peter_svensson

One shot.

What you are proposing can not be done. The main developing agent in Xtol is sodium ascorbate, an alkaline form of ascorbic acid that will not, AFAIK, dissolve in organic solvents. Xtol also contains other salts that won't dissolve. If you're concerned about longevity, make PC-TEA, or use the precautions others are suggesting.

I just flew to the U.S. from Europe. Had no problems bringing my film with me, and my few rolls for Delta 3200 where hand-checked instead of going through the X-ray machines.

 

I've never tried having XP2 pushed, but I'm going to guess that it will look horrible, based on how it looks when underexposed. I use it at 200 or 250.

I tried a closeup "filter" (that is, a lens) with my Bronica lenses, but the sharpness was poor. Much better to get extension tubes. I use the 18mm one with my 150 lens for good tight portraits.

Here's a pretty thorough user's report: http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=28621

 

According to him, it's panchromatic, not ortho.

I've used quite a bit of XP-2, and I like it a lot, but I got a little tired of the look and have more or less switched to Delta 400.

 

The most important thing to know is that XP-2 has a strong S-shaped curve, similar to what you'd get with a traditional film that is developed in highly compensating developer. This means it has great mid-tone separation, which combined with fine grain means really glowing skin tones. It also means that highlights and shadows lack brilliance (particularly since shadows show up grainy on the film), but the highlights practically never blow out - you can almost always get some highlight detail into the print.

 

Depending a bit on how you develop it, Delta 400 has a much straighter curve and a more literal translation of the scene. Highlights, which generally draw the eye in an image, look more brilliant.

 

For medium format, where grain is less important, I much prefer D400 to XP-2. For 35mm, it's a closer call, but I'm tired of the "scanned color film" look of XP-2 and I've found a great way to develop Delta 400 for fine grain and high accutance with a homebrew developer.

 

I generally don't use a filter with Delta 400 or XP-2. They both have extended red sensitivity compared to Tri-X, giving the effect of shooting through perhaps a light orange filter. Sometimes a yellow filter might be good to bring down blue skies a bit, or a green filter to add some texture to male portraits (skin tones tend to look a little bit mushy and transparent with high red sensitivity), but habitual use of a yellow or orange filter isn't necessary.

Great test, thanks for sharing. The Noctilux shots do look amazing. I like the Summilux look too.

Close focus distance on my 90/3.5 is 1m. I think some early versions may only focus down to 1.2m. It blocks a bit of the 90 frame on my M3, but not to a disturbing degree.

Conventional wisdom is that the "plus" films are more forgiving, but I find Delta 400 more forgiving of development variations than any traditional film I've tried. The grain and speed are simply more consistent from developer to developer. Haven't had problems with blocked highlights either, but I use mostly ascorbic acid developers that should mitigate that problem.

I like Tri-X in 35mm, but for some reason not in 120 (and yes, I use the 400 variety, which should be the same emulsion). However, Delta 400 looks fantastic in 120. I develop it in a phenidone-ascorbic acid-sulfite homebrew that should be very similar to Xtol.

I got a prism finder right away when buying my Bronica SQ-A, but I've stopped using it in favor of the waist level. The main reason is that the prism is dimmer and has low magnification, which means that it's hard to focus. I get sharper pictures with the waist level, and I also appreciate the ergonomics of it. I've kept the prism for fast-moving situations and for when I'm shooting downwards.

I've been troubled by occasional dirt on my films since I bought my SQ-A more than a year ago, giving me unexposed spots. I wasn't sure what was causing it, and thought at first that something might be wrong with the film, giving me pinholes. I cleaned the insides of the backs carefully, but it didn't help.

 

Finally, today, I think I found the source of the problem. I unscrewed the frame on the side of the back that connects with the camera (10 small screws) and found a lot of accumulated grunge in the slot the darkslide goes in. I took me 8 Q-Tips to clean two backs.

My Tri-X time for 1+50 matches Jay's. I've checked with a densitometer.

Powdered boric acid, sold as an antiseptic in the drugstore or more cheaply as roach killer in the hardware store, makes a good non-smelly stop bath, if you feel you need it. About a tablespoon in a liter of water should be good. pH is somewhere around 5.

I'm using this right now. Low pH and extremely fine grain on Delta 400. Not recomended for Tri-X, because the solvent action is too high. Mix just before use.

 

1l water

 

64g sodium sulfite

 

2.8 g ascorbic acid

 

10 g boric acid

 

2 ml phenidone 1% solution

 

 

D400 74F 12.5 mins. Note that mixing the sulfite will raise solution temp. by 2F.

I would probably have them all developed by Manhattan Color Labs for about $5 each, with no prints (this is not much cheaper than drugstore developing with 4x6 prints, but I've had too many scratched rolls in cheap places).

 

Then I'd sleeve the negs and pore over them with a good loupe over a light table, marking the likely shots. I'd narrow it down to 30 frames, and have them printed up large. Any more, and the eyes of my audience would glaze over, regardless of how good they were.

I did have a similar problem. It turned out the lens was faulty.

I use a poorly ventilated bathroom as a darkroom. With a nearly odorless, neutral fix (Agfa FX Universal) and a water bath instead of an acetic acid stop, the lack of ventilation is no problem.

Awesome picture, Mark.

I guess I'm the third poster to report from Photoplus on the Ikon. I agree that the build quality does not inspire a great deal of confidence, but otherwise, I thought it would be a very desirable piece of machinery. The shutter is not much louder than an M, and appears very well dampened - I couldn't feel any shake at all. Quite different from the Bessa R3A. The view finder is very good too. Uncluttered, and I could see the 28 frame quite well despite wearing glasses.

Yeah, I'm with Conrad. It's safe to pour fixer down the drain, unless perhaps if you have a septic tank. It precipitates as silver sulfide pretty quickly. To simulate this, pour some Kodak Brown Toner in used fixer and watch the black precipitate form immediately.

In my experience, Tuesday's teaspoon has never been as far off as 30 percent from Wednesday's, if you're spooning from the same jar of chemical. More like a few percent for most measures. So repeatability is good, even if accuracy isn't. It may matter here that my spoons are deep and narrow, which means I have less heaping.

I second the suggestions for the Bronica SQ system. If you really need a meter, you can get a metering prism cheaply. I have an SQ-A, 105mm, 50mm, meter prism, WLF, grip, two 120 backs, polaroid back and paid less than $800.

Huw said:

 

"Here in the UK if you are in a public place you can photograph anything visible from there."

 

It's the same in the U.S. The woman with the kids didn't know what she was talking about. But what's legal and what's considerate can differ, of course.

This must be something to do with Swedish agitation patterns, because I would also get excessive edge density when developing 120 in plastic reels. I had to switch to steel reels to get rid of it.