Understood, I've done the same thing.
FWIW, T-Max 100 (and probably Ilford's equivalent) developed in full
strength Perceptol or Microdol-X (which I think is discontinued) will
produce negatives that look nearly as good as the next larger size.
Similar to the old Tech Pan except the contrast and spectral sensitivty
is normal and speed is about half box speed (ISO 50). Worth trying.
On 3/4/2017 2:44 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 03/04/2017 03:46 PM, `Richard Knoppow wrote:
acetic acid is a resulting product although it might be formed from the EDTA.
I cannot say with certainty that is *was* acetic acid, only that it had that
same sharp pungency as, say, 28% dilute acetic.
In the past, I processed in very large trays since I often made 16x20s.
I thus tended to go through a lot of chemistry. Of late - the last few
years - I've been exploring smaller, more "intimate" prints in an effort
to see if I can get the same emotion of of less square footage. I've
also been revisiting smaller formats like 35mm that do not stand up well
to huge magnifications. As such, I thus print more 8x10 than anything,
with a consequently much slower chemical burn rate. This probably allowed
the PW to age past usefulness since I was using so much less of it.
Thanks all for your helpful comments ...
