hansvons Posted November 23, 2024 Author Share #21 Posted November 23, 2024 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) On 11/21/2024 at 3:09 PM, ArnoG said: And this is a 100% detail: Hi Arno, As @BernardC said, this is as good as it will possibly get. You have reached HP5's 35mm ceiling. No other developer, exposure, etc., will extract more information and detail. However, what often falls through the cracks in developing film threads is that a lens's acutance and sharpness also play a significant role in analogue film. That means, as you took that photograph above (nice!) with an older lens that many love for its character on digital, an "improvement" in detail will be obtained when shooting with a modern, sharp lens. But you won't get a harsh look because analogue film remains analogue film with all its wonders and magic. Now, HP5. It's not my favourite film. The reason is simple. Ilford films (I know for sure HP5, Delta 400 and 100) tend to show a higher sensitivity in yellow (and a bit in red), making anything yellow (and red) lighter, including skin. Kodak B&W stocks don't show this red sensitivity and render more contrast in skin tones. I prefer the Kodak way of rendering skin; others like Ilford's cosmetic approach to skin more. The other issue I have with HP5 is its flatness. Tri-X is relatively flat, too, automatically coming with a high dynamic range. However, it's still more in line with what I consider a traditional B&W image. Pushing HP5 mildly, say by 1/2 stop and shaking the container more rigorously helps the contrast without introducing excessive grain and killing detail. Since you are using highly diluted Xtol, the negative is even more compensated and thus even flatter. Have you tried Delta 100 for portraits? It shows a similar preference for yellow/red but out-resolves HP5 by a large margin. Shooting it at ISO 80 and developing it in Xtol creates very nice 35mm negatives that probably are beyond the 4K resolution limit. Edited November 23, 2024 by hansvons 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 23, 2024 Posted November 23, 2024 Hi hansvons, Take a look here Xtol: experiences and issues. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ArnoG Posted November 23, 2024 Share #22 Posted November 23, 2024 (edited) @mark_s90 Is your negativity regarding Foma based on personal experience, or from what you have read? Foma 400 in xtol/xt3 1+1 has been my benchmark for quite some time, until I started pushing for more sharpness and box sensitivity. Although virtually nothing is registered in zones 0 and 1 (see my blog, linked above), indicating that indeed it’s actually more like iso200-250 as many others have claimed, I did like the lack of grain and tonality in xtol. I had some worries when I noticed that the baseline+fog seemed to vary from film to film, thinking it was perhaps the “not so good” QA at fabrication which some suggest, it turned out that the variation that I observed was due to varying amounts of X-rays at airports (I fly a lot). I can now consistently confirm that on all 400 films, airport scanners do increase fog, and therefore reduce achievable dynamic range. Unfortunately, hand check requests are not always honored. My overall impression of Foma is therefore that it is a solid and affordable film, with a pleasant tonality, even when shot at EI400. @hansvons Thanks for pointing out the relevance of the lens regarding sharpness. Indeed everything seemed to come together with development, but I also started using Leica lenses from the 1960-era, and indeed they are sharp and work amazingly well for B&W film. I was using (proper) Nikkors before, and it’s unclear to me whether the sharpness is the lens, the development, or a combination. Your comments on differences in spectral response of Ilford vs. Kodak might explain my impression of “less good” tonality in HP5 compared to some other films (Kodak and some others), since I indeed found the skin tones less pleasant than with Kodak. Hence, I felt the need to change the tonal response slightly in the tone curve panel, but only in luminosity, not in the RGB channels. Indeed I do like the look of skin better with Kodak compared to HP5, but so far was not able to obtain a similarly clean and sharp negative from Kodak film (although Tmax400 in xt3 1+1 looked very good as well, albeit at twice the cost of HP5). I found that the most linear luminosity response so far was obtained with Agfaphoto APX400 in XT3 1+1, but there’s more grain in that and I still need to soup it in Xtol 1+3 semi-stand to see how that behaves. Overall. I’m not too worried about luminosity response (contrast), as long as zones 0 and 1 are registered properly (i.e., it is indeed 400 ISO) and the zones have equal spacing (log(d) vs log(E) is linear): I do not use a darkroom but scan, and any desired change in contrast/luminosity is easily achievable in software, as long as the starting point is a clean and sharp negative. Differences in spectral sensitivities can perhaps be addressed in software as well, but I did not try that yet. I did try some darkroom enlargement