steve_s.

And the same crop in Diafine.<div></div>

Here is a crop of the detail of the flowers in XTOL.<div></div>

Here is the same crop in Diafine.<div></div>

I scanned some pictures last night that show the results of my test of

developers XTOL and Diafine. They are pasted below.

 

My procedure for the test was this: I started by arranging some test

subjects that would include a range of tones from soft highlights to

deep shadows. I also included a test chart to test for sharpness.

The scene is lit from a window with soft, natural light. I used my

Canon EOS Elan II on a tripod. The lens is a 28mm-105mm

zoom, shot at about 50mm. I shot a roll each of three films: HP5+,

FP4+ and Tri-X (old). The pictures here are of the HP5+, which is the

standard film I shoot most often. All were 35mm.

 

The Diafine instructions say that the optimum rating for HP5+ is 800

ASA, so I used that speed for this test. I metered off a gray card

for the exposure and shot the whole roll at 1/250 of a second at

f/5.6. In the darkroom, I cut the roll in half and put them into two

different tanks. One tank I developed in Diafine, 4 minutes each in

solutions A and B. I developed the other tank in XTOL diluted 1:2

for 18 minutes.

 

I made an 8x10 print from a negative of each developer and printed

them to the same contrast level. I then examined them with a 10x

loupe for shadow detail and sharpness. To my eye, there was almost no

difference. If I looked a long time, I began to convince myself that

the Diafine had a little better sharpness and detail. But if it is

there, it is an extremely small difference.

 

I got similar results comparing the Tri-X and FP4+ prints. 35mm

negatives enlarged to 8x10 prints and examined with a 10x loupe showed

virtually no difference. My conclusion is that the two developers are

a practical dead heat for speed increase and sharpness.

 

My scanner is of average quality, so they don't do the prints justice.

The photos below show a section of the whole print, a detail of the

flowers and a close crop of the smallest part of the test chart.

 

I would welcome any comments you have, especially ideas about whether

my testing procedures can be improved.<div></div>

I would love this type of resource. And I would love to hear from experienced darkroom people about proper methodologies for such a testing ground.

 

I do not have a densitometer, I make comparisons by judging final prints. But that is tricky because negatives of different films in different developers have slightly different densities. To truly compare the final look of two prints with different films or developers, I have to print them to nearly identical contrast levels. At least that is what I have been doing up to now. It would be nice to know if there are flaws in this method that are not giving me results that lead to a true comparison.

 

Ideas from the sages would be welcomed!

Andrew, if I can find the time, I will try to scan some pictures tonight on my results of XTOL and Diafine. I will start a new thread on the topic so we don't detract from J.'s question about diluting XTOL.

There is a description at the B&H website that explains the difference between the "USA," "USAW" and "Imported" labels. The description does not mention anything about new versus old Tri-X. The description says:

 

USA is manufactured in the US for sale in the US.

 

USAW is manufactured in the USA for distribution abroad.

 

Imported is manufactured outside the USA.

 

I have always bought the USAW or imported and have always been happy. It is supposed to be manufactured to the same quality standards. And I LOVE the price.

Regarding J.'s original question, diluting XTOL will give a slight increase in sharpness with a possible increase in grain. I use XTOL quite a bit. I use 1:1 for normal development and 1:2 for push-processing. It is a great all purpose developer for me because I like sharpness and speed increase more than I like tight grain.

 

The horror stories about XTOL are almost all related to the now discontinued one liter packages. I mix 5 liter packages and have never had a problem. Plus, the keeping properties are great. With plastic bottles filled to the brim I can keep it easily 8 months (never had to store it longer than that).

 

Regarding capacity, Kodak says use at least 100ml of developer per roll, Anchell and Troop say to use 250ml. I use 200ml, just a personal failsafe.

 

I recently did a test comparing XTOL, Diafine and TFX-2. The subject included a test chart. All three claim to be speed increasing developers. I was suprised at how little difference there was between the three. With 35mm film blown up to 8x10 and then examined with a 10x loupe I had to search the prints for quite awhile before I could find differences. And even then I may just be kidding myself.

