marty_deveney

<p>>"required a 10 year cool down."<br /> >Is this a typo?</p>

<p>No. It's correct. It's not that uncommon for very high refractive index optical glass made by traditional methods.</p>

<p>Marty</p>

 

<p>One of the nicest things about Xtol is that to replenish it, you just add more Xtol. And unlike small volume use, replenishment systems using Xtol are incredibly stable. It's a very nice developer for any number of reasons, but a replenishment system isn't justified for most small-volume users.</p>

<p>Marty</p>

<p>Camera Electronic<cite>:</cite><br>

<cite>www.cameraelectronic.com.au</cite><br>

should have plenty, but the prices will make you order it from Freestyle or Fotoimpex.</p>

<p>Marty</p>

<p>You can make your own Xtol. Go here: http://patft.uspto.gov/ and type in 5,853,964. It will take you to the Xtol patent page. It has several formulae.<br /> <br /> There are, however, indications from the physical behaviour of Xtol that what Kodak sells is somewhat different. Xtol stock solutions have a pH of 8.2 (what Kodak says in the patent); diluted to 1+3 the pH rises to 8.3-8.4. If you make the patent version, the starting solution is 8.35-8.4 and it stays fairly stable with dilution. Those pH differences might not seem like alot, but they're important. The version from the patent is also about 30% less active. What does this tell us? The "weakly alkaline" (Kodak's terminology) pH must come from a buffer, rather than just from metaborate and metabisulfite. I suspect a small amount of boric acid (i.e. a metaborate-boric acid buffer); it makes the most sense chemically; I also have some supporting data from mass spectroscopy analysis of commercial Xtol. The EDTA is also probably not enough on its own to sequester the divalent cation concentrations that Xtol can handle; I did this by adding known concentrations of dilute cation solutions to Xtol and self-made analogues and comparing them.<br /> <br /> If you want to make a substitute, the following are options:<br /> <br /> Patrick Gainer's PC-TEA<br /> 9 grams ascorbic acid<br /> .25 grams phenidone<br /> 100ml triethanolamine (TEA)<br /> Heat the TEA in a pyrex container in a microwave for 30 seconds - 1 minute on high. Repeat until the TEA is at about 120C/250F and add the ascorbic acid. When it is dissolved, add the phenidone. Be careful, because the TEA will stay VERY hot. <br /> <br /> Dilute the PC-TEA concentrate 1:50 for use. <br /> <br /> PC-TEA is very good and if you have access to cheap TEA as those in the US do through www.chemistrystore.com, it costs hardly anything. It's grainier than Xtol, however, and doesn't change its characteristics as much when diluted more. It works because it is very alkaline, which I think contributes to the grain characteristics of films developed in it. Many other ascorbate formulae have these flaws; the absence of the weakly alkaline pH, low sulfite concentration (but with some sulfite still present) and the increase in activity with dilution are what make Xtol extraordinary.<br /> <br /> The late John Black's JB9 is functionally the same as Xtol, but you mix it yourself.<br /> <br /> The developer is made from 3 liquid concentrates that are stable for at least 6 months, perhaps a year (stability testing is ongoing). Store the solutions in glass bottles, tightly capped. The solution A should be stored in the dark (a closed cabinet is fine) or in an amber bottle. <br /> <br /> Solution A: (Phenidone, ascorbic acid)<br /> <br /> Phenidone 1.25 gm<br /> Ascorbic acid- 50.00 gm<br /> Ethyelene or<br /> propylene glycol<br /> or dry methanol- 600 ml<br /> <br /> Warm up solvent to hot tap water temp before dissolving the components. They will dissolve at about 100-125F. Dissolve the ascorbic acid first.<br /> <br /> Solution B: TBE (Tris-borate-EDTA) Sigma cat# T3913<br /> One 1L dry package dissolved in 1L distilled water<br /> Other buffer concentrates may be substituted if made up to about half molar concentration at a pH of about 8.3. Boric acid-metaborate (BA/Kodalk) would be fine, you may have to fiddle a bit to get the right pH.<br /> <br /> Solution C: Saturated Na Sulfite solution<br /> Na Sulfite(anhydrous)- 180 gm<br /> Distilled water- 600 ml<br /> <br /> Stir vigorously for about 30 min. Temp will rise a bit and it will almost all go into solution. Let stand overnight to equilibrate (some will crystallize out). Use after that.<br /> <br /> JB9 developer:<br /> SolA: 10 ml<br /> SolB: 50 ml<br /> Sol C: 20 ml<br /> Distilled H2O Fill to 250 ml<br /> <br /> Add sol B and C to water first, mix and then A (protects phenidone from oxygen in water). This is enough todevelop 1 roll of 35mm film. Scale up as necessary. Works best as a 1 shot developer at 68F, with moderate agitation. I use 13 min for Tri-X. You'll need to work out your own times if you try this.<br /> <br /> I've used the tris and metaborate/boric acid versions of JB9 and they are functionally identical to Xtol. You can modify the sulfite concentration as you like. One of the best things about JB9 from my perspective is that you can mix the developing agents to the same concentration as Xtol stock, but keep the same sulfite as Xtol 1+3 (or any other favoured dilution). This is great for films like TMX and Acros that run out of developer in Xtol <br /> 1+3, or for pushing TMZ.<br /> <br /> Of course the other option is to mix the patent formula Xtol and add boric acid until the pH of the stock is 8.2, but you may then also run into problems with 'photo grade' chemicals that contain a lot of calcium that the EDTA cannot manage. I really don't think the EDTA alone as suggested in the Kodak patent is enough to chelate ions out of photo grade chemicals or tap water, but I have particularly cruddy tapwater (and maybe chemicals?).<br /> <br /> There's E76: http://www.jackspcs.com/e76.htm<br /> <br /> There's Pyrocat-MC: http://www.photosensitive.ca/wp/pyrocat-mc (can't find the original formula, sorry).<br /> <br /> There's a million others.<br /> <br /> If you mix fresh in good water and use one shot, you shouldn't have any problems. This is the same as for Xtol, but with these formulae you can mix as much or as little as you want or need.<br /> <br /> Marty</p><div></div>

