Its actually a lot simpler and consistent to run a roll that has a correctly exposed grey card on it as a “control strip”. You can even buy Ilford bw control strips for the purpose.
I found this:
https://www.freestylephoto.biz/1672109-Ilford-FP4-Plus-125-ISO-35mm-x-100-ft.-Process-Control-Strips
And it's a 100ft roll for $100... Not quite what I imagined.I'll stick to 70ml every two weeks no matter what routine for now.
Happy Saturday, everyone!
I recently started shooting medium format, and suddenly 5L of developer does not sound like a lot, especially because I tend to experiment a lot. I've been hearing about replenished Xtol here, and now it looks like I have enough volume to make it work.
I have three questions:
Batch Replenishing
- What difference in image quality can I expect to see, as compared to stock Xtol?
- What adjustments to development time should I make? Xtol data sheet does not suggest different times, instead it offers separate table for "Replenished Xtol in large tanks" (as opposed to small tanks).
- What do you think about "batch replenishing" (see below)?
It's a term I just made up, because it describes perfectly what I have in mind. Instead of always keeping around 2L of replenished/working solution, I want to mix up 5L of fresh Xtol and then do the following:
This is much easier for me, than storing the working solution between developing sessions.
- Every two weeks, I collect all my B/W film that needs processing. Usually 2-4 rolls of 35mm and 4-6 rolls of 120.
- I develop my first two 35mm rolls in a 600ml Paterson tank with 100% fresh Xtol.
- Keep the working solution.
- Replenish 140ml of the working solution with fresh Xtol, per Kodak's instructions
- Continue this process until all film is developed, adding 70ml of fresh developer per roll.
- Dump the working solution when all rolls are done.
- Repeat in 2-3 weeks.
Thoughts?
Thanks.
Actually, you can. Not because you are adding extra chemical capacity, but because you are taking away more of those byproduct bromides than you might want.I can't really over replenish because the replenisher is working strength developer.
Generally, when you dilute developers, the highlights don't develop as fast and the shadows tend to develop more.
This is only noticeable with low agitation, with regular agitation developer is refreshed before selective exhaustion in the emulsion (where we have highlights) plays an effect.
Anyway development "compensation" in the highlights is more produced from bromide by-product presence (acting as a restrainer) than from developer agent exhaustion in the emulsion.
138S, I have tried for months to get acceptable results from HP5+ using Xtol 1+1 but the contrast just wasn't there regardless of time. Moreover, the midtones were all compressed into a narrow range of grey values (making people's faces flat & gray). Switching to stock Xtol produced dramatic difference without any changes in agitation.
Arguably, it depends on a film, but the compensating effect of diluting is hard not to notice.
[/QUOTE]This is a shot that was really challenging to me, https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28693688313/ the shot was preparated for weeks with some 120 format bracketings, and I got total control with 1:1 dilution.
It is not my experience... I use Xtol stock, 1:1 and 1:2, and I get the same if development time is well adjusted for the dilution.
Stock Xtol. Almost no post-processing, simple level clipping. See how much more 3-dimensional it looks?
Just increase development time with the 1:1 soup, and you should get the same than with stock dilution.
Increasing time with HP5+ moves the curve to the right without changing its shape much.
I have nothing to add. Hundreds of people online complain about "flat" and "low-contrast" look of HP5+, they can't all collectively be mistaken. This low contrast reputation does not hold up, if you develop it in stock solution. Look up comparisons like this (DD-X), where the same muddy look is presented as an intrinsic trait of this emulsion. Yet, if you use a more active developer (HC-110) the muddy look disappears.
Sounds like it is an Ilford film that does much better in Kodak developers. Maybe all Ilford films are better in Kodak developers?I have nothing to add. Hundreds of people online complain about "flat" and "low-contrast" look of HP5+, they can't all collectively be mistaken. This low contrast reputation does not hold up, if you develop it in stock solution. Look up comparisons like this (DD-X), where the same muddy look is presented as an intrinsic trait of this emulsion. Yet, if you use a more active developer (HC-110) the muddy look disappears.
But what about time between sessions? Someone suggested (and you agreed) to add 70ml of fresh developer every two weeks if you do not develop any film. Doesn't this automatically mean that if I do, I need to add 140ml?
In other words, replenishing 70ml per film is going to work differently if you're doing a film per day vs a film every two weeks or once a month, no?
(asking because I am on once-every-two-weeks schedule and I figured I should be adding more than 70ml to compensate for 14 days of idle time)
It is not my experience... I use Xtol stock, 1:1 and 1:2, and I get the same if development time is well adjusted for the dilution.
This is a shot that was really challenging to me, https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28693688313/ the shot was preparated for weeks with some 120 format bracketings, and I got total control with 1:1 dilution.
You may find sensitometric calibrations around: you can get the same by adjusting preocessing time.
With diluted developer there is an effect, solvent effect is lower and you have slightly more grain and perhaps slightly more sharpness, you may notice it a bit in a x8 enlargement, but not a big deal.
I found this:
https://www.freestylephoto.biz/1672109-Ilford-FP4-Plus-125-ISO-35mm-x-100-ft.-Process-Control-Strips
And it's a 100ft roll for $100... Not quite what I imagined.I'll stick to 70ml every two weeks no matter what routine for now.
The very least a drop test will tell you is whether your developer has suddenly died (as XTOL occasionally did fifteen or more years ago). That alone is worth the (very low) price of admission.
Just increase development time with the 1:1 soup, and you should get the same than with stock dilution.
"Soup" is a very old term for developer. I'm showing how hold I really am.Actually stock or replenished XTOL works much better than soup. I recommend that people eat soup and use developers for film.
"Soup" is a very old term for developer. I'm showing how hold I really am.
You're old too? Those kids should get off our lawns and start mixing their own chemicals!You're not the only one. In this context, I expect "soup" to include metol or phenidone, hydroquinone or ascorbate, and possibly glycin, catechols, p-aminophenol, amidol, etc. -- rather than stock, salt, spices, vegetables, and possibly noodles.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?