Ultrafine Xtreme 100 in DK-50, Rodinal, PC-TEA, WD2H+, Pyrocat-MC, Thornton's 2-bath

Well, I had nothing better to do so I did a rough test of Ultrafine Xtreme 100 in the above developers. I bulk-loaded some Xtreme 100 in my trusty Nikon F4 with 135mm f2.8 AI Nikkor-Q(one of the sharpest lenses I own), took an incident reading at ISO 64 with my tried & true Gossen Luna Star F meter, locked the mirror up, closed the eyepiece blind and fired off a whole roll of the same scene. Shutter speed 1/250 of a second at between f5.6-f8. The camera was mounted on a heavy Bogen 3033 with a very large Kaiser ballhead to keep things rock solid. The focus was on the VET's animal trailer. I then cut the roll into snippets for processing in each developer. Not knowing the exact times, due to no formal testing, I calculated the proper dilution/times the best I could. By looking at the results I came very close on a few and not so close on others. I've scanned these and there are a few surprises, at least to me, with some of the combo's. I scanned these on a Nikon LS8000 and used no curves or anything. These are straight scans right out of the scanner. When I get a chance(probably next week) I'm going to print these out at 8x10" size, but cropped equal to 16x20" or at least 11x14" to check grain and tonality.
All temps were at 70F degrees:

Rodinal 1+50 for 8.5 minutes

PC-TEA 1+50 for 11 minutes

WD2H+ pyro 1+1+50 for 9 minutes

DK-50 1+4 for 9.5 minutes

Thornton's 2-bath 4 + 4 minutes in A and B

Pyrocat-MC 1+1+100 16 minutes semi-stand

I will post the resulting scans in a follow-up. I'll also give 100% crops of each also. JohnW

Here are the shots. Nothing to look at, but it's just a test anyway.

Here are the crops. I haven't told you which crop goes to which developer so as to let you try and guess a little. I'll match them up in a few hours. I also developed some snippets in FX-37, Hypercat and Perceptol 1+3, but they didn't standout over what is already posted so I dropped them.

Here you go:

A= Thornton's 2-bath
B= Pyrocat-MC
C= PC TEA
D= Wd2H+ pyro
E= DK-50
F= Rodinal

You're a braver man than I to shoot Ultrafine. Where's all the frame numbers on the negs? I'll never shoot that film again if I live to be 100.

Odd how the DK50 and Rodinal negs are so much darker, but as you mentioned, there may have been some less than optimal development times. There's a big difference in sharpness on the negs too (which doesn't surprise me), especially if you look at the little motorized machine on the right in the foreground.

Nice experiment. Thank you for sharing.

momus said:

You're a braver man than I to shoot Ultrafine. Where's all the frame numbers on the negs? I'll never shoot that film again if I live to be 100.

Odd how the DK50 and Rodinal negs are so much darker, but as you mentioned, there may have been some less than optimal development times. There's a big difference in sharpness on the negs too (which doesn't surprise me), especially if you look at the little motorized machine on the right in the foreground.

Click to expand...

This film is the "Xtreme" version made in EU and not the "Plus" version made in China of Ultrafine film. It's a good film and doesn't have the flaws/curl that other Ultrafine Plus films have. There is absolutely no film curl and these negatives lay perfectly flat in my carriers. The VET's animal trailer is about 300' away and the motorized machine(Troybilt rototiller) is much closer so it didn't fall within the DOF. As for the frame number? I cropped so that only the image would scan. Next time I'll leave the frame numbers in. If I had to pick a developer for this film my first pick would be a toss-up between DK50 and WD2H+. I was floored at how the PC-TEA negatives came out. Lacking sharpness surprised me, but the PC-TEA developed negs showed almost no grain. Might be ideal for portraits? Even my "go-to" developer Pyrocat-MC didn't seem to mate well with this film. Of course I could work a little more with these poorer combo's and get better results, but why as long as DK-50, WD2H+ or Rodinal work so well with no effort. Today I'm shooting 120 Ultrfine Xtreme, along with some Ilford film and we'll see how they compare when developed in DK-50 1+4. Sometimes using the KISS method is not only easier, but better! John W

I love the look of the Xtreme 100 135mm in DS-10 1+1, the grain is a little larger than FP4+, but at times like the tonality of it better.

ritternathan said:

I love the look of the Xtreme 100 135mm in DS-10 1+1, the grain is a little larger than FP4+, but at times like the tonality of it better.

Click to expand...

I haven't used any of Suzuki's developers, but have used Xtol a bit. I like Xtol, but haven't used it in about 2 yrs now. I'll know more about this film in DK-50 and WD2H+(as far as tonality) when I print these negatives. Still, it's a good film at a very reasonable price. John W

JW PHOTO said:

I was floored at how the PC-TEA negatives came out. Lacking sharpness surprised me, but the PC-TEA developed negs showed almost no grain.

