References to XP2 Super in 'The Darkroom Cookbook 3rd edition'

Yesterday I was reading the 'The Darkroom Cookbook' and found a passage stating that XP2 Super had an orange base; having just developed a roll of XP2 Super a couple of hours earlier and not experiencing any orange base. Do I have a different definition of orange to the book's author?...

Indeed I thought one of the attractions of XP2 Super was that it didn't have an orange base and so would print more readily onto black & white paper via optical printing.

Tom.

The authors might have confused with the Kodak counterpart!


Cheers



André

André E.C. said:

The authors might have confused with the Kodak counterpart!
Cheers
André

Click to expand...

Could be. There are other odd comments in the book, such as a statement that developers containing Pyrogallol or Pyrocatechol should not be used in rotary processing; and then Sandy King states (as is well known) that Pyrocat-HD works well with JOBO rotary processors.

Tom.

The other statement in TDC that made me raise an eyebrow was when they mention that TMY has absolutely no flexibility for ZS expansions/contractions, whereas trad emulsions like Tri-X had much better flexibility.

As far as I've seen, people who do alternative processes use TMY a lot, precisely because it is very flexible and can be developed to the high contrast needed. That's why Kodak has removed the UV-blocking layer in certain runs to allow for shorter UV exposure times.

And you hear over and over again that the Kodak T-grains films need careful development for optimal results, because their curve can be so easily manipulated.

A little worrying for me is this. I was clearing up in my darkroom yesterday and came across some XP2+ 120 negs which I had got developed at Jessops I think.The prints must be somewhere but I can't find them but if they had looked anything other than normal, B&W prints then I am sure I'd have remembered. It was before I had a darkroom. They have a distinct brown/orange base/mask. Do you mean that your base is more or less transparent like trad B&W film?

As it's chromogenic and dye based I'd have thought that a "coloured" look to the negs was built into the film. Maybe it's all in how we define orange.

pentaxuser

Michel Hardy-Vallée said:

The other statement in TDC that made me raise an eyebrow was when they mention that TMY has absolutely no flexibility for ZS expansions/contractions, whereas trad emulsions like Tri-X had much better flexibility.

As far as I've seen, people who do alternative processes use TMY a lot, precisely because it is very flexible and can be developed to the high contrast needed. That's why Kodak has removed the UV-blocking layer in certain runs to allow for shorter UV exposure times.

And you hear over and over again that the Kodak T-grains films need careful development for optimal results, because their curve can be so easily manipulated.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is an article floating around lfphoto.info by John Sexton from around 20 years ago, in which he states that one reason many don't like the T-Max films is related to their highly malluable characteristics. I've only ever used a few T-max films so don't have personal experience to confirm this...

Tom.

Tom Kershaw said:

Yes, there is an article floating around lfphoto.info by John Sexton from around 20 years ago, in which he states that one reason many don't like the T-Max films is related to their highly malluable characteristics. I've only ever used a few T-max films so don't have personal experience to confirm this...

Tom.

Click to expand...

I think you mean this one:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/sexton-tmax.html

(extra emphasis mine)

John Sexton said:

For years serious photographers, particularly those using the Zone System, have wanted a film that was flexible in contrast control like the 'good old films'. The contrast of T-MAX films tends to be considerably easier to manipulate than conventional films. What some of those photographers who were begging for films that could be easily 'moved around' did not think about is that a film that moves easily when you want it to will also change contrast with ANY variation in development. (Time, temperature, agitation, amount of film developed, etc). T-MAX is much more sensitive to any variables in your process, planned or unplanned, than most other films.

DO NOT USE T-MAX IF YOU ARE NOT CONSISTENT IN YOUR PROCESSING PROCEDURES. You MUST have repeatable work habits and procedures. Be concerned about 1 degree changes in developing temperatures. Process the film as carefully as you would color films, and you will get totally repeatable results. T-MAX films will teach you to improve your processing technique for repeatable results.

Click to expand...

That's what I had in mind too. Compare with:

Steve Anchell said:

Old-style emulsions which are represented by Efke 25, 50, and 100. . . . These films rely entirely on the light sensitivity of silver halide suspended in gelatin to create the film's speed or ISO. . . . These are good films to use for Zone System-style expansion and contractions, particularly with large format. They also respond to variations in developer. . . .

Conventional-grain emulsions use grain which is either flat or a hybrid of cubic and flat grain. To varying degrees all of the films in this category use color dye sensitization in order to replace some of the silver in the emulsion and increase the film's sensitivity to light. . . These films respond somewhat to changes in developer formulae but not as much as old-style emulsions. . . .

Modern flat-grain emulsions use flat grains of silver which have almost no depth. . . . Flat-grain emulsions rely heavily on color-dye sensitization to further minimize the use of silver. . . . These emulsions are the least responsive to Zone System contraction and expansions an changes in developer.

Click to expand...

Either Sexton or Anchell is wrong, or else they are both right for different reasons. As both these fine folks check APUG every once in a while, it would be nice to have their input, should they chance upon this thread.

For my part, I'll mention that any panchromatic emulsions, whether it's Efke or TMY, ALWAYS need sensitizing dyes.

Mr. Anchell, if a film relies only on "the light sensitivity of silver halide" then it's a blue-sensitive emulsion. Not even an ortho, far less an orthopan like Efke.

Kodak's 2302 and 5302 are pretty much the only blue-sensitive emulsions left on the market. Everything else is ortho or panchro, and uses sensitizing dyes to extend the natural sensitivity of silver halides.

