XR-1 Experiences?

[craigclu]

I've gotten myself pretty well sorted on getting predictable results with PyroCat, HyperCat and some homebrew things in the same families but it's been taking me to about 1/2 box speed to get the results that I like and that are easy to work with when printing. My next project is to get a combination that is dependable when needing to tweak some speed. As a glutton for challenges and punishment, I decided to give XR-1 a try. I tried this many (20?) years back and had some dismal results when mixing the packets from Perfection and quickly lost interest. I just mixed up the version A from scratch and ran a roll of PanF at 100, mainly because I had a camera loaded up with it and then didn't use it as expected. My results were low contrast but the tones on a step wedge I included in the test shots all were separated and I think that I can print around this sort of results in terms of tonality. I used it 1:9 at 70 for 15 minutes.

What struck me that I'm less certain about is the lack of edge effects and the very soft looking details in the negatives. Have I gotten to be biased in this regard from the PyroCat style behaviors I've been getting accustomed to? Perhaps they would print better than they appear in terms of edge detail? I likely wouldn't be applying the chemistry to this film anyway but I thought I'd ask about others' experiences before diving in on HP5+ or Neopan tests. When I'm apt to be concerned with speed, I'll most likely be using 35mm so avoiding gritty looking results are somewhat welcomed and this roll certainly looked smooth in that regard but if giving up that "edgie" look is part of the deal, I'll likely experiment with other developers instead.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I experimented with this quite a lot, and found that I could get pretty good speed, but inadequate contrast, even after doubling the borax and doubling the hydroquinone in version B on Ed Buffaloe's XR-1 page. It would be a good developer for night photography, I think, where that's just what you want, but it wasn't really interesting as a general high speed developer for normal lighting conditions. Here's a previous thread--

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

If you want speed with pyro effects, try RAF pyro-metol, which I've posted in the chemical recipes section.

 

[dancqu]

I experimented with this quite a lot, and found that
I could get pretty good speed, but inadequate contrast,

You and Craig have caused me to dig up my copy
of Mr. Anneman's patent of 1978.

In a nut shell, "... a specifically formulated low contrast ...
developer that produces normal contrast negatives from
high contrast films." "...high contrast, extremely fine and
microfine grain ..."

"Using ... Eastman Kodak High Contrast Copy film ..."

He then follows with results gotten using the A and B
formulations which included "... the full scale of ... gray
tones ..." Something of a speed boosting souped up Pota.
That is if Eastman's Copy film at ASA 25 is a boost.

But, BUT, the stuff in the Cans is another matter. An
"apparent" Acufine contains the same three agents as
XR-1 and is also an attested speed booster. The two
even three stop gains of XR-1 are something
to go for. Dan

 

[df cardwell]

I normally figure the poster should get the thread he wants. But... chasing after full box speed with the decidedly old fashioned, and marginal at best, developers like Acufine and XR-1 is hard to watch. There are 2 reasons that D-76 remained the standard from 1927 until Xtol.

#1, D-76 is better than Acufine.

#2, Xtol is what we waited for. That's your answer, a normal curve with full box speed, plus a little bit.

 

[dancqu]

I used it 1:9 at 70 for 15 minutes.

It's a wonder you got results you think printable.
At 1:9 you've only 3 grams of sulfite per liter powering
the working strength. As for the borax, Mr. Anneman
says "...accelerator, if any..." And I agree. Borax is
a weak alkali. There is no point in adding it. Dan