Click to expand...

Is the PC-Tea scan possibly out of focus...?

j_landecker said:

Is the PC-Tea scan possibly out of focus...?

Click to expand...

No, not likely! Nothing from the camera end/exposure was changed for the whole roll and I scanned three separate negatives from the PC-TEA batch. All came out the same - no grain, but not sharp either. Now, it might be the developer itself, but that's only about 7 months old. I surely would have expected sharper results from the PC-TEA developed negatives, but will not be trying it with this film again. John W

I finally made it over here from my DK-50 thread, John.

Thanks for all your hard work, especially to validate that the Xtreme version of the film is decent enough stuff.

I found the Pyrocat rather mushy. I think your conclusions are spot on, and the DK-50 is a real contender, all these years later.

I think the other thing proven is that until you blow it up to extremes, (Xtremes?) all of the developers are good, especially if they were tweaked further. With modern films grain just isn't an issue any more, but old habits and beliefs die hard. (And that isn't even a very latest emultion! Presumed mostly to be Kentmere, which in turn is presumed to be Ilford's 100 and 400 for third world countries.)

i use the film and find that it was a good deal last year. it is good as a black and white slide and i like it in Pyro-hd and dilute perceptol. but as the price has gone up, and you need to pay shipping and tax, in 120, the 400 speed is more expensive than hp5 and the 100 is the same price as fp4 from B&H. I would guess the film is ilford Pan 100 and 400 as I use those development times as guides and they seem to be very close. I also used hp5 and fp4 times when i first shot this film and it was a good starting point.

Paul Verizzo said:

I finally made it over here from my DK-50 thread, John.

Thanks for all your hard work, especially to validate that the Xtreme version of the film is decent enough stuff.

I found the Pyrocat rather mushy. I think your conclusions are spot on, and the DK-50 is a real contender, all these years later.

I think the other thing proven is that until you blow it up to extremes, (Xtremes?) all of the developers are good, especially if they were tweaked further. With modern films grain just isn't an issue any more, but old habits and beliefs die hard. (And that isn't even a very latest emultion! Presumed mostly to be Kentmere, which in turn is presumed to be Ilford's 100 and 400 for third world countries.)

Click to expand...

Paul,
I'll be the first to admit that what I have done is not a scientific/rigid test, but close enough for me to see the difference in developers for this film. My picks are my picks and shouldn't be thought of as "written in stone". If I were of the lazy type I'd just use Thornton's 2-bath as it seems to give a good tonal range and sharp negatives to boot. Rodinal 1+50 was good also. I did some in Perceptol 1+3, but the negatives looked identical to the Thornton 2-bath ones so I didn't go any further in that direction. I still keep going back and looking at those 100% scans of DK-50 and like what I see. The Pyrocat-MC and PC-TEA negatives still have me puzzled as to why they are not sharper, but I'm not going to worry about that for now. I'm up north at my cottage right now so I won't be able to print until I get home next week. We'll see what I think after I print some of these negatives. John W

John Wiegerink said:

Paul,
I'll be the first to admit that what I have done is not a scientific/rigid test, but close enough for me to see the difference in developers for this film. My picks are my picks and shouldn't be thought of as "written in stone". If I were of the lazy type I'd just use Thornton's 2-bath as it seems to give a good tonal range and sharp negatives to boot. Rodinal 1+50 was good also. I did some in Perceptol 1+3, but the negatives looked identical to the Thornton 2-bath ones so I didn't go any further in that direction. I still keep going back and looking at those 100% scans of DK-50 and like what I see. The Pyrocat-MC and PC-TEA negatives still have me puzzled as to why they are not sharper, but I'm not going to worry about that for now. I'm up north at my cottage right now so I won't be able to print until I get home next week. We'll see what I think after I print some of these negatives. John W

Click to expand...

Go with empirical results, not with legend or mythology. That's my operating mantra.

The second of my mantra's is, "Will it matter?" You know, how something is used in the end. I've given my example somewhere along the forum path that a 3mp digital camera will make an 8x10 print of 300dpi, what the printing industry calls "photo" grade. More pixels are just wasted, other criteria not being weighed.

I like your attitude.

I'm following this post with great interest since I've recently started bulk loading Ultrafine Xtreme 100 (35mm).
What is WD2H+ pyro? I'm familiar with Formulary's WD2D+ but I don't know what WD2H+ pyro is.
I liked the way your Ultrafine looks developed in this.

Thanks

Paul Verizzo said:

Go with empirical results, not with legend or mythology. That's my operating mantra.