also, but found that (with my limited darkroom experience) I can much easier obtain a similar and even better print with my Epson R1900, using “quad tone rip” to force the printer to only use the black cartridges and calibrating the printer to print a linear luminosity range in grayscales. This took quite some study and tuning, but I can get equal quality prints from my inkjet as I get from an enlarger, and have much more freedom and control in the computer for tonality and dodging and burning if needed. I contemplated long whether I should get a Leica Monochrom but ended up concluding that a film Leica is better provided I try hard enough to get proper negatives. A monochrom is amazing and the files are stunning, but it still isn’t film, so I’ll be happier with my mint and CLA’d 1958 M2 that will outlast me, and HP5 in xtol 1+3. I didn’t try iso100 films much, since I always seem to lack enough light, so was pushing to find a good 400 to fulfill my needs. Edited November 23, 2024 by ArnoG 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted November 23, 2024 Author Share #23 Posted November 23, 2024 8 minutes ago, ArnoG said: I was using (proper) Nikkors before, and it’s unclear to me whether the sharpness is the lens, the development, or a combination. It's a combination, for sure. The lens attributes to the details and how they are resolved in a given emulsion/developer setup. I prefer for B&W my 35mm Summicron ASPH. It flares nicely but is tack sharp (almost) up to the corners already a f/2. But most importantly, it vignettes less than older 35mm Summicrons and Summiluxes which helps the exposure in the corners and edges. 12 minutes ago, ArnoG said: Indeed I do like the look of skin better with Kodak compared to HP5, but so far was not able to obtain a similarly clean and sharp negative from Kodak film (although Tmax400 in xt3 1+1 looked very good as well, albeit at twice the cost of HP5). I found that the most linear luminosity response so far was obtained with Agfaphoto APX400 in XT3 1+1, but there’s more grain in that and I still need to soup it in Xtol 1+3 semi-stand to see how that behaves. This link will lead you to a rate gem on YouTube (most photography-related content is poor quality). He's a professor who knows his stuff (and is not afraid of admitting mistakes and errors; he's a proper scientist). I shot quite a few rolls of Kentmere 400 and its rebranded siblings, Agfa APX 400 and Rollei RPX 400. Nice, budget-friendly ISO 400 stock from Ilford. The latitude is a tad less than HP5's, and the grain is a bit more pronounced. But it's much better than one might anticipate when reading Kentmere 400 on the canister. As you mentioned prices, I'd like to connect you to this supplier if you are EU-located. Tri-X for 10 Euros is not expensive these days. 22 minutes ago, ArnoG said: I contemplated long whether I should get a Leica Monochrom but ended up concluding that a film Leica is better I find it not better. It's a night and day difference on so many levels that I can't list them all. 24 minutes ago, ArnoG said: I can much easier obtain a similar and even better print with my Epson R1900, Can't agree more. Same experience here, only I use a different printer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted November 23, 2024 Share #24 Posted November 23, 2024 Ah, the Naked Photographer! Yes, I studied his 49 film comparison in detail and it was decisive for my film choices, and triggered me to try Tri-X again, but I did not get as good a result from Tri-X as from HP5 yet. His HP5 to Tri-X comparison shows the difference in skin tone, and what I saw in my portrait shot as well: Little gradation in the highlights. For all the other films, he shows the H-D curve, but it's unfortunately missing for the HP5 test (also not in the earlier video he points to). I did a lot of H-D curves myself (see https://www.arnogodeke.com/Blog) using a very different method in which I extract the entire curve from one shot as explained on my blog pages. The current database is attached. I still need to do it for HP5 as well, and expect the tonal differences in the face to be visible in the H-D plot (unless they are purely driven by the yellow sensitivity perhaps, not sure...). In the summary graph attached (yes, it's a bit cryptic), all dilutions are 1+1, but I had to switch to Adox XT-3 developer when Xtol was not available for a while. I find Xtol better than XT-3 btw. With all data normalized to zero density in zone 0 (which removes differences in base fog), there's two groups of film in the graph: Those that immediately react to light in zone 1 (and, hence, are indeed 400 ISO) and films that only record low levels of light from zone II or later. The latter commonly have also a (much) longer development time, and, hence, they seem to be lower ISO that is boosted by a longer development. Note that my final density is not as high as can be achieved, which is due to my normalization of 7.5 stops over the entire tonal range, as opposed to 10 stops, and where I define zone V. This was done to translate the original zone system into computer