trooper

<p>I'm afraid I don't have any direct or extended experience with their film developer but it appears to be a somewhat standard Hydroquinone-based soup that runs at 1:9 for film duties. I recall trying a sample many years back but can't recall anything standing out as far as general behaviors go. Maybe someone can chime in?</p>

<p>Are you speaking of QuickSilver from them (a paper developer)? The article link doesn't reference Sprint products so I'm a bit confused? Am I missing something here?</p>

<p>If you try it, keep us posted. I wonder if it would be disruptive to the emulsion when softened? Temperature drift was an issue on a process I was involved in awhile back using ultrasonic horns in diamond slurries and it required cooling. We needed the ultrasonic when mixing .25 micron diamonds to keep the diamonds from agglomerating. The process wasn't nearly as critical (temperature-wise) as film chemistry but it still presented problems in keeping things cool enough.</p> <p>I also recall dissimilar materials reacting in strange ways in ultrasonic baths. They try to separate from each other. Maybe you would be operating in low enough levels of energy that these problems wouldn't present major problems? </p>

<p>As Allen mentioned, they are well-baffled for light but my paranoid habits have me doing the cap-off duties in a shadow or less than direct, bright light. No need chasing your variables more than need be... I keep some of 3M's very soft 33+ electrical tape handy and run a strip around the main lid to body seam as they invariably seep or leak a bit when doing your inversions/agitations... This keeps fingers or gloves from becoming contaminated as you progress through the next steps of processing.<br> Even with the best planning and equipment, you'll have your moments. It's very gratifying when you get some success stories behind you. It's a bit like golf. That one great shot on the 12th hole is what you remember and what erases the frustrations of the rest of the round! Enjoy!</p>

<p>As long as you have Xtol there, perhaps a more dilute solution would add to the effect you are after. It reduces the solvent effect of the developer. Perhaps you are already using diluted but if not, try increasing the dilution and increasing the time and see if it helps to achieve the look you're after.</p>

<p>Follow up: I just looked through the Oben offerings on B&H and it appears that the brand is being sold in their lighter duty variants these days. The pricing seems less dramatic for any savings on the Induro by substituting the Oben version. I saved about $200 in making my decision because of the promos and rebates (a couple of years back). Anyway, happy shopping!</p> <p>A quick story on a tripod purchase I made many years back: I was attempting to find a solid tripod to control a Pentax 67 system. Short version is that I borrowed, demoed and tried out in photo shops, many combos with a laser pointer attached to the camera (then inspect on the negatives). I was amazed at how well certain, unexpected gear would work vs the gear I assumed would be best. It seemed that specific frequencies would travel through some substantial gear but not affect others, and not in a predictable manner.</p>

<p>B&H sells re-branded Induro units as "Oben", their house brand. I've been very pleased with mine (a CF rig). I happened onto a promo + rebate that saved me quite a lot on the Induro alternative. I happened to have a Gitzo head that I liked and intended to use so can only speak to their leg kits but it seems you're covered on that, too. I didn't take time to look up the crossover models to your listed Induros but it should be easy to figure out.</p>

<p>My experience mirrors John W's. I've settled on the MC variant simply for shelf life and stability advantages (though the HD is good in this regard, too). The MC may have a bit of sharpness advantage but not enough to be the decision maker. I find that the edge effects of the PyroCats give my scans sharper delineation on hard edges and eyelash sort of detail The stain effect vs traditional developers seems more compatible with scanning, too. The tonal transitions seem easier to handle by scanners and give a bit more of that 3D "pop" on subtle tonal transitions such as skin tones.</p> <p>I understand Xtol's popularity (and use it myself). I just find scanning goes so much easier with the staining developers. I was playing around with some of Barry Thornton's staining developers many years back (I forget those names as I write this) and noticed how suddenly I was able to scan without all of the light scatter effects. Back then, one had to order from the UK and I eventually ended up with PyroCat giving almost identical results and enjoyed mixing my own chemicals after getting equipped and accustomed to it. Photographers Formulary sells some of his developers along with PyroCat stuff as the OP mentioned. Start out with about 1/2 box speed if you prefer good shadow detail and work from there.</p>