 

Lex, I know you have also been testing Diafine recently. I will try to scan my results to show what I have been doing (tho my scanner is not great, it may take awhile for me to figure out how to show the blown up portion). I would be interested in seeing what your results are as well.

Thank you for your answers, this was exactly what I wanted to know. I agree, Richard, it is impossible to line up the numbers with the frames on any particular roll. It is just good to know that there are numbers that will help me for reference purposes.

I am thinking of starting to load my own bulk film. Can anyone tell

me if there are film identification names and frame counter numbers on

bulk film, like there are on factory rolled 35mm cassettes?

Otherwise, how do you keep track of negatives you are printing?

Thanks for your information.

I have been using the Photographer's Formulary version of FX-2, which they call TFX-2. I have been using the same bottle since the begining of August, now nine months old. The solution A is starting to turn yellow, but I developed a roll of FP4 just this week and it came out great. I was starting to get concerned about the shelf life, especially since the bottle is nearly empty, but it was good.

 

I have not tried FX-1. It is supposed to be a little sharper but not render the tonal range as well as FX-2. I have been satisfied with FX-2. Conrad and I exchanged emails awhile back about this developer. Here is a photo that I shared with him at that time. It was developed with stand development for one hour.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1258407

 

I am not sure exactly what the edge effects are, but I do like this photo. It has very crisp edges. This is 35mm film enlarged to 8x10.

A 36 frame roll of 35mm film is about 80 square inches of film. By math, then, a 24 frame roll would be 2/3 of that, or about 53 square inches.

 

I use the TF-4 fixer and find I can easily fix more film than what Photographer's Formulary recommends. I have been using the same half liter for four months now and have fixed 18 rolls of film with it, which works out to (18 x 80) 1440 inches. I tested the fixer just yesterday and it was still going strong. It completely fixed a piece of film leader in about 30 seconds.

Conrad, thank you for the information from your test. I also like to develop FP4 in FX-2 and have been very pleased with the results. Perhaps the advantage that FX-2 offers is increased film speed.

 

I am suprised that you shoot FP4 at ISO 64 for development in FX-2. I follow Anchell and Troop's advice and shoot it at ISO 200. In a non-scientific test, I shot test shots of a normal contrast subject at ISO 50, 100 and 200 in 35mm film. I then made 8x10 inch prints of each. I don't have a densiometer. For judging shadow detail, I used a loupe on the finished prints. In close examinatin, I could find NO LOSS of shadow detail in the ISO 200 print compared to the ISO 100 or 50 prints.

 

In the end, I suspect your conclusion is true: there is not as much fundamental difference between developers as we would like to think. Photographic and darkroom technique are the factors that make the difference.

I use XTOL a lot and like it. It is a speed increasing developer. I do not see any loss of shadow detail when shooting Tri-X or HP5 at 400. I dilute it 1:1 and develop for 9 minutes at 68 degrees when shot at 400. I do not shoot Tri-X at 200, but the massive chart at the digitial truth website says 8 minutes for XTOL 1:1.

It is an odd truth about the physics of photography that we have equipment that takes pictures in 1/2 stop increments but light meters that give us options for rating the film in 1/3 stop increments. In your example Tim, you have to choose between rating the film at either 250 or 320 (at least, those are my only options with my in-camera meters). But when you go to actually expose the film, on most cameras, you will only have options in 1/2 stop increments.

 

For example, say you set the meter at 400 and it says you should use 1/250th of a second at f5.6 aperture. If you now set the meter at either 250 or 320, it is going to have to choose one of the 1/2 stop increments. Given the light, it may say to shoot at f4, or it may say f4.5. I think the only difference is a slight fudge factor, that is, if you choose to rate Tri-X at 250, you will get the f4 reading more often, and if you rate it at 320 you may get the f4.5 reading more often. Either way, all you are doing is giving a slight preference to more exposure (over a light meter setting of 400). But you are not getting 1/3 more exposure, because (most) cameras don't do that.

