus

koraks

Moderator

braxus

koraks

Moderator

braxus

MattKing

Moderator

koraks

Moderator

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

braxus

Attachments

koraks

Moderator

braxus

Attachments

braxus

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

braxus

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

braxus

braxus

koraks

Moderator

braxus

koraks

Moderator

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

lamerko

Donald Qualls

braxus

Donald Qualls

Panatomic X Experimental Film Developing Idea

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Moderator

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency