[rollei_list] Re: Plus X -PX 125- and Microdol X discontinued
- From: Mark Rabiner <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:06:23 -0500
>
> On Feb 13, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>
>>> I basically agree with this. There are subtle differences, and my own
>>> preference is for Xtol, but honestly focusing on soup is missing the
>>> forest for the trees. If you're that good that it's the developer
>>> that's keeping you from greatness, my hat's off to you. I have yet to
>>> see the portfolio that holds the argument...
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric Goldstein
>>
>> The results I got from Xtol 1:3 I found broke most of the rules and
>> gave me
>> quality of a whole new ballgame.
>> Non subtle differences.
>> In effect my medium speed films looked like slow speed films
>> Fast films looked like medium speed films (400=100)
>> Both in terms of grain and sharpness.
>> You normally have to pick or or another.
>> With Xtol 1:3 I got both.
>> Normal for me for street shooting was Neopan 1600 which gave me better
>> than
>> Tri x in D76 1:1 results.
>> In the studio Across 100 looked like Agfapan 25 or stuff of a larger
>> format.
>>
>> [Rabs]
>> Mark William Rabiner
>
> Xtol has been a unique film developer in providing increased sharpness,
> finer grain and higher film speed compared to standard D76. In
> addition, it achieved optimum results on both conventional and tabular
> grain films that I developed with it, and it lasted twice as long in
> storage than anything else not in syrup form. Usually with developers,
> one or more of these enhancements comes at the expense of others.
> However, I never thought Xtol blew the competition into the weeds,
> especially in medium format. There may be more than subtle differences
> visible in Godzilla size enlargements, but I seldom enlarge beyond 10X.
> At that magnification, Xtol qualities may be visible but have no
> aesthetic effect worth considering, IMHO. Still, I really liked it for
> its quality and convenience, and it replaced several developers I kept
> on hand for different films. After 2 1/2 years of bliss with Xtol, a
> developer sudden death incident ended the honeymoon. Unless there has
> been further word on the subject, I believe the cause was an inherent
> instability in the developing agent which is some form of vitamin C.
>
> Fuji 1600 is the best 35 mm B&W film ever, IMHO (I'm an available light
> kind of guy), my only regret being it didn't come in 120. For that I
> had to rely on Ilford Delta 3200, which was okay, but not up to the
> Fuji.
>
> Allen Zak
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
I never had a sudden death incident, lucky as I used it for critical jobs in
which I could not redo them.
I think if I ever run any more film I'll mix it from scratch every time and
have it be not a Phenidone but a Metol/Elon hydroquinone ascorbic acid
developer.
Which may translate to me putting a tab of ascorbic acid into D76 1:2. (not
1:1) but mixing it up from scratch. Which takes five minutes by the way you
just get a scale.
MQ+C I may call it. Its already fairly popular on the darkroom lists.
[Rabs]
Mark William Rabiner
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