luminosities, so I could create my one-shot for the entire H-D curve chart which I shoot from a calibrated monitor. The net result of this is that I don't drive the films into saturation, and don't see a shoulder. This is all explained on my blog. The alternative was to use 10 stops in total, but abandon all connection to camera stops and half stops (see blog). It was simply a choice to combine digital with analog exposure settings. Overall, the method enables me to take one shot on every film I shoot, from which I can then extract the curve and track exposure and development that way (in case I suspect that something's off). I can also take more shots at different EI's and see what happens then, but that only shifts the curves up and down somewhat in a predictable way, so I generally don't do this anymore. Based on these analyses, I would want to use APX400, Tri-X, RPX400, or Ilford Pan400 since these are actually behaving as ISO 400. Ilford PAN400 does drop off towards the higher exposure zones, and seems to be quite different from APX400 and RPX400, while the latter two could be the same film stock (within the accuracy that I can achieve with this method). I do not yet have a curve for HP5, but do expect it to show some non-linearity in the H-D curve, similar to what Foma 100 does. Skin tones are in zones VII and VIII, so I would expect a bump there for HP5. Time will tell... I contemplated publishing this method on some photo journal since I think it's useful and not done in this way before as far as I know (using one shot from a computer monitor to characterize a film), but there's only so much hours in a day... Thanks for the link to the EU supplier! Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5710640'>More sharing options...
hansvons Posted November 23, 2024 Author Share #25 Posted November 23, 2024 @ArnoG, interesting findings. What your tests corroborate is what I always thought from my daily shooting experience: APX/RPX/Kentmere400 are proper ISO 400 films (arguably the same, rebranded emulsion), while the Retro400 is basically an ISO 100-200 emulsion that is declared as ISO 400 by recommending it a development recipe that is basically a significant push. Despite the long dev time, the result doesn’t look too pushed, though. It’s not in my arsenal as I don’t shoot infrared stuff and eyes tend to look strange. Formapan 400 isn’t a proper ISO 400 film either, but its dev time is less suspicious. At least on paper it looks like a regular 1-stop push. It’s THE classic East European film with the vibes of the ‘68 Prague Spring upheaval and is a culture property. I don’t use it either as I find that Tri-X at ISO 800+ and pushed has a similar look but provides much more leeway. I’m positive when you will give HP5 a shot in your test scheme it will behave similar to Tri-X. I may be even more sensitive, perhaps by 1/3 stop. That might be attributed to the longer dev time at ISO 400, which might also explain the slightly stronger grain compared to Tri-X. However, Ilford films tens to have longer dev times across the board, so I might be wrong. I never tried to nail the correct ISO400 dev time for HP5, as I felt that it needs a mild push even for scanning to lose that flat greyness. Have you ever tried Double-X (also known as Eastman 5222)? This emulsion is the most Kodak-looking film in production today and looks brilliant on skin with tons of acutance and that silvery je ne sais quoi, especially when shot against the light. Its dev time is on par with Tri-X at ISO 250. You can shoot it at ISO 400 but in my experience that requires a mild 1-stop push to get the skin tones where they belong. Blacks will become inky. But this is to be expected as you push an already contrasty emulsion. Tri-X and Double-X are my regulars. They share the same dev time and a similar way of rendering skin, making it highly convenient for me when shooting and developing them on the same day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted November 23, 2024 Share #26 Posted November 23, 2024 Below, MrLeica.com shooting me shooting him on Double-X, EI400, Xtol 1+1 for 12 minutes, Nikon F3 + 55mm f/1.2. Sharpness is not as high as I got for HP5, but skin tones look much better imo. I have better portraits, but not ones that I can just share, whereas MrLeica is all over the web and wouldn't mind the extra PR...His webpage and YouTube videos are a great source of info btw. Yes, I like the tonalities of Double-X a lot and also Tri-X, but I haven't been able so far to find an optimum with development for either (so far mostly done Xtol and XT-3 1+1). Your inputs would be helpful... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5710992'>More sharing options...
