gary_frost1

Like Daniel Smith, I fill the drum with water, but instead of using

air pressure, I use the tap water pressure to gently ease the lid off. (water, unlike air, is not compressible so there is no danger

of flying chunks) I have made a rubber fitting (out of a sink stopper) that fits over the drum top. Drilled a hole in the middle to

fit a water hose. Fill the drum with water after final rinse and then

press the hose & fitting on the top with a moderate tap water flow.

Gently slides off & works perfect every time. Give it a try.

According to Rodenstock Spec sheet you will be ok for image quality at f/22 out to 250mm coverage. (it is the limit MTF is plotted, you can

see why they spec 231 as image quality is dropping fast). The light falloff though is only

graphed for f/16 and shows some falloff > cos. out that far.

I suspect you would have some darkening in the extreme corners

but not a total vignette. f/22 and smaller apertures looks like it

would work....just barely.

I've been using D-76H for a couple years now on HP5+, Delta 100, TXP.

My standard soup for HP5+ in 4X5 & 5X7 Expert drum is 1:1 68F for

9 minutes. I use around 50ml stock per 4X5 sheet, but working within

the 1 liter limit on Jobo I have gone to around 42ml per sheet in 1:3 dilutions (to get more than 10 stops with Delta 100).

I have also read here that D76H can be used with less per sq.in.

I have never explored this lower limit.

Great developer BTW.

My numbers won't be of much help to you as they are in a Jobo. I would make one suggestion though: try your D76 at 1:2 or 1:3,

esp. for normal to higher contrast situations. There is so little

info on this film out there, it almost seems that we are keeping it a

secret. Use the Kodak data it get you started.

Mine is made from a tupperware lid and string. Indestructable (unlike mat board), full 1:1 magnification and has rise/fall/shift as well.

For focal lengths shorter than 90, you may want one larger than 4X5.

(ie: use 8X10 and hold it 180mm from your eye) I always use one before

setting up the camera.

Here's a good article and study on the subject:

http://www.udmercy.edu/crna/agm/phenvitc.htm

Based on this I decided to use D76H with kodalk instead of Borax.

(he calls it Dk76b in the article. ...I call it Dk76H)

There may be some storage conditions that will cause a slight

increase in activity (the accordion bottle test here)

But this is not the same problem as the increased pH causing

activation of the Hydroquinone.

Kodak packaged D76 is buffered to prevent the fabled increase in

activity, yet this myth of increased activity persists (since around 1929?). If you mix it yourself from scratch, you will see this problem. Or you could make D76H from scratch and it won't have the

problem. That said, I would not use a bit of D76 in the bottom of

a bottle that had been sitting around for a few weeks.

I used the Kodak D76 for many years before I started mixing my own

D76H: Metol, sodium sulfite, sodium metaborate. (instead of Borax)

This is an excellent developer with 6 month shelf life and no chance

of increase in activity. (caused by increase in pH activating the

Hydroquinone)

If you vignette by using a lens hood of some sort, the pinhole will

resolve details in the lenshood! My suggestion would be to try using

a foil that is extra thick to make the pinhole. Using extra wide angle would not seem to be ideal for portrait use, so the thick foil

would seem to provide the best solution. The vignette will be caused

by the 'tunnel' of the extra thick pinhole.

My Super Graphic had an Optar 135 f/4.7 that did not impress me with

it's sharpness. By comparison I have used a number of Ektars (127mm &

203mm) and they have all been excellent. Even the 127mm which doesn't

really cover 4X5 is sharper in the corners than the 135 Optar was.

(This at working aperure f22, though the Ektars do get sharper in

the center at larger apertures) There are enough issues to work with

to get good sharpness in large format (DOF, tilt, focus, movement...)

I think you should try another lens. You might get one excellent

modern lens to compare others to. ( Like Sironar S, etc)

Or look for a 203mm f/7.7 Ektar in good condition.

There are only 2 places that I know of:

Your own darkroom or the darkroom of a trusted and generous friend.

Just use whatever developer & time you would use to obtain a good

grade 2 print in the darkroom. HP5 is fairly easy to get EI400.

I use D76 1:1. So long as your highlight density is not over 1.8

or so you should be fine.

Any 400 will start to show grain in smooth areas by around 5X enlargement. (+ - depending on development) So if you want larger

prints a bigger negative is the way to go, though you effectively

lose speed to the requisite smaller aperture.

Delta 400 and HP5+ can both be used at full speed 400 (d76 1:1),

Both have great tonality. The delta might have the edge in grain but

I have a hard time telling that looking at negatives with a 10X loupe. I've not used Tri-X 400, only the TXP320 (really a 200 for me). So take your pick and learn how it behaves for you. That's the

important thing. 'Great tonal range' is mostly about exposure and

development.

If you like D76 but don't want the hydroquinon, simply omit it and

use D76H: 1 liter water, 2.5 gram metol, 100 grams Sodium Sulfite, 2 grams borax or Kodalk (Dk76H). It works very similiar to D76 for times and dilution. Per this article:

http://www.udmercy.edu/crna/agm/phenvitc.htm

I use sodium metaborate(Kodalk) instead of borax. Environmental issues aside, this is just a flexible, simple, cheap, great developer.