The second of my mantra's is, "Will it matter?" You know, how something is used in the end. I've given my example somewhere along the forum path that a 3mp digital camera will make an 8x10 print of 300dpi, what the printing industry calls "photo" grade. More pixels are just wasted, other criteria not being weighed.

I like your attitude.

Click to expand...

Paul,
Some people don't like my attitude when it comes to product purchases or other things for that matter. When I talk about something being "pretty darn good for the money' it's because it's usually more than adequate for my purposes and cheaper. Then somebody will come along and say spend a little more and buy Kodak - Ilford etc., etc., etc.. They claim that if I don't support those companies they will go under and there will be no film/paper left. I say B.S.! I have not liked Kodak since my last College photo class in the late 70's when they made us use Kodak film and chemicals. I just didn't care for the arrogant attitude of some folks when it came to Kodak products as being the only/best there was. That's why I almost only buy Ilford and things like this Ultrafine Xtreme 100 and 400 film. I paid $31.95 for a 100 ft. bulk roll of ISO 100 and that's fairly cheap in my book for a very good film. Yes, I had to pay shipping, but if I could have been able to buy it at my nearest photo store it would have cost me that much in gas to drive both ways. Check Kodak bulk prices out and you'll see why I will not buy Kodak unless I run into a super sale. I like Kodak films, but refuse to pay their price. Their marketing is way screwy to me and is another reason I stay away from Kodak. Like, why can I buy Tri-X already loaded in 35mm cassettes cheaper than I can buy the same amount/footage in bulk. Yes, bulk Tri-X is stupidly expensive in my book. Yes, if Kodak goes under in the film business it will be because of their marketing and not my loyalty. I realize it's not really "Kodak" anymore, but it still wears the Kodak name. I dance to the beat of a different drum! Sorry for the rant and my attitude. Happy shooting Paul! John W

OptiKen said:

I'm following this post with great interest since I've recently started bulk loading Ultrafine Xtreme 100 (35mm).
What is WD2H+ pyro? I'm familiar with Formulary's WD2D+ but I don't know what WD2H+ pyro is.
I liked the way your Ultrafine looks developed in this.

Thanks

Click to expand...

It's another of John Wimberley's pyro developers and I like it better than WD2D+, but WD2D+ is a fine developer also. Wimberley concocted this developer to allow him to control contrast a little better than with WD2D+. The recipe and how to use it for N-, N and N+ development in in the Darkroom Cookbook. In the Darkroom Cookbook they left out the 20g of sodium bisulfite and that must be in the developer. Yes, I mixed my first batch without it so don't make the same mistake I did. It's one of my favorite developers now, but that's just me. Here's the recipe:



In Wimberley's formulas theHere is the correct formula for WD2H. The development times are for Ilford FP4+, tray processed with continuous agitation:

Solution A:
Distilled water, 750.0 ml
Benzotriazole, 0.2g
Metol, 6.0g
Sodium Bisulfite, 20.0g
Pyrogallol, 60.0g
EDTA Tetrasodium Salt, 5.0g
Distilled water to make, 1.0 Liter

Solution B
Distilled water, 750.0 ml
Sodium Carbonate, monohydrate 110.0g (I use 125g of Potassium Carbonate instead, but that's just me again)
Distilled water to make, 1.0 Liter

To Use:
Working dilution for normal and reduced contrast:
Distilled water, 1600.0 ml
Solution A, 25.0 ml
Solution B, 25.0 ml

N-2, EI 32, develop 7 minutes. N, EI 64, develop 9.5 minutes.

Working dilution for increased contrast:
Solution A, 25.0 ml
Solution B, 50.0 ml

N+2, EI 84, develop 6.5 minutes. N+4, EI 100, develop 12 minutes.

BTW, WD2D stands for Wimberley Developer number 2 version D. ratio of Pyro to Metol is always 10:1. It's easy to make and lasts a long, long time.

@ John: I think any of us can get obsessed about brands and buying options. I know that in my youth and even middle aged, I was always calculating things like cost per roll, film or chemistry. Now, in my, um, elderly years, I've realized that that standard is only one that should be taken into account.

I "grew up" in my father's darkroom, so to speak. The Great Yellow Father was on the shelves, but shared with DuPont and Ansco. Boxes of the latter brands still hold old photographss. I'm a big believer in trying to buy local, buy for the home team. Hence, I've used a lot of Kodak products over the years.

But I have my limits. Their consumer color neg films have long been inferior except for the HD 400. By all standards that film is better than all of their pro films. Kodak has long sucked in marketing. "Gold?" "Max?"

Yes, somehow T-Max and even Tri-X bulk pricing has suddenly shot out of earth orbit. More Shoot Self in Foot decisions somewhere. Right now I have some TMY-2 in my bulk loader, maybe I can get a bank loan on it.