williamj Posted November 24, 2024 Share #27 Posted November 24, 2024 Advertisement (gone after registration) On 11/22/2024 at 12:02 AM, ArnoG said: @Martin B & @williamj: I hope this chat is still active: Many thanks for these insights in making Xtol work! I grew up with film, and went back to it some 3 or so years ago after I got bored with digital only. Despite doing photography since I was 11 and being of a certain age now, I had never developed my own, so I was up for quite an adventure. Since then, I've been going through a number of developers (Ilfosol, HC110, Rodinal) but quickly settled on Xtol. I'm still trying all (ISO400 since I need light) B&W films, trying to find my favorite. I even developed a dosimeter and a tool to characterize film with one shot (https://www.arnogodeke.com/Blog/Zone-system-calibration and https://www.arnogodeke.com/Blog/Technical-BW-film-reviews). The latter still needs updating with many new results. When Xtol was not available for a while I used XT-3, but despite claims it should be the same, or even better, it didn't seem to work as good. Hence, I'm back to Xtol, for a while at 1+1 and now exploring semi-stand with 1+3, until I had a nearly blank film due to "sudden death"(?) after six months in sealed 1 liter wine bottles, which I vacuum out with a "Vacuvin" (rubber stoppers that allow pumping the air out, used for wine). Hence, I started reading up again and came across this forum, and ordered fresh Xtol... I'm of the opinion that moving to medium or large format is an easy way out, and instead one should attempt to extract all the detail available in 35mm format first, which is not an easy feat due to the countless free parameters. There's plenty (sufficient?) of detail in 35mm when done well imo, for me justifying to stick with this more convenient system, at least until I dug out all the available detail. Like both of you, I am searching for acceptable grain, high sharpness, and good tonal range, and was impressed by the detail in @williamj's shots above. I don't go through film fast enough to be using 5 liters Xtol in 6 months, so was interested in using it full strength. Seeing the pics above and specifically the zoomed section, this seems to work, although perhaps it could even be sharper(?). I then read @Martin B's Dual Development chat, linked above, and am intrigued, but unfortunately, the pictures that @Martin B posted to demonstrate sharpness and grain, don't want to show up on my screen. I just see question marks. Having tried many films and developer/dilution combinations, some work well, some work less, some are simply crap, and some really shine, but I felt like I was floating in too large a parameter space. Just recently, just before my Xtol died, I had a (lucky?) combo with HP5 at EI400 in Xtol 1+3 that really seemed to sing, and this is now my benchmark. I'll post the result below. My question to specifically @Martin B is: Would your "dual" results with HP5 at EI400 in Rodinal then Xtol further improve the sharpness and grain beyond what I currently have with HP5 in Xtol 1+3? I would really appreciate your educated judgement. The shot attached is full frame, and a screenshot at 100% from LRC will be in my next posting. The negative was shot with a 1958 M2 with a 1960 collapsible Elmar 50/2.8 on a SOOKY-M closeup adapter and a soft box with remote flash, scanned with a 24MPix mirrorless and a Minolta 5400 scanner lens (details in my blog linked above). The (RAW) file was linearly imported into LRC, a circular luminosity mask was applied to correct for inhomogeneous exposure from my light source, black and white points were set, inverted, and a slight tweak in the tone curves panel was applied to obtain better tonal distribution on the model's (@marlovelycreation) skin. No sharpening or noise reduction was applied, and the file was exported as an RGB JPEG with a 2.4 Mb file limit. Thanks in advance! Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! You look like you’ve got a good handle on your results and output, I don’t have anything useful to add, and you’re getting very impressive results. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted November 24, 2024 Share #28 Posted November 24, 2024 @Martin BThanks. Still pushing until I will settle on an optimum, but it seems to be a moving target...After good results with HP5, I agree that Kodak has "better" tonality, or at least looking better to my eyes. I will definitively try to develop in Xtol stock and compare that with diluted, and will do another round of Tmax and Tri-X. My impression was that they do like 1+1, but don't like 1+3 so much, but my dying Xtol might have clouded that provisional conclusion. I really liked your clean Tmax100 and Tmax400 results. Initially, they didn't look sharp enough when I looked at them on my iPad, but on my Mac with proper screen they are sharp, clean, and have beautiful tones. If I end up concluding that I need pricier Tmax to get what I'm looking for then so be it. Going through all the effort that's involved in shooting film, from camera, lenses, development, scanning, there's a lot of effort involved, so the results better be as good as possible. You mentioned that you mix Xtol without measuring cups, and I would like to learn how. In my process, I weigh 800 grams of distilled water, add A and B with as gentle as possible stirring, and then add another 200 g of distilled water, ignoring the weight of the powder. I mix in a large 5 liter open bucket, so oxygen can access during stirring. Perhaps that can be improved upon? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Prime Posted November 24, 2024 Share #29 Posted November 24, 2024 (edited) Interesting comments on skin tones. I went looking and found this link, but don't have a preference between the skin tones of the two film types. https://thedarkroom.com/kodak-tri-x-vs-ilford-hp5/?srsltid=AfmBOorFnqSbS4d1C5fomhmyL3O6amEEDmJXaUz3CqgVVdZAkom7uUzs I've been using D76 so far and I still have a fresh pack to open but I was looking at x-tol as a more environmentally friendly option. I looked about on the internet for example images and generally I preferred the tonality of images from D76 over x-tol (in some cases quite strongly) but will keep an open mind when my D76 runs out. Edited November 24, 2024 by Mr.Prime Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted November 25, 2024 Author Share #30 Posted November 25, 2024 On 11/24/2024 at 11:07 PM, Mr.Prime said: I went looking and found this link, but don't have a preference between the skin tones of the two film types. I don't know these people personally, so I can't comment on their skin tone. But I guess that both have a light Caucasian complexion. Light, porcelain-like skin does not contain much yellow and red tint, and HP5's yellow/ red sensitivity won't play much of a role. Tanned Caucasian skin, on the other hand, is a different story. Add contrast-rich lighting instead of the flat, high-key mood of the linked examples, and you will see quite a difference between Tri-X and HP5 in rendering skin tones. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted December 1, 2024 Share #31 Posted December 1, 2024 On 1/7/2023 at 6:26 PM, hansvons said: achieve with Delta 400 better results In my experience this is more or less what Delta 400 is. With a developer that gives more grain you could reach more quasi sharpness, like Rodinal, but you don’t want that with 35mm film because it often gives muddy images. DDX is a good developer, I worked quite some time with it, but it won’t differ much. On 1/7/2023 at 7:31 PM, Tom R said: Ilford DD-X Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ko.Fe. Posted December 1, 2024 Share #32 Posted December 1, 2024 On 1/7/2023 at 6:26 PM, hansvons said: I know the web is full of wisdom regarding B&W development, but I learned from the "I like film (open thread)" thread that there is tons of film expertise in this forum, and I thought of tapping into it. When I shoot on film (only B&W, colour works for me digitally), I need a reasonably fast film, say 320-500 ISO. I tested a few known suspects and ended up with Delta 400. But I still need to fully settle, as I still have to try 5222 for stills photography, a film I used for music videos back in the 90ies and really liked. My goals are high speed, high resolution, fine grain, and high acuteness/sharpness. High speed and fine grain are somewhat of a paradox, but with enough exposure and the right developer, there's some leeway for optimisation. I learned somewhere that Xtol should tick my boxes, and it delivers. I started using it replenished, but after half a year, I ran into the infamous Xtol sudden death issue. But I liked it a lot. It delivers sharp, fine-grained negatives. And it's relatively environment-friendly. Now I use Xtol diluted in 1+1 with even better results in terms of sharpness and speed. Grain is a tad more pronounced. What are your experiences? Could you tell me what your goals are for B&W developers? Below is an image I shot recently on Delta 400 at 320 ISO bathed in Xtol 1+1, scanned with my mirrorless Leica and converted/graded in C1. Please click to enlarge it to 2,4k. I would like to know whether one can achieve with Delta 400 better results in terms of resolution or whether I reached the usual ballpark. Shot at f8 with a 50mm Summicron R lens. Thanks. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! If your goal is to have lots of details for pictures like this, you will achieve it with medium format. Even primitive 6x9 folder will give more than any lens on 135 format. Leica was created not for details extraction, but getting exposure quick and more ergonomically. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted December 1, 2024 Share #33 Posted December 1, 2024 Yes, you are of course correct, but MF and larger is cheating! I do not want to start a discussion on actual available resolution in 35mm, and how for most normal-sized prints this should suffice, but the intent of this thread, at least for me, was to extract as much as possible of this available resolution in 35mm and not go to a larger format, which to me is the easy way out... