Blighty said:
I've seen Pete Hogans Prescysol developers and was quite interested in them. I've only ever used Barry Thornton's Dixactol and Exactol Lux developers. How do the Prescysol devs compare to these? My experience of Dixactol showed it to be very forgiving in terms of exposure (errors?) with very high acutance and useful edge effects. This was (IMO) at the expense of grain, which at 35mm was quite obtrusive, obviously less so in 120 format. One 'problem' I found with Dixactol was it produced a very long tonal scale and I needed to print hard to get a reasonable amount of 'snap' into my photo. This produced an unwelcome increase in apparent grain in the print. Anyway, to get back to my original point; how do they compare?
Hi.
Firstly, being a user of Di-Xactol, you will Know that your development routine had to be an exact science. The developer was so open to contamination, it was unbelievable. New reel, syringes, measuring Jugs, tank etc,etc. I find that this is not the case with Prescysol and Prescysol EF. That's it's first plus point.
When I compare a Di-X neg to a Prescysol neg, I can see that the Di-X stains better, a lovely chocolate brown, but I would have to say that the Prescysol negs look far sharper, crisper being a better word, so I would have thought that it would give me a sharper print, but this was not the case. The Di-X neg prints, at least to the eye, a fantastically sharp photograph and although the Prescysol will also do the same, it comes a very, very close 2nd, but still superb. Now I'm crap with memory, but have read Barry's book, Edge of Darkness, and this leads on to your question about edge effects and grain. I'm no scientist and I do find it tough to get my head around the science of photography, but My understanding is that sharpness and grain go hand in hand. Again refering to Barry's book, he tests Kodak T-Max 3200,@ EI800 and develops it in the high acutance developer, Rodinal, Known for its sharp crisp, course grain. Though this produced a rather flat neg, mainly down to the content of the photograph, the sharp edge of the grain gave the brain something to focus on (his words), resulting in a sharp, even though grainy, photograph. This is probably why Prescysol falls just short of the sharpness (to the eye) of the Di-X. Because at the size that I print, 11 X 8 1/4, It is Grainless. I struggle to focus the neg sometimes, likening it to a C41 processed neg ( sorry the name escapes me and I can't be bothered to look it up)
The edge definition, in my opinion, isn't as predominant in the Prescysol photographs, but I think this is no bad thing as some times it was a bit too much with Di-X, causing a slight seperation between the edges that my eye seemed to go straight to. This wasn't always the case, only when the Di-X wanted to play games. When Di X was good, it was very, very good, but when it was bad, boy oh boy was it bad. I could never understand why it behaved badly sometimes, it just did.
And also one of the final good things about Prescysol, You don,t have to print that hard to get the 'Snap' as you called it. My negs print nicely @ grade 2 1/2 to grade 3. I usually start with my test strip/print at 3 and it usually stays there. And when you do go harder, in my experience, the grain seems to stay controlled and vertually non existant, if that makes sence (probably not).
One thing I should mention for users of Di-X. I had problems with reticulation on more than one occasion with 35mm Fuji Neopan 400. In a letter Barry described it as a flook of a combination of circumstances, or some accidental but unremarked-at-the-time processing glitch. Saying that these puzzles do happen from time to time. But about four times, Umm! Not sure about that one. He went on to advise me not to use Di-X on a 400 speed film in 35mm. Exactol Lux is the right developer to use for 35mm.
To sum up. I am a user of Peter's Prescysol EF because it gives me the fine grained, outstandingly sharp, easily printable negative that I desire. I arrive at this negative with confidence each and every time I develop and I can develop 99% of the film I use in it and end up with consistant results and compairable negatives when they beam down on to my masking frame, making my life easier. And that will do for me mate. Let someone else do the testing and at what I believe a small price, I can get on and do the using.
Just for info, I am using 120 Ilford Delta 100 and 400 and the odd roll of HP5 plus in Prescysol EF. Delta 400 in 35mm. I used to use the same films and developed in the Di-Xactol Ultra version. Both showing slightly finer grain than their predecessors. And I hasten to add that all of the above is from my own experience. As I said, I'm no scientist but am very meticulous with my developing procedure, which is forever improving. Purified water has always been used for development.
I hope this helps.
Regards
Stoo
P.S I had, and still have a huge respect for Barry Thornton, as I do for anyone who devotes their life to their art, and shares it like he did. Any problems and he was always there on the end of the line for you. He is sadly missed in our world.