Possession of same concurrent with discovery of some old negs developed in an ascorbic based divided developer I created in 2008 that are stunning. I asked a good friend of mine, a graduate of Brooks, to critique them without knowing anything about film, developer, or shooting conditions. His observations matched mine, both the good and less so. But the bottom line was "Almost perfect." Essentially grainless, high acutance, great shadow gradation, not as good yet good highlights.

Paul,
I think TMY-2 is probably the best B&W film on the market, but I haven't bought it in a while. Stubborn I guess? I buy much of my Ilford film local and there price is very reasonable. If it were priced high I'd buy it online. I know what it's like to be elderly since I just turned 65. I have a much more "I don't care what anybody thinks" type attitude now and I do what I want to do. When I shot weddings and the like I always had to please somebody else and now I just have to please myself. Oh, I have to please the wife on occasion also. John W

Hi John,

Out of curiosity, I developed a roll of Xtreme 100 in PC-TEA today. The grain is fine, but definitely there, and sharpness about what I would expect (although at 11 min my negs were a bit overdeveloped, which could accentuate the grain). This is shot handheld on 120 with a Mamiya 7, scanned with the same scanner as you have @4000 dpi. I'm quite familiar with how the output of this scanner looks, which is what led me to wonder if your scan was out of focus, and such a lack of grain as you got seems generally uncharacteristic for PC-TEA. So far I've been developing this film in Pyrocat HD, and find these results quite similar to those from that developer. Anyway, another unscientific sample... that was my last roll of Xtreme 100... time to order more .

Jim

Edit: FWIW, I wanted to mention that I'm using a formula with 2g of ascorbic acid per liter of working solution instead of 1.8g/l (essentially PC-glycol with TEA substituted for sodium carbonate).

Jim,
I even check the negative with a high-power magnifier and I can see it's softer than the others. I'm beginning to think something is up with my bottle of PC-TEA as I don't remember any softness/lack of grain when I first used it. Still has me a little puzzled as does the negatives from Pyrocat-MC. I use Pyrocat-MC a ton and would have thought those negatives should have had a little more acutance/sharpness also. Glad you had good results with it, but I'll have to sort this out later. I'm out of TEA at the moment so no new batch for a while. Besides, I think I'll be using WD2H+ as my "go-to" for Xtreme 100 while I test out the DK-50 some more. John W

I have used the xtreme 100 35mm in Divided Pyrocat-MC with great luck, I had shot several rolls of 120 and had a few 35mm. Only thing I noticed is that it needed less time in bath A and B than Acros. I printed one 8x10 from the xtreme roll souped in divided Pyrocat and the grain was beautiful.

ritternathan said:

I have used the xtreme 100 35mm in Divided Pyrocat-MC with great luck, I had shot several rolls of 120 and had a few 35mm. Only thing I noticed is that it needed less time in bath A and B than Acros. I printed one 8x10 from the xtreme roll souped in divided Pyrocat and the grain was beautiful.

Click to expand...

I've never tried my Pyrocat-MC as a divided developer(too much a Hollander I guess since you use more), but it might be worth a try. When I do these three rolls of 120 up I'll soup one in divided Pyrocat-MC, one in WD2H+ and one in DK-50 just for comparison. What was your final adjusted time and temp for the 2-bath and Xtreme 100 so as to give me a good starting point? John W

John Wiegerink said:

I've never tried my Pyrocat-MC as a divided developer(too much a Hollander I guess since you use more), but it might be worth a try. When I do these three rolls of 120 up I'll soup one in divided Pyrocat-MC, one in WD2H+ and one in DK-50 just for comparison. What was your final adjusted time and temp for the 2-bath and Xtreme 100 so as to give me a good starting point? John W

Click to expand...

It's worth trying out and it makes sense (if you are frugal with water/chemicals) if you have five or more rolls to develop since you can reuse the A and B solutions many times within a 24 hour period. I often do it when I get back from a day trip or vacation and I have several rolls to do. It's also great for mixed lighting on one roll, for example shooting half the roll indoors and then the other half in bright sunlight. I have developed up to 20 rolls of 120 and 35mm with just 500ml of A and B. For the Xtreme 100 I would suggest starting out with an EI of 100, mixing Pyrocat at 1:15 at 24C for 5 min. in both A and B, with a drop or two of photo flo in A. I used Paterson tanks with intermittent agitation. See Sandy King's article for complete instructions under section B: http://www.pyrocat-hd.com/html/TwoBathPyrocat.html My favorite films with Divided Pyrocat are Acros and TMY-2 in 120. One note, I mixed the Pyrocat-MC at home, so YMMV.

The blur in shot C is motion-blur. Notice that horizontals are blurred and verticals are fairly sharp. On horizontals, the blur is uneven (look at the branches), which looks just like motion-blur to me.

Mark Overton