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted December 27, 2024 Author Share #34 Posted December 27, 2024 (edited) On 12/1/2024 at 7:49 PM, ArnoG said: Yes, you are of course correct, but MF and larger is cheating! I do not want to start a discussion on actual available resolution in 35mm, and how for most normal-sized prints this should suffice, but the intent of this thread, at least for me, was to extract as much as possible of this available resolution in 35mm and not go to a larger format, which to me is the easy way out... Agreed. I find MF interesting but never felt the urge to upgrade. MF means either a Hasselblad or a Pentax (and there are others), which are costly and heavy. MF for landscape means a tripod at slower exposure times because of mirror slap, which also affects 35mm SLRs but not Leica M. This slows me down and breaks my workflow because I do most of my photography handheld street style (I don't do street photography, though) almost vegetatively, on a whim, intuitively, not planned. That's why I ended up with Leica M. Lastly, I'm not after the perfect negative. I'm after a negative that allows me to create images that will end up on the wall as pictures, not photographs. This is a very different concept from, e.g., masters like Anselm Adams, who explored the exposure-to-print process to such an extent that it became an essential part of his works, almost topping the subject as the main driver. The film's texture is essential for my prints, providing vital substance besides the subject for the eye to hold on to and adding authenticity and imperfection to the moment. (The discrepancy between a subject's mediocrity and the technical perfection it exudes is my biggest issue with most of the photography I see online or printed. That's why the pixel race is irrelevant to me.) Below are a few pictures in 80x60cm hanging on the wall, as they are meant to be. The B&W image was shot on Kentmere 400 and pushed by one stop; the other two were shot on Kodak 250D 5207. All were shot with a Leica M, the Summicron 35mm ASPH or the Summarit 35mm and printed on Hahnemühle Photo Rag 308 with Canon Pro-4600. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited December 27, 2024 by hansvons Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5729521'>More sharing options...
hansvons Posted December 27, 2024 Author Share #35 Posted December 27, 2024 Click to enlarge. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 4 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5729522'>More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted December 27, 2024 Share #36 Posted December 27, 2024 @hansvons: Nice stuff! The resolution in the color shot is impressive. I've been researching more on double X, and the more I learn about it, the more I think it is something special. I have seen and heard claims that it can be used anywhere from 200-1000 EI on the same roll, and developed normally, still gives good scans (not tried myself). Dan Mars, who seems to know what he's doing, obtained very good results at EI 1000 with a 1.5 stop push (or so?) during development (if I recall correctly) using Tri-X times indeed: My overall conclusion is that it could become my default film: Shoot at EI100-200 during summer, and 800-1000 during the brutally dark northern EU winter months. Tweak development as needed to obtain optimal results. It provides an option to learn the behavior of one film (in one developer: Xtol) very well, without having to worry about EI. I think the core ingredients are there in the results around the web: Fine grain possible, sharpness possible, tonality beautiful. And in addition it's quite affordable, especially if one would consider spooling from 400 feet, but that's a different story... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted December 27, 2024 Author Share #37 Posted December 27, 2024 (edited) 2 hours ago, ArnoG said: My overall conclusion is that it could become my default film: Shoot at EI100-200 during summer, and 800-1000 during the brutally dark northern EU winter months. I‘m pretty sure that Double-X is an ISO 250 film, regardless of how you look at it. I shot music videos on it back in the day, and it was not meant to be pushed without the usual sacrifices such as increased grain and inky shadows—even if it was only one stop. On the contrary, this stock loves light, the more the merrier, especially against strong back light with tons of contrast. And it‘s fairly contrasty already at box speed, quite different from Tri-X. That said, on full frame things have a tad more headroom as it offers almost double the resolution. But I‘m certain that at ISO 1000, exposed without any leeway, this film will fall apart. 2 hours ago, ArnoG said: Nice stuff! The resolution in the color shot is impressive. Thanks! 5207 250D loves light as any other negative film. I used to shoot it at EI 160 for ENC-2 process, but now home dev it in C-41 which kind of pushes the film roughly for 2/3 of a stop. I defaulted to EI 200 and stopped thinking about it. Edited December 27, 2024 by hansvons Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted January 5 Share #38 Posted January 5 On 1/9/2023 at 2:37 AM, williamj said: Thanks hansvons, I'll try to be as succinct as possible. In a separate post later I'll try to post some pictures but I'll need time to organise and LUF doesn't allow full resolution pictures so I'll post blow ups of scans. 