William D. Lester

I own one of the washers you are asking about. I think its great. I

can't attest to the science of how clean the film is, but it's gotta

be at least as good as a tray and Kodak tray syphon. It's a lot more

convenient as well.

I would Like to thank everyone for their responses to my earlier posting including Kodak, who have advised me that this problem only exists / existed in the 1 litre packaging. Thinking back about my experiences with the failures, I can't dispute this - nor can I confirm it. If so it solves a lot of problems for me.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, I would like to share a couple of other observations - things that I think I've noticed. First. Xtol is sensitive to agitation. I never had a problem with uneven development until I began to use Xtol. It required me to change my technique and pay a little more attention. Easly to solve, but you have to be careful. Second. The developed film takes on a slight brown cast. It doesn't appear to be neutral grey like in HC-110 or ID-11. Not a problem - just an observation. Last. Film base + fog is increased. There is noticeable density in the film edges. Sometimes it's a little distracting but easily printed through. Since my last failure, I have used ID-11. The results are so reliable and the film looks so good, that I'm almost reluctant to give Xtol another try. The problem is that when it works, it can work beautifully. I'd welcome any discussion on my observations.

I would Like to thank everyone for their responses to my earlier posting including Kodak, who have advised me that this problem only exists / existed in the 1 litre packaging. Thinking back about my experiences with the failures, I can't dispute this - nor can I confirm it. If so it solves a lot of problems for me.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, I would like to share a couple of other observations - things that I think I've noticed. First. Xtol is sensitive to agitation. I never had a problem with uneven development until I began to use Xtol. It required me to change my technique and pay a little more attention. Easly to solve, but you have to be careful. Second. The developed film takes on a slight brown cast. It doesn't appear to be neutral grey like in HC-110 or ID-11. Not a problem - just an observation. Last. Film base + fog is increased. There is noticeable density in the film edges. Sometimes it's a little distracting but easily printed through. Since my last failure, I have used ID-11. The results are so reliable and the film looks so good, that I'm almost reluctant to give Xtol another try. The problem is that when it works, it can work beautifully. I'd welcome any discussion on my observations.

Thanks to everyone who contributed an answer. You're comments have

been welcome. I think that there is a problem with Xtol and I hope

that Kodak resolves it. I'm sure they will. It seems to be one of the

finest developers that I personally have used. The problem is that

right now I can't rely on it and I value the film I shoot too much to

loose it like this. I am aware of the number of comments about using

distilled water. Some friends of mine do and 20 years ago I did also.

But for a long, long time I have used good old Detroit River water

(from the Canadian side) and it seems to have worked just fine. I'm

going to stick with ID-11 for a while.

I have seen a number of comments in this forum about the so called Xtol failure. I have experienced it a couple of times in the past, but it wasn't something that I was watching for and I attributed it to something that I might have overlooked - overuse of the developer or maybe it wouldn't last as long as Kodak said. I stopped using it for a while. The problem is that is can be a nice developer and I wanted to give it another try. I decided to buy enough 1 litre packages that it would come still in the carton as shipped from Kodak. I ordered a dozen packages which arrived as a full box ( 10 Pkgs ) and 2 loose units. I felt that I would have control over the product that way. It would be fairly fresh and not sitting around on someone's shelf for a year or so. The first package worked perfectly. I thought I might be on to a system of control and my confidence was building. On the weekend I shot a couple of rolls of film and mixed a fresh litre of developer. The film was so under developed that the negatives were unprintable. I was shocked. I developed the second film in some ID-11 and it was perfect. I threw the rest of the Xtol ( the remaining full box ) in the garbage. I don't have any films that I want to take another chance on. I am convinced that there is a problem with the product. Too bad. When it works, it works well. I'm going back to and sticking with Ilford's product. I hope Kodak reads this.

I have seen a number of comments in this forum about the so called Xtol failure. I have experienced it a couple of times in the past, but it wasn't something that I was watching for and I attributed it to something that I might have overlooked - overuse of the developer or maybe it wouldn't last as long as Kodak said. I stopped using it for a while. The problem is that is can be a nice developer and I wanted to give it another try. I decided to buy enough 1 litre packages that it would come still in the carton as shipped from Kodak. I ordered a dozen packages which arrived as a full box ( 10 Pkgs ) and 2 loose units. I felt that I would have control over the product that way. It would be fairly fresh and not sitting around on someone's shelf for a year or so. The first package worked perfectly. I thought I might be on to a system of control and my confidence was building. On the weekend I shot a couple of rolls of film and mixed a fresh litre of developer. The film was so under developed that the negatives were unprintable. I was shocked. I developed the second film in some ID-11 and it was perfect. I threw the rest of the Xtol ( the remaining full box ) in the garbage. I don't have any films that I want to take another chance on. I am convinced that there is a problem with the product. Too bad. When it works, it works well. I'm going back to and sticking with Ilford's product. I hope Kodak reads this.

I own a 150mm Sinaron. It is an excellent lens. In Canada it was

somewhat less expensive than the Rodenstock. It just happened to be

available when I needed a new lens. I wouldn't hesitate to purchse

another. By the way I was told it was a Rodenstock Sironar N. It sure

looks and feels like one.