Any flare present will tend to fog/effect the shadows first, where it

is a greater percent of the total exposure. It will tend to reduce

contrast in the shadows as well. TXP with it's already long(er) toe will

tend to show this effect more. 2 things (err.. 3) you can do:

Always minimise flare causes (indoors or out), Expose generously to

keep important shadow detail farther up the curve, or use another film if it is still an issue. One downside to using it with studio

flash: you loose a (noticable) 1/2 stop due to reciprocity :^(

...so I'm already using it at EI 200, now some of those EI 100's are

looking like a better choice for flash.... I haven't tried it with

tungsten yet. With it's greater highlight separation you might think

it a problem with high contrast. I have not found this to be the case at all using D76H 1:2. (I would try 1:3 but Jobo can't handle the volume) Highlight separation/detail without blowout seems to be

one of it's strengths. This is currently my favorite sheet film.

I'll update my opinion after using another 100 sheets or so.....

I think it is simply evidence of Kodak's inept marketing. Look at the B&W sheet film choices from Kodak: TMX, TMY, TP?, and TXP.

I spent a couple years working with TMX (in D76) and it truely is a

unique and excellent film. (Though I'm not sure it is a more

'general purpose' film than TXP, it does have a long flat 'curve'.)

Every film Kodak discontinues, TMX seems to be the recommended

replacement. I won't consider TP for anything 7-10 stops in range.

TXP is the only 'traditional' emulsion sheet film that Kodak offers and it does have a unique curve as well: A long toe and greater

midtone to highlight separation. (more towards subtle than extreme)

So from this curve shape comes the recommendation to only use in the

studio and be careful of controlling any potential flare.

They sure kept me from trying it and instead using Ilfords excellent

offering, HP5+ until a got a free 25 sheet box of TXP from Calumet

at the Large Format Conference in Monterey this year. "Just Try It"

was the recommendation. I finally got around to using it and I was

delighted with how easy it was to dial in, how beautiful the tone.

I found the highlight separation and detail much easier to control,

to get better tone without 'blowout' in highlights than the T-grain

or Delta 100. The mid to highlight tones have that "glow/luminence".

I'm sure flare is an issue with already softer shadow tones, but

this is not a reason to keep it indoors. "Just Try It". Yes, I think

it is Kodak's most excellent sheet film.

As you mention, soft focus and blur are 2 different effects.

Try finding an old box camera on ebay or such with a simple

meniscus lens. Hobble this into a shutter and you will get some

nice soft focus effects. (try to keep the lens to aperture distance

the same as the original design) Real soft to f/8-11, then

suprisingly sharp by f/32. These old box cameras can be had for

$10-$15. Some of them will cover 4X5.

Can't compare TX to TXP in 4X5, only 120. So I won't be doing that

anytime soon. It would be interesting to see some side by side.

Again comparing to HP5, TXP is a full stop slower for me in most

situations. (EI 200 vs. 400 for HP5) I give the edge to TXP for finer

grain. Also, it may be the long toe helped hold onto _some_

detail in the deepest shadows that would otherwise be only fb+f.

If you keep the important shadow off the toe I don't think it is

such an issue anyway.

I don't have alot of experience with TXP 320. I've used about 50

sheets in 4X5. I used this, HP5+ and Delta 100 this last summer in

(mostly)high contrast/backlight, full sun covering around 10 stops.

(Photographing granite rock formations in the S.Yuba River Canyon)

The higher contrast of delta made it less suitable than the other 2.

Even with minus development it was hard to get good highlight tones.

Between HP5+ (which I really like) and TXP I just prefered the tonality of TXP in this situation. If flare was really such an issue (peculiar to this film: ie. it's curve) It didn't appear to

effect my shadows any more or less than HP5+. I tried to keep the sun

from shinning directly on the lens but other than that and a modest

hood, no special effort to control flare. I developed all the above

using D76H 1:2 at 6-7 minutes for N-2. (delta 6min, TXP 7)

ANYWAY, I just think it peculiar KODAK's 'marketing strategy' only

recommending it for studio use. Based on my results in outdoor use,

I ordered 150 more sheets of 4X5 in spite of their 'discouragement'.

Once again, it is a beautiful film: "just give it a try".

I suppose if Kodak wants to discourage it's use outdoors, that's

their business. Flare will compromise HP5 shadows as well. Using TXP at EI 200 I get good shadow detail and separation. Oh well, it's no secret that it is an excellent film outdoors in daylight as well.

The curve works well for me esp in hard sun, contrasty lighting.

I don't understand why Kodak shoots themselves in the foot claiming

that TXP is 'for studio use'. It is an excellent film 'outdoors' in

'daylight'. It is a superb large format landscape film. Though I

haven't tried it in 120, I believe it is the same emulsion.

Based on the article Peter referenced, when I started mixing my own

D76H I opted to use Kodalk instead of borax (why not just call it

DK76H?) I switched from using Kodak D76 to this and never noticed a

shift in contrast at 1:1 and 1:2. (using delta 100, HP5+)

I've just recently started using TXP320 (4X5) with DK76H.

Wow, this is a beautiful combination! I think DK76H may be easier to

control N- development without blowing out highlights.

It seems a bit softer working in the highlights at 1:2 than D76.

Ok, no scientific testing here but I am very pleased with how it

is working for me.

While there are a number of reasons why you might get a reading below

'sunny 16' (ie: haze, time of year, etc) there are few if any reasons

you would get a reading above sunny 16. As you have also verified

with underexposed slide film, adjust your meter accordingly.

My 138 is fitted with an Omega Super Chromega E head. This required an

adapter plate that was fairly simple to make. (this was already done

when I purchased it)

I can't answer your question with certainty but the only time I

had emulsion come off the backing was a test sheet I rinsed under

hot running water. I suspect going from 68F process directly to 86F

rinse may cause it.