0. I mainly use Kodak film so the pictures I'll post will be from T-Max 100, T-Max 400 and original FUJI ACROS, no Delta 400, sorry. I do use Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ so I'm not anti-Ilford, on the contrary I use Ilford Rapid Fixer. However, my main stock is 400TX and full strength XTOL gives a nice subtle grain. 1. How to get 15 rolls from 1 litre of XTOL. Undiluted XTOL is not discarded and is poured back into the bottle. Some liquid is lost because it is absorbed by the film. Also, as you reuse the liquid it absorbs the surfactant in the emulsion so after a few rolls it becomes a little frothy when you pour it back and so a little liquid is also lost. That's why you top up with a little water after each use. Don't worry that you might be diluting the XTOL, that's less important than keeping air out. After putting the cap back on I rinse the outside of the bottle otherwise you have a mess of XTOL drying on the outside. Once 15 rolls are developed the XTOL isn't exhausted but you need longer times to get the same level of development, so you can go past 15 rolls in a pinch. BTW the surfactant is why you do not need to presoak film before developing it. 2. What negatives am I trying to achieve. I want a general purpose negative of fine grain with a wide range of tones that can be used for different purposes. I started pre-digital so showing grain wasn't a big thing. It's now an aesthetic choice. XTOL is a solvent developer like D76 and does what I'm after. XTOL in a 1:1 dilution is not a solvent developer so it will show grain more clearly. This gives greater acutance at the expense of smoothness of transition between tones. I have used XTOL diluted 1:3 to develop Techpan but that's not relevant anymore. 3. Other reasons for not diluting XTOL or using developers that are made by diluting a stock solution. In Australia, in most places, you are not supposed to discard photographic chemicals down the sink. If I make 5 litres of XTOL then I only have to send 5 litres to hazard disposal. XTOL 1:1 means 10 litres and Rodinol and its substitutes at 1:50 dilution mean a lot more, especially when you count number of rolls developed. 4. The reason Kodak stopped the 1 litre XTOL packages is that some of the components are in a small amount and so there could inconsistencies in the amount in each package. This is what is thought led to sporadic XTOL failure. I therefore think that any 1 litre package of XTOL or XTOL like developer could suffer the same problem. I'm happy to talk about how I make up 5 litres of XTOL without using measuring cylinders, let me know. 5. Is this the finest option for film grain etc. I can't speak to that since I haven't tested every possible combination of film and developer and it's not my objective. There's a lot of black art in film development and wet printing and I am of the OPINION that if you know your materials well you can get a diversity of looks by altering what you do without going to the trouble of using a different developer or radically different film. I'm not saying you can turn 400TX into T-MAX 400, just to be clear. The important thing is to be consistent, keep records, and use your current results as feedback for future actions. Once you've shot it, develop it right away and use the information for your next step. If you let the rolls pile up you're wasting information. 6. About me. I have been developing film since 1986. I am trained to work in a genetics laboratory where we moved colourless droplets from one small tube into another small tube using micropipettes. Photography was used to visualise some of our results. That gave me a basis for working with photographic images out of cameras. I've developed my own black and white off and on over that time, in the past developed large format X-Ray images in trays by inspection under red-light, and did E6 colour slides using a JOBO. I don't have a home darkroom and use a black bag and my laundry to develop film, with film drying hanging in the shower. Thanks a lot @williamj for your elaborations, much appreciated 👍 A couple follow up questions if you don't mind - Once 15 rolls are developed the XTOL isn't exhausted but you need longer times to get the same level of development ..so during these 15 rolls you just keep your dev time the same? Wondering as Kodak suggests +15% for roll 6-10 and further +15% for roll 11-15 in their datasheet.. Also in what way do you reckon the developer improves after the first few rolls? I'm happy to talk about how I make up 5 litres of XTOL without using measuring cylinders, let me know. ..sure, please do! 