I seem to be noticing higher than normal base fog in the edges of my 4x5 TMY sheet film when developed in Xtol. I haven't noticed this with HC110 or with Tmax 100. Has anyone else noticed this?

 

<p>

 

Bill Lester

I have a reflex finder for my Linhof Technika V. It's agreat idea but

it doesn't work well in practice. The image is dim and seems far away

making it difficult to focus. I find it much better to compose and

focus directly on the ground glass.

Hello Larry

I've used Hasselblad equipment for yearsand its hard to find fault

with it. However, I began using 4x5 about 2 years ago. It's all I

want to use now. The detail and tonality are exceptional and I don't

think there is any going back. My problem is with travelling. I have

more opportunity for travel and the Hasselblad's are miles ahead of

large format for portability but the results aren't the same. The

problem is not so much with the speed of set up or with wind as with

lugging the stuff around. If I can drive I'll take the 4x5. If I fly

then I'll likely settle for the Hasselblad - maybe even 35mm.

I have used TMY for years - virtually since it's introduction. I

dabbled with various developers for a while and eventually settled on

HC110 @ 1:62. I was pretty much settled on this for a number of years

until Xtol came along and as a result of the glowing reviews about it

I decided to give it a try. I used it with consistent results for

some time and even though I personally couldn't see what all the fuss

was about I decided to stick with it as a standard, my thinking being

that it was basically a universal developer that you could use for

pretty much any film. Then one day I had some film that came out

grossly under developed. I thought it may have been something I did

until it happened again. I became very careful after that about the

mix dates and discarded any partially filled containers at 30 days.

Then I began having trouble with overly dense - overdevoped

negatives. I went back to HC110 and everthing was great. I have

stopped using Xtol. I still don't know if it was me or the product. I

have been developing film for 20 years and am pretty careful and

consistent with my habits. I don't know if Tmax films are the best

out there but they can give great consistent results. I have never

read much good about them and have never read much good about HC110.

I guess thats why I keep looking for something better. I haven't

found it yet. By the way I used to shoot mostly 120 but have been

using 4x5 for a couple of years. HC110 does a great job with TMX also.

I also own a Schneider Symmar 150/265 convertible lens. I don't use

it much having installed a Rodenstock Apo Sironar N on my camera. I

have heard that the convertible lens was good for portraiture and I'd

like to experiment with it for that. I always thought that you were

supposed to remove the rear element. Can anyone provide a difinitive

answer on this?

I use a Salthill enlarger alignment tool and I also found my enlarger

to be out of alignment. I found that if you use the Saunders negative

masking stage, it has 4 small screws that can be run out as required

to allow the stage to be effectively shimmed to proper alignment. It

may not be high tech but it worked for me. That was about 8 years ago

and I haven't had any adverse effects. I recently rechecked the

alignment and found it still to be ok after 8 years use.

I've been developing sheet films for some time . I have used Tmax 400, Tri-x, FP4 etc. for years. Lately I decided to try Tmax 100. The films have a distinct green cast when developed. I have not seen this problem with roll film or any other sheet film I use. I use the same chemistry - pre wet, Xtol, Kodak Indicator Stop Bath, Ilford Universal Fixer, rinse, Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent, wash & Photo Flo.

Has anyone else seen this? Is it a problem?

I recently purchased a Linhof Technika V and with the help of this forum and particularly Bob Salomon, I have established the correct configuration for the installation of my ground glass / fresnel combination. My camera is about 25 years old. I would be interested in replacing the fresnel / ground glass combination with a newer Linhof Super Screen if it were a significant improvement over what I have. Failing that, is there any benefit in simply replacing a 25 year old screen with a more current screen. The clips holding the fresnel in place seem to be spring loaded. Is it the intent to be able to quickly remove the fresnel for more convenient focusing? I've updated the lens and my thinking is that if I update the screen I will have a virtually current / like new camera. Any feedback will be welcome. Bob has been great. I just don't want to wear out my welcome.

 

<p>

 

Also, on page 25 of the Master Technika manual, it states that 'instructions for carrying out infinity adjustments are supplied with each lens purchased subsequently from Linhof'. Can anyone post or supply me with these instructions?

 

<p>

 

Does anyone know if the handstrap that comes with the Technika 2000 is available as a part for older Technikas?

I recently puchased a Linhof Super Technika V. The ground glass was installed with the smooth side facing the lens. The textured side faced the back and was in direct contact with the grooved side of the fresnel lens. This caused the frame line text to be reversed when viewed from the open hood - which is what lead me to suspect that a problem existed with the installation. I have since turned the ground glass around ( textured side towards lens ) and reinstalled the fresnel lens the same way it was originally installed.

 

<p>

 

Can anyone comment on the correct configuration sequence?

I am relatively new to 4x5 photography. I presently own a couple of Riteway film holders and some Lisco Regal II film holders. I like the fact that the Riteway holders don't have the small steel hooks to lock the slide in place. They seem easier to use. There is also a caution that the holders can't be used with Linhoff cameras. Does anyone have any advice that they might share about any advantages or disadvantages of one over the other. Are there any other options / makers that I don't know about? Any adivice is welcome.

 

<p>

 

Bill Lester