Greg, I am sorry that this post may be too late to help. I did not see it until today. But I thought I would reply for future reference. I have checked my sources and I do not see development times for Tri-X at 6400. The exact time will depend on the developer your lab is using, but an increase of 25% for each extra stop is normal. I hope you are able to salvage the shot. I would bet that even processed at 3200, as you say your lab will do, you will have enough on the negative to make a print. After all, it is Tri-X. Good luck.

Donald's answer pretty much covers it. The only thing I would add is that I use distilled water for the stop bath. I agitate for 20-30 seconds, just enough to rinse off the developer, then dump the water bath from the tank, add the TF-4 and agitate for 3-5 minutes.

Marco, I take my advice on developer dilutions for push processing from Anchell and Troop's book, "The Film Developing Cookbook." I have not done extensive testing to compare different dilutions, I just use thier recommendations and have been pleased.

 

As a general guide, they recommend that you use double the dilution rate when push processing if you are using a phenidone-based developer, such as Xtol, T-Max, Acufine, Microphen, etc. So if you use Xtol 1:1 for regular development, like I do, then use it 1:2 for push processing. Increase development time about 50% for a one stop push and about 100% for a two stop push.

 

If you are using D-76, which is metol based, they say you get best results using it undiluted. Hope this helps.

I had thought that the problem with XTOL failures had died down after Kodak fixed the poor packaging problem. I am wondering if current failures from gummy or caked powders are from old packages. I have loved using XTOL for the past year or so, but I have never had gummy or caked packages, only dry powder.

 

I mix a 5 liter package and keep it in plastic bottles filled to the brim, refilling smaller containers as the stock goes down. I have no problem keeping stock for 4-5 months doing this. I love this developer and get great results. I am truly sorry that others are experiencing problems. It is sad (though understandable) that people are losing confidence in this speed increasing, low toxicity developer,

I buy all my film from B&H. I don't think you will find any place cheaper. They sell HP5+ for what Freestyle sells thier Arista. From my perspective, B&H does so many things right for the customer: low prices, good quality control, good customer service, easy on-line ordering, quick shipping, shipping tracking on-line with FedEx, I could go on but you get my point. I think they are the best.

I like FP4+ for portraits. It is great in D-76 or XTOL, but lately I am using it in FX-2. The negs in FX-2 will be very sharp, so it may not be a flattering combination for everyone. Here is a link to a portrait I made of my daughter.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=004QbM&photo_id=1258407&photo_sel_index=0

I use TF-4 exclusively as my film fixer and have had no problems whatsoever. I use it with FX-2 when I am developing slower films and with XTOL when developing faster films, like HP5+. The instructions from Photographer's Formulary say one batch will do at least 15-20 rolls, so I usually mix a fresh batch after 20 rolls. But I have found that a batch that has done 20 rolls will still clear a film leader in less than two minutes.

 

I see no downsides. I like the all alkaline-neutral process. It lets me use a plain water bath, it's easier all-around.

Thanks Patrick, you have summed up my problem precisely. I did not know it would be difficult for photo.net to change the address that the alias points to. It seems to me that this would be a necessary part of offering a photo.net email address. If I have caused inconvenience to you or photo.net staff, I didn't mean to!

 

I don't change my email address often. I had pacbell.net for seven years, in fact, I was a beta tester for them. But the junk email just got to be too much. I would receive 30 spam emails for every real email, so I had to change.

 

I really appreciate your help. In order to make my photo.net address useful, I have to be able to change the address it points to because I am changing my ISP. Thanks, thanks, thanks!

Here is another website. It gives details about how to take pictures by moonlight. It may have some useful information for you.

 

http://www.brokentripod.com/MOONLIGHT2/LOTMoon2.html

Thanks for your concern Seven. I'm not really frustrated, I just want the email address changed. I am grateful that this site even exists, I get a lot of useful information from it. That is why I subscribed, I want to support photo.net.