In my experience the only detectable difference between stock Xtol, 1:1 and Xtol-R was the characteristics of the grain, and only when pixel-peeping, and it wasn't really tangible, I just enjoy knowing it's there.(probably wouldn't even show up in flatbed scans)
@Raghu Kuvempunagar yes, showing samples is always great, but also tricky (see below). Also, regarding the scanning type, that's another excellent point: the scanning device will probably have greater impact on the grain characteristics than Xtol-R vs 1:1.
Within last two years, I've been alternating between Fuji X-T3, to Plustek 120 Pro, then Canon 5D Mk4, and finally the Sony a7R IV, with several lenses and RAW converters and sharpening settings, so my grain patterns are all over the place! So, if you are OK with these incomparable samples:
As you can see, camera resolutions and even scan sizes are quite different. But... the softness of stock Xtol grain compared to Xtol-R is visible. It probably will be more (or less!) pronounced if both images were scanned on the same device, but speaking from experience, I can tell you it's real.
- Xtol-R scanned with Sony a7r IV
- Stock Xtol scanned with Fuji X-T or Canon 5D IV, I don't remember
I agree.@moderators: this type of thread will inevitably get into scanning related discussion and invite moderation. Should you not move the thread to appropriate forum so that the scanning related posts don't get deleted by you?
You are very kind. I am quite aware of the limited usefulness of comparing two scans made by drastically different equipment!
Speaking of pixel shift:
- For 35mm scanning this 61MP sensor is a massive overkill even without pixel shift. Zero difference.
- For 6x6 I use the 4-shot mode, which removes the need for Bayer interpolation. It provides a tangible bump in resolution, and I downsample to 5000x5000 anyway. [HP5+ example]
- The 16-shot mode which produces 240MP files is hard to use. It requires several seconds of absolutely zero-shake environment. My copy stand sits on a desk upstairs, and even my dog running downstairs causes strange grain artifacts on 30% of my scans done this way. Besides, I realistically do not have many (or any?) negatives that theoretically contain that much detail (low-ISO, tripod, stopped down, stationary subjects). Moreover, the Sigma macro lens I use will not deliver this much resolution outside the center anyway. But it's a nice to have option for that once-in-a-lifetime Velvia 50 masterpiece
Normally, I stick to high quality 5000x5000px scans.
In which case he could have just said so in follow up postMy guess is he was turned off by the response and decided “never mind”.
Should this whole thread NOT be deleted then? I wish I saw what it was OP posted that he then figured was best deleted, leaving all participants hanging dry.
In which case he could have just said so in follow up post
I agree.
As this is a develop and scan test...
That's what happens when threads get derailed from the get-go.It is odd to say the least to see thread and then comments that refer to nothing.
… you seem irritated.
That's a non sequitur as it had nothing to do with the purpose of my testing. If that's what you want, go and do your own testing. The primary purpose of my testing was to determine if my seasoned batch of XTOL-R had gone bad; it hadn't. The secondary purpose of my testing was to see if XTOL-R would be a sufficient replacement of XTOL 1:1 for cost benefits. Clearly, it passed that test.Before the discussion switched to scanning, I did point out that your perceived differences between Xtol variants were caused by mismatched contrast (development times).
Another non sequitur. NOWHERE in the OP did I even suggest that this was something I was even attempting to evaluate nor interested in. Please work on your reading comprehension.If you are indeed interested in Xtol-R benefits, I suggested to look at the grain structure.
Another non sequitur. I was not evaluating grain. I have absolutely no idea where you're even getting this. Did you write your response after throwing back one too many cocktails last night?Evaluating grain over the internet, unfortunately, involves scanning. Apparently that's not what you expected to hear.
How absurd. For the purposes of my OP, no, it does not. All I had to do was visually inspect the negatives with my light table and loupe, and come to my own conclusions for the purposes of testing. I really didn't need to do any scanning at all to conclude that my seasoned batch of XTOL-R was (a) good and (b) a sufficient replacement for XTOL 1:1. I only scanned them to visually confirm and share. The mistake I made was posting my results here.In fact, scanning gets in the way of everything.
Whatever. You're now so deep into non sequiturs that I've lost count. I merely presented side-by-side comparisons to show that my seasoned XTOL-R WORKED!!! I made no comment as to grain/contrast or anything else! But you had to go and take this very simple concept of my OP and turn it on its head. (face palm)Even if we were to look at strictly contrast differences, your original comment (quoting from memory) "these are straight scans, no adjustment" is of no use, because it wasn't true. Your scanning software performed numerous adjustments in auto-mode, and the difference between two images can be attributed to different algorithm outputs.
Why on earth would I go through all of that trouble when all I was trying to do was to see if (a) my seasoned XTOL-R developer wasn't ruined and (b) if it was sufficient enough to prefer over XTOL 1:1. This. Is. Not. Rocket. Science. My OP was not about getting into the minutiae on a micro level which developer outperformed the other.…but to make these comparisons useful, one needs to normalize development times to a common contrast index and post linear positive scans ("raw" in Silverfast).
Get this through your head: There... Was... No... Development... Error... Period. Full stop. Were you drunk when you read my OP? Any problems I was having with the other newly acquired cameras were obviously related to those cameras, and had nothing whatsoever to do with my developing. That should have been more than obvious with a casual reading of my OP. Instead, you turned my thread into something entirely different.That's also why folks here always request iPhone shots of negatives, instead of inverted & post-processed scans, when debugging development errors.
Now that's a classic passive/aggressive non-apology apology.@Duceman if my comments made you feel bad, I apologize.
Thank you for recognizing this.Clearly I ought to have added a comment or two when I moved the thread. Either that, or sent a Private Message to Duceman inviting discussion when I moved the thread. I apologize for not doing that.
To be quite honest, that's a forum/moderation issue. Prior to posting my OP, or even before performing my testing, I had searched and read many, many threads/posts on XTOL-R, most of them from this very forum going back well over a decade, and I don't recall a single post providing any images (scanned or otherwise) displaying differences between stock and seasoned XTOL. I'm beginning to understand why.Any test like this is going to invite discussion about methodology. And any method that involves a scanner in the quite reasonable way that Duceman employed his is going to insert a bunch of scanning related, non-controllable variables into the test - which is why discussions are going to inevitably include scanning issues.
That's a forum issue, not my issue. But I guess, at the end of the day, rules is rules.Our policy requires that scanning issue discussions ought to be moved to and continued in the hybrid part of the site.
My suggestion is that self-identified expert Old Gregg perform the testing and publish the results.The test that Duceman set out to do is a really interesting one, and I'd like to see the film development related parts discussed here. I think others would too.
(sound of chuckling) Yeah, that's not gonna happen. The testing I performed was for my needs, not to meet arbitrary forum rules. If by publishing my testing, which had very little to do with scanning, is simply going to devolve into esoteric babble on scanning, then fine, I won't publish it. Someone else is free to do the testing themselves and publish in accordance with strict forum guidelines. However, I'm not about to go and perform additional work that has nothing at all to do with what I was trying to accomplish for myself, all to avoid the thread devolving into a scanning discussion, which had very, very little to do with my testing in the first place.I'm happy to suggest a couple of ways of eliminating (or at least greatly reducing) the scanning variables, so that the test could be more completely focused on the film developing itself.
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?