I don't particularly care for the look of the T-Max films, but they are certainly subject to Zone System controls. Before I came back to traditional films, TMX/D-76 1+1 was my main combination for several years, and I did a full range of Zone System tests with it. I've even used old TMX (pre-UV coating) for negs targeted for albumen printing, which requires a good deal of contrast (about +2 or +3 compared to prints on G2 enlarging paper).

I have been asked for an opinion in a PM. Here it is without reference to the PM tone or the person requesting it.

The following within ------ delimiters is incorrect. If it were so, as stated in another post, the film would be blue sensitive only. The ISO speed of all films is created by a combination of grain size, grain type, halide ratio, chemical sensitizers and spectral sensitizers. So, in essence, it entirely misses the true facts in the case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally written by Steve Anchell, pp.33-35

Old-style emulsions which are represented by Efke 25, 50, and 100. . . . These films rely entirely on the light sensitivity of silver halide suspended in gelatin to create the film's speed or ISO. . . . These are good films to use for Zone System-style expansion and contractions, particularly with large format. They also respond to variations in developer. . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second statement belonw is a maybe statement. Kodak says that the new Ektar and the Vision films are the "first use" of mixing t-grains (flat) with cubic emulsions. No one can say for sure. You cannot replace some of the silver with sensitizing dye and get more sensitivity to light. You get less all other things being equal. Use of 2 electron sensitization increases speed, but you need to have a certain amount of silver to get a certain density. Without that, you don't get the density. In color processes, the dyes can make up some of the difference, but in pure B&W this is not possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally written by Steve Anchell

Conventional-grain emulsions use grain which is either flat or a hybrid of cubic and flat grain. To varying degrees all of the films in this category use color dye sensitization in order to replace some of the silver in the emulsion and increase the film's sensitivity to light. . . These films respond somewhat to changes in developer formulae but not as much as old-style emulsions. . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, dye sensitization cannot substitute for silver. This is wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally written by Steve Anchell

Modern flat-grain emulsions use flat grains of silver which have almost no depth. . . . Flat-grain emulsions rely heavily on color-dye sensitization to further minimize the use of silver. . . . These emulsions are the least responsive to Zone System contraction and expansions an changes in developer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, my comments assume that the quotes from SA were indeed correct and not taken out of context or changed in any way. I have changed one word (posted -> written) in the above for clarity.

Basically, the quotations show a lack of understanding of emulsions and films. I am not sure where they came from, but they may be just errors in the text which can happen in the authoring of any book. I have seen the same in some of my work as my book progresses.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Basically, the quotations show a lack of understanding of emulsions and films. I am not sure where they came from, but they may be just errors in the text which can happen in the authoring of any book. I have seen the same in some of my work as my book progresses.

PE

Click to expand...

Interesting.

I contacted S.A. after listening to the radio interview where some unsupported provocative statements were made... I was redirected to place my questions on his website, which I tried to do twice... and while I never actually totally gave up, I did lose interest somwhat, and have not yet tried a third time to post my question there, where, I was promised, he would give it a proper answer.

Hummm...

Whatever is true, I must say that I would have expected a bit more.... Doesn't Steve have access to someone quite knowledgable in the area of emulsions? If it were me, publishing a book about emulsions, (or in this case, processing) I would certainly have asked a photographic engineer or someone similar, to review my work before going public, probably several such people.

Rocky Roads perhaps?

Oh well, I guess the real editing process begins now!

Ray

Ray;

The fact that a few phrases on the esoteric art of emulsion making are unclear or incorrect does not mean that I have any problem with the book or with Steve. I've only talked to him one time, about 3 years ago on a completely unrelated matter. AAMOF, I only commented here on request of readers of the thread.

I would be delighted to work with him on any future project of his. At the present time, I am fully involved in the total re-write of my book on emulsion making, and it will have no overlap with anything in Steve's book AFAIK.

If the lapses cited above were obvious to you, as an emulsion maker yourself, perhaps you would care to confine your comments to them rather than to the people involved.

PE

Ron, those are valuable comments.

I did my best to quote SA accurately; should he feel otherwise, I take full responsibility for any inaccuracy I may have created.

Photo Engineer said:

If the lapses cited above were obvious to you, as an emulsion maker yourself, perhaps you would care to confine your comments to them rather than to the people involved.

PE

Click to expand...

???

Did I say something wrong?
If so that was not my desire.

Your tense response only makes sense to me if you are referring to my referance to PE,
so I have removed it.

If reading my personal opinions in public bothers you, please consider sending me a private note...
rather than doing laundry in public.

A lot of hot air can be avoided that way.

Ray

Back in the UK I have Sexton's original 1980's Tmax articles, and I've used Tmax 100 & 400 ever since reading them with excellent results, and definitely no problems with expansion/contraction using the Zone system. However it's fair to say some people have never liked Tmax, and Steve Anchell is on record stating his own views, particularly in the online Radio Interview.

There's quite a few misconceptions about old style emulsions versus new. EFKE films aren't old style, like Pan F they were amongst the first new style thin layer emulsions, compared to films like Verichrome Pan, Tri-X (original), Royal X etc which were very thick coatings. But then the whole issue becomes even more complicated when you adding the T-grain technology.

It's possible to get excellent results with both conventional & T-grained emulsions, it's really only a case of getting to know and understand what-ever film your using. However it's because not everyone likes Tmax/Delta type films Kodak & Ilford still manufcature Tri-X, HP5, FP4 etc so there is a variance of opinions.

Ian

However it's because not everyone likes Tmax/Delta type films Kodak & Ilford still manufcature Tri-X, HP5, FP4 etc so there is a variance of opinions.

Click to expand...

However, a difference of opinion seems like a separate issue to making apparently "objective reality" statements about the structure or characteristics of a particular film or system.

Tom.