carl_crosby1

After reviewing the many posted comments regarding problems with Xtol, I'm wondering if Kodak has solved the problem, or made any progress toward eliminating the intermittant and confusing lack of consistancy resulting from use of the product? Is it bettter to stick with D-76 or ID 11?

When I was in college, we used a film drying solution by Yankee.

(Are they still around?) According to a review I read in either

Popular or Modern Photography,years ago, it was an alcohol with film

conditioners added. It worked like a champ! After washing, you'd dunk

the the film in the solution, then hang it , no wiping. In 2-3

minutes the film was dry and ready for the enlarger. The fast drying

time was said to reduce the time that dust could attach itself to the

soft, wet emulsion. Does something like that still exist, and might

it be the answer to the airborn dust problem? I have found a solution

called Rexton Flash Dry at Adorama, which seems to be a similar

thing. Has anyone had experience with it, or similar prducts? I used

to squeegee my 35 and 120 with wet fingers, and experienced very few

problems, except film cuts beween the fingers. Boy, that smarts! Carl

Melvin; We breathlessly await the posting of results, and how they

might be adapted to the writings of ST. Ansel. The processing doesn't

sound too hard, a bit like my wife's cooking. Temp control might be a

small difficulty, but that's what we all got into photography for, to

OVERCOME! Right? I am astounded at the seeming lack of maidens of

the virgin persuasion, tho. Last time I was in Mexico, there were

guys on every streetcorner advertising that very thing. Supply and

demand? Hmmm this may need more study. Carl Crosby

Conrad, You are an INTELLIGENT person! I could tell right away by how

well you agree with me. "Licensed to develop"? Perhaps that could be

expanded to "Licensed for a 1 or 2-stop push", Or "licensed for the

Zone system". The possibilties are endless. Maybe the

biggie, "Licensed to fool around in the darkroom". Boy, THAT would

have ruined the whole reason a lot of the kids in my photo classes

signed up.(besides the easy physics credit)LOL! CC

Now, I realize I may place my patriotism in question, and the right to EVER take photos again in jeaopardy, but I just gotta ask: Are we not doing newer photographers, and some older ones a disservice by the constant, neverending search for the Holy Grail of grainless negatives, and the PERFECT film, and other such Photographick Proctologye?

I suppose all this is a LOT of fun, and I have pretty well tried everything (it got me, too!) except Tetenal Neofin Blue and Rodinal at higher dilutions. BUT! Are there any BAD films that are more than 5 years old? How about developers? XTOL? It REALLY looked good in the stuff Kodak sent me. Have the problems been solved? What are the old standards? Tri and Plus-x, Ilford films, of whatever designation, and if you really need to be anal about processing, the newer T Max films. For full film speed, great shadow detail, and sharp enlargements, the older developers, D-76 Ilford ID-11 and , for that matter, Ethol UFG, and Acufine have done very well for years. D-76 has been around since before my service days,(1958)and my boss in college had a thing for Acufine and Tri-x rated at about 1200(he said)

for yearbook photos of student activities and concerts. Remember, Tri-X was THE high speed emulsion back then, and it was really daring to rate it at 800. I thought the soot and chalk results were marginal, at best. When I asked "Jerry, what can we do to get better shadow detail?" he didn't have an answer. Probably, that was the best we could do, back there in the stone ages.

Now, we have films at any speed up to 3200, with fine grain that would make the photographers of yore dance and sing, and pharmacologies of developers- enough to confuse a rocket scientist, which most of us ain't. Right?

A modest suggestion would be: Select one film and developer, learn to produce excellent negatives using that combination, and brilliant prints from those negs, and then switch to somthing else, if the need is overwhelming. Who knows, the need to change may never appear, and more time can be spent on improving the seeing and composition skills. Lord knows, most of us could use that!

The old stuff is very good, or it would not still exist,is relatively easy to use, and matches or surpasses the performance of the newer whiz-bang creations. Now where did I put my high-button shoes?? Dear, Where is the bugggy whip?

The best way is usually to start simple. One function of a good

teacher is to help students learn from their mitakes. With low

contrast, thin negs, and a beginning photographer, it is usually

either improper exposure and/or improper development. Ask your

teacher to let you look at either properly exposed/developed

negatives, or find some pictures in a basic photo text. Next, see

which of the "horrible examples" YOUR negs look most like, and see

what the book says caused it. Then investigate the developer. How

many hundred rolls have been processed before yours? Has some bright

spark been filling it with water? It's truly amazing what improvement

fresh developer used properly will make in negative quality. Usually

by this time, your negatives will be progressing towards pleasing,

but if not, again, that is what teachers are for. It's also a reason

to use only one film and developer till you can make it do what you

want before changing something. Have fun! CC

For a complete neophyte, my recommendation would be:1)Take a basic

photo class from your local high school or college. Your learning

curve will be greatly increased, and you will have a good foundation

for going further. 2) Pick one good film (it doesn't matter what it

is, just don't change it till you are sure you know how to get it to

perform to your satisfaction.) Any of the major manufacturers produce

marvelous film. 3)Pick a Standard developer from one of the majors,

and use it till you know its characteristics. The same goes for

darkroom chemistry, papers, etc., etc. Everyone has his/her own

opinion, but learning to use what you have, or know will result in

better work and more satisfaction overall. It doesn't matter what you

use.

THAT,S why I only use 1:1 dilution! Cheers CC