<p>I had a similar experience and used it 1:3 with good results. I use it for negative duties and not prints but films from that time have remained stable. I believe it had a shelf life stated at 1 year? My sporadic use these past few years have had me extending my supply duties more than normal.</p>

<p>I greatly improved and simplified my scanning of black & white when I started using PyroCat developers. The stain action vs the traditional developers reduced light scatter quite a bit. The edge effects of these developers add a crisp separation at high/low contrast points and exhibit great tonal transitions that seem more scanner-friendly, too. Both T grain and traditional emulsions benefited. Photographers' Formulary sells pre-measured kits and it has an extremely stable/long shelf life. Simple baby medicine dosing devices make for simple measuring of the highly concentrated Part A if you don't have pipettes or other lab gear. A couple of friends have started doing this and are very pleased, too.</p>

<p>The Obens are re-branded Induro units, I believe. That might help in finding compatible pieces....</p>

<p>As long as you're dialing in for your specific equipment and temperature situation, I'd be tempted to at least try a slightly more dilute solution and see if you get the curve that you hoped for but not block up the highlights. I have just a little DDX experience but it was many years back but recall that it stood up quite well to moderate dilutions.</p>

<p>I believe it can be re-mounted to a standard shutter. I did this once but had an old Copal shutter of the right size on hand but then found that the ƒ stop scale that I needed was no longer available for that series of shutter. I cobbled up a homemade one and I functioned with the lens (physically measuring and then test-confirming). Initially, I was afraid to unscrew the lens from the db board as it seemed so firmly attached but it did break loose. When inquiring about details of this (on another forum), I had multiple contacts from people wanting my now-available db board so apparently there are homes for the board you end up with. I'm not sure of sourcing for shutters but I recall them being more pricey than I expected. I would assume there are loose shutters around from lenses that have other reasons for being retired.</p>

<p>Yes, sympathies for your loss. One is never truly ready for the finality. The values are all over the map on this sort of gear. Some enlarging lenses can be worth more than the enlarger for instance and you haven't mentioned what the optics are. I have the same enlarger and as mentioned, the shipping can erode its value for what a buyer can pay. It's an excellent workhorse unit used by many schools and labs over the years, partly because they were rugged and stayed in alignment quite well. A craigslist ad might reach the best potential buyers within reasonable travel distance. Sadly, there are many more sellers than buyers for analog gear these days. Let us know what lenses and other gear is there as you may have a pleasant surprise for the worth of good optics, timers and printwashers, etc.</p>

<p>Slower films are especially stable. This reminds me of a check I made a few years ago on some long-stored (frozen) PanF+. I did some step wedge shots and overlaid the results between new, fresh film vs the old stuff found in my freezer.</p> <p><img src="" alt="" width="444" height="341" /></p>

<p>No. Mistakenly trying to run non C-41 films can wreck their chemistry.</p>

<p>I have had good and bad surprises with legacy glass on my X series Fuji bodies. One of my favorite, all-time lenses in film applications was my Hexanon 85 ƒ1.8 but initial trials left me lukewarm on digital. I have great results with a Zeiss Sonnar 90mm ƒ2.8 from my Contax G system and a 90mm Elmarit in M mount and would trust them for serious duties. </p> <p>Because of the beautiful Fuji and Zeiss glass that is made for the X series, I've sort of lost interest in applying old glass as it hasn't seemed worth the trade-offs in handling/focusing/adapters/sometimes funky colors, etc. It's part of what drew me to the X system in the first place but now is easily a secondary consideration.</p>

<p>I see... I saw Mamiya and didn't even think of 35mm (sorry!). I think your results look quite normal or at least expected from HP5+ 35mm. If medium format as I had originally thought, it would be quite grainy. I really don't think that your activity level has been compromised as mixed. </p>

