I finally got around to developing KODAK T-MAX P3200 and Ilford Delta 3200 in XTOL.
<<SNIP>>
So does XTOL have magic? I would say, with T-MAX P3200, there's some magic to it. Yes.
Now I am really curious how seasoned XTOL will perform.
View attachment 322757View attachment 322759
Confused by the graphs. They mention D-76 while the current topic seems to be Xtol. And the two curves (blue, red) are labeled with identical dev times: 16min. Makes it difficult to mesh curves and discussion.
I must be missing something, since the discussion goes on without anybody mentioning this...
Confused by the graphs. They mention D-76 while the current topic seems to be Xtol. And the two curves (blue, red) are labeled with identical dev times: 16min. Makes it difficult to mesh curves and discussion.
I must be missing something, since the discussion goes on without anybody mentioning this...
Do we expect other than a shift of 0.3 along the X-axis? That is whatallows one to perform sensitometry without needing to know (at least not accurately) beforehand the ISO rating of the film under test. With deviations giving some measure (not fully foolproof) of the global reproducibility of the process. And indeed T-MAX P3200 shows close to 0.3 X-offset between the two curves.They show how the film responds to being exposed at EI 1600 and EI 3200, respectively.
Yes, thank you for pointing that out. That's what I do in my tone reproduction function, which can simulate different camera exposure, vary curves by CI and LSLR, and align (or key) curves to either highlights or shadows. Here, I was going to switch to XTOL, anyway, so I thought I'd make the exposure more realistic to how people are using the film. Most of all, I was curious how the film would respond. After all, it's got "3200" on the box. A lot of people love XTOL for its suitability for pushing film and for rotary processing. Plus, people rave about its tonality. So far, I am impressed, but it's still early days.
It did seemed a little strange to me.
I think you're right about plotting a simulated underexposure from existing data, i.e., without running another film test. As I mentioned, I do this as part of tone reproduction analysis, but, based on your advice, I might implement it in my curve family plotting function.
This is not exactly what you meant, I know, but I think it does provide a useful visualization of a one-stop underexposure, Here, the curve of KODAK T-MAX P3200, developed in D76, is showing a one-stop underexposure. The red curve is at ISO 1600 exposure, and the blue one at ISO 3200. The speed point densities are -0.20 and 0.10, respectively. Both curves are developed to the same Average Gradient (G) of 0.6, which could also be changed to simulate push processing.
View attachment 322852
However, I still see value in switching to XTOL and exposing the film for one or two stop less exposure than the previously established baseline. I think this represents a more realistic scenario for a lot of photographers. Plus, I discovered that XTOL produces more linear curves than D76. I will abstain from making any other claims until I have more data.
Thank you. That's very useful. I agree that details matter.You admit the CI needs to be changed in order for the example to really illustrate "pushing for speed." What you have is one curve shifted Δ0.30 log-H to the right. You could have just changed the values on the X-axis with the same curve and no one would have known. If you were using actual log-H values the two curves would overlap. Their response is the same for the same exposure value. Drawn correctly, the blue curve would start further to the left.
What the example is actually communicating is the blue film has a film speed one stop slower than the red, not that the exposure was different.
The curve looks a little steep as your X & Y axis aren't proportioned the same. Not that it's wrong. It's potentially visually misleading if you consider a gradient of 1.0 is a 45 degree angle. Mostly nit-picking but important details to consider.
So how does Tmax developer or DDX compare to Extol? Other option for full ISO is DK50 stock or perhaps 1:1.
Sure. I made a five-liter batch, and decanted it into five one-liter bottles. One, being designated my working solution, the remaining four, the replenisher. I started by developing three 36-exposure films, exposed for Zone VIII, with a few inches devoted to the step tablet and DMAX. Then, I ran two more films with actual photographs, so varied densities, and poured the developer back. Then I started developing and replenishing. Perhaps my problem was using very small quantities of XTOL (150 ml to 250 ml), rather than 500 ml or even 1000 ml, which one would need with inversion agitation? That should not matter, I think. Maybe it's because rotary processing causes more oxidation? After about 10 films, I got good stability (CI within 0.1), but not good enough for a sensitive test, like the one I had to do here. Most of the film that I used for this initial run was Ultrafine Finesse 100, if that makes any difference. Thanks for your help with this!Did you start replenishing immediately, or did you wait until you had developed several films before you started replenishing?
The purpose of running the initial several films through the developer first, without replenishing, is to speed up the build-up of development byproducts.
Can you remind us what the size of your working solution container is?
Thanks.
I don't have and almost never use a densitometer. Usually I find that about six rolls before replenishing is enough for "stable enough", but that is for practical use and actual photographs. My working solution volume is 2 quarts - because that is the size of the container I use.
By the way, for your purposes you should probably standardize on a single volume of developer used, because varying the quantity of developer used but keeping the volume of replenisher the same makes a tiny difference to the arithmetic!
I deal with that issue by always using the full volume - 1 litre - in my Paterson inversion tank. With replenishment, I don't have to worry about wasting developer!
@Moose22 and @MattKing I have looked around for those collapsible bags and holders. A lot of them come with a kind of spout. It makes it easy to pour the liquid out, but are these spouts air-tight? Also, I've found a couple of beautiful wood dispensers/holders, but they are pricey. Still, this wine bag idea is really cool.
So the development times for XTOL-R at 68 degrees F [20 degrees C] for Ilford Delta 3200 shot at ISO 3200 and Kodak P3200 shot at ISO 3200 in a Jobo processor is ... <<Insert Drum Roll here please>>??????
In my experience, Kodak's recommended 17 minutes, and Ilford's recommended 18 minutes (for XTOL 1+1) should be very good starting points.
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?