🙂 Also I was wondering what your thoughts / experiences are in regards to handling the developing with XTOL in Jobo tanks - Kodak suggests filling the tank and then dunk the loaded reel in the developer.. without a darkroom I of course close the tank in my changing bag, and then pour in / pour out the chemicals - have you found any issues using this method instead, like change in dev times etc.? And regarding agitation - Kodak suggests agitation every 30 seconds, yet I have read a few times that once every minute is more ideal / kind of a "less is more" approach.. can I ask what worked best for you? Thank you very much in advance, and happy shooting 🙋♂️ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted January 5 Share #39 Posted January 5 On 12/27/2024 at 12:30 PM, hansvons said: Below are a few pictures in 80x60cm hanging on the wall, as they are meant to be. Very nice 👍👍 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamj Posted January 8 Share #40 Posted January 8 On 1/6/2025 at 4:42 AM, username said: Thanks a lot @williamj for your elaborations, much appreciated 👍 A couple follow up questions if you don't mind - Once 15 rolls are developed the XTOL isn't exhausted but you need longer times to get the same level of development ..so during these 15 rolls you just keep your dev time the same? Wondering as Kodak suggests +15% for roll 6-10 and further +15% for roll 11-15 in their datasheet.. Also in what way do you reckon the developer improves after the first few rolls? I'm happy to talk about how I make up 5 litres of XTOL without using measuring cylinders, let me know. ..sure, please do! 🙂 Also I was wondering what your thoughts / experiences are in regards to handling the developing with XTOL in Jobo tanks - Kodak suggests filling the tank and then dunk the loaded reel in the developer.. without a darkroom I of course close the tank in my changing bag, and then pour in / pour out the chemicals - have you found any issues using this method instead, like change in dev times etc.? And regarding agitation - Kodak suggests agitation every 30 seconds, yet I have read a few times that once every minute is more ideal / kind of a "less is more" approach.. can I ask what worked best for you? Thank you very much in advance, and happy shooting 🙋♂️ Happy to chat. Keep in mind I'm an amateur that tries to achieve something beautiful by eye rather than someone working to a set density using a densitometer. Ok, having said that, I develop the first 5 to 6 rolls using my normal development time and after that I use an extra 30 seconds or 45 seconds. After 15 rolls I extend the time even further, by a minute or more. No drama, you're just looking at how the previous roll developed to inform you about how much extra time to give the next roll or whether it is time to open a new bottle. I think the results have a little less contrast after the developer has been used on a few rolls, a greater range of greys and smoother transitions, but it's a relatively small effect. I'm trying to avoid saying it's a little less black and white, but there I've said it. To make 5 litres without using measuring cylinders there's no magic and it's a little boring. I use 5 wine bottles of a 1 litre capacity that have stelvin screw caps. It means I had to drink some inexpensive red wine since I wanted brown bottles. So, I use one of the bottles to pour about 4.5 bottles of water into a bucket, then I cut both top corners off the packet of developer powder so that when I pour the powder through one of the holes air flows in the other hole and the powder flows smoothly and quickly into the water. I hold the packet close to the surface of the water as well. You don't want dust from photographic powder in the air. The solution is stirred until all the powder is dissolved, then the second packet is added and dissolved and then I pour an equal amount of the developer into each of the 5 cleaned bottles equalising the amount by eye. I add some water to the bucket to pick up any drops of developer left over and then top each bottle right up and screw on the cap. I invert a few times and diffusion does the rest. This way I only have to clean the bucket. You could argue this is slightly more than 5 litres but as I mentioned in my previous post, it's more important to avoid an air space than to have exactly 5 litres, so I would have had to add some water to each bottle if I had made exactly 5 litres of developer using a measuring cylinder. Unfortunately I never used XTOL in a JOBO tank so I can't give you any hints. You'll have to try different methods of agitation to see what results you like, but like anything, consistency is key. I agitate twice in the first minute and then once in every minute after that. I use the agitator on the Paterson tank, twisting it back and forth about 8 to 10 times in a 10 second span of time (I look at the clock while doing this). This means with two agitations per minute a third of the time is spend agitating, which seems excessive if you did this for the entire development. At the start it's fine because you want to make sure that the entire film is being covered in developer, that there are no air bubbles, and that the development is getting off to a good start. I don't invert the Paterson tank to agitate. When I first started out the tank would leak through the lid and it was only later when I learned to burp the tank that it did not leak. But by that time I had already settled on a method of agitation. I'm always leery of inverting tanks because it can cause a mess. I know I can go on for ever but I've tried to keep it as short as possible. Happy shooting to you too. Cheers. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now