<p>This looks more grainy than I would expect from medium format HP5+... Perhaps it's just scanning artifacts? Did the roll appear grainy to your eye? The tones look well depicted for the harsh lighting situation, though. What dilution was this done with?</p>

<p>I've had good success mixing the 5L pack to 1 gallon, rolling it slowly in a gallon glass thumb jug to minimize mixing air into the solution and decant to 8 oz bottles. It goes into suspension in that amount of water. I have a grid posted in my darkroom with the adapted quantities at this concentration to equal 1:0, 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 dilutions from the standard stock solution in 5L batches. When all of the sudden failure chatter was going on years ago, I read that some were mixing to 1 gallon to extend the useful life as most chemistry behaves this way for storage. I have used some (experimentally) at 18 months with activity levels remaining constant, measured on my densitometer. I use a pyro developer as my go-to soup for most of what I do these days and literally have no chance of consuming a batch of Xtol, so it gets pitched annually, anyway....</p>

<p>Agree with Andrew... I've had great results with my Fuji 210. I've had Rodenstock, Nikkor and Schneider over the years and perhaps I've been lucky, but I haven't had a "klinker" in any of them. I mention the Fuji specifically because it tends to be available in your general price point.</p>

<p>If it went into suspension, I believe it will be fine.... I always thought that the separation was for dry storage purposes, to extend its shelf life in dry form(s).</p>

<p>I had forgotten all about these... I had Konica S3's over the years and only used them with small shoe-mount manual electronic flashes. The GN system and meter overlay made for a very accurate system for both basic flash and also fill flash. The S3 lens was quite capable and I recall magazine comparison tests that put them at the top of the era's compacts. People forget the power (blinding) of these cubes!</p> <p>I recall needing to replace capacitors on large bulb units and would guess this is the culprit you're dealing with. I just noted in Wikipedia the following that reminded me of the magicube vs flash cube:<br> <em>"In the late 1960s <a title="Kodak" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak">Kodak</a> improved their <a title="Instamatic" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instamatic">Instamatic</a> camera line by replacing the individual flashbulb technology (used on early Instamatics) with the Flashcube. A flashcube was a single-use module with four flashbulbs mounted at 90° from the others in its own reflector. For use it was mounted on a swivel mechanism atop the camera that also provided an electrical connection to the shutter release and a battery inside the camera. After each exposure, the film advance mechanism also rotated the flashcube 90° to a fresh bulb. This arrangement allowed the user to take four images in rapid succession before inserting a new flashcube.</em><br> <em>The later Magicube (or X-Cube) retained the four-bulb format, and was superficially similar to the original Flashcube. However, the Magicube did not require electrical power. Each bulb was set off by a plastic pin in the cube mount that released a cocked spring wire within the cube. This wire struck a primer tube at the base of the bulb, which contained a <a title="Fulminate" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulminate">fulminate</a>, which in turn ignited shredded <a title="Zirconium" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconium">zirconium</a> foil in the flash. Magicubes could also be fired by inserting a thin object, such as a key or paper clip, into one of the slots in the bottom of the cube.</em><br> <em>Flashcubes and Magicubes look similar but are not interchangeable. Cameras requiring flashcubes have a round socket and a round hole for the flashcube's pin, while those requiring Magicubes have a round shape with protruding studs and a square socket hole for the Magicube's square pin. The Magicube socket can also be seen as an X, which accounts for its alternate name, the X-Cube.</em><br> <em>Other common flashbulb-based devices were the Flashbar and Flipflash which provided about ten flashes from a single unit. The Flipflash name derived from the fact that once half the flashes had been used up, the unit was flipped over and re-inserted to use the remainder."</em></p>

<p>Switched from Nikon to Fuji and never looked back. Great optics, portable, good build quality. Lack of a good, professional dedicated flash is a bit frustrating, though. FWIW, if you're just starting a Fuji system, it might pay to grimmace a bit and pop for the new XP2 body. It seems to have solved the bulk of the niggling details of previous models, but one would likely be very pleased with any of them.</p>