<p>>I don't think X-tol is any more environmentally friendly than PC-TEA.<br>

Xtol is definitely less environmentally friendly than PC-TEA. The alkali in Xtol, sodium metaborate, includes borates (obviously) that are toxic to plants and a wide variety of aquatic life. They can accumulate environmentally and are resistant to being broken down. Triethanolamine is more environmentally benign and is biodegradable.<br>

Disposing of large amounts of any developer except by authorised chemical waste processors is not recommended.<br>

Marty</p><div></div>

<p>A few things: yes, the special glass used in the 75/1.4 and f1 Noctilux is no longer available. I am not sure if environmental regulations are the cause, or if after Leica closed their glass works it is impractical to have someone else manufacture special glass types with very long slow cooling requirements.<br>

On the M8 the focus shift inherent in the design also becomes much more apparent; this doesn't occur in the Summicron.<br>

Maybe Leica will re-design in the future with different glass, but with the Summicron and Summarits available it seems unlikely.<br>

You can also always buy a new-old-stock (there are still some around) or used Summilux.<br>

Marty</p>

<p>Check the photo.net archives . . .<br>

http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00Ra7c<br>

and about a dozen-ty other places . . .</p>

>Is this a great lens?

 

Yes - it is among a select few classic designs for 35mm that has distinct character and is also technically

excellent. To get a more technically capable (I'm talking better MTF particularly in the corners, flatter field

. . . ) short tele you need to buy a lens with a floating element and an aspherical element and only the Leica

Summicron 75/2 and the Canon EF 85/1.2 have that.

 

It is only as soft wide open as any other comparable design - including the Nikkor 85/1.4, the Zeiss 85/1.4 for

the Contax cameras or the newer ZK, ZF and ZE versions (same lens, optically).

 

http://leica-users.org/v13/msg02614.html

 

>Is it impossible to find a hood?

 

No, you can get a replacement from Leica, but I expect it would be expensive. You could also probably find one

at an online auction site, KEH, B&H or any of the other big online retailers if you are patient.

 

>Are there any substitute hoods?

 

The first version of the Summilux 75 has a 58mm filter thread (and focuses to 1m), so you should be able to buy a

generic hood that will fit, although it may block some of the relevant field in the viewfinder. If you use an M

with large lenses you'll be used to this anyway.

 

>Can it be used without any hood?

 

It is very flare resistant, but a hood helps. Tele lenses are more subject to flare in some ways if there is a

strong light source in the frame or striking the front element from outside the image field.

 

The best way to tell what it is worth is to check what they have been going for on eBay. Summilux 75s got

expensive when Leica discontinued the lens.

 

Marty<div></div>

Irrespective of the real risk there will be laws where you live about what you can and cannot put down the drain.

Check with your local government. Follow what they say.

 

To minimise your impact, firstly use a developer that contains no hydroquinone - although silver in fixer is

often cited as the most toxic component of B&W darkroom work, hydroquinone is arguably worse. Use Xtol to

develop film and Neutol Plus or a hydroquinone free developer for film and another for paper from Photographers

Formulary or mix it yourself.

 

Selenium toner should be used up (to complete exhaustion) and mixed with hypo clearing agent prior to discharge.

Selenium is also very toxic.

 

Used fixer poses a problem, because the silver in it is toxic to the bacteria and accumulates in the system.

There is a lot of info about silver management at the Kodak website:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/dpq/site/TKX/name/hseSilverManagement but the easiest way to manage it is to

precipitate the silver out of the used fixer with Sodium dithionite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_dithionite

(aka sodium hydrosulfite or sodium hydrosulphite), a white crystalline powder with a weak sulfurous odor. This

substance will precipitate the silver from the solution and separate it from the rest of the components, creating

a benign liquid that can be safely disposed of (on the garden, not down the drain).

 

You do it like this: put the fixer into a container and add the sodium dithionite, around two tablespoons per

litre. Don't close the canister. Put it in a well-ventilated location at room temperature, perhaps out on a

balcony, as it will produce some sulphur dioxide which smells like rotten eggs. If it is really cold it will not

work - or at least it will take a very long time. The silver will fall out as a black sludge of colloidal silver

and silver sulfide to the bottom and some to the wall of the canister. After a week or so, pour off the excess

liquid and filter the rest through a coffee filter. The black stuff that remains in the filter and the canister

is silver; dry the cake and collect it for further processing or disposal. The liquid can go onto your garden or

sewage or a septic system without any trouble, provided it is legal to do so.

 

The real risk associated with home use is probably low, but check what is legal and follow the law.

 

Marty

>Your test is not valid. You must develope an entire roll in limited quantity of developer. Kodak has confirmed

with me there is NO HOME TEST which you can use to check activity of Xtol. If you wish to talk to them, it`s 1

800 242 2424. Ask for profesional help.

 

I'm not in the US and neither, I suspect, is Christer; I don't have access to Kodak's professional help line

(poetic, if ever I heard a name), but this is simply not the case. There are at least two ways to accurately

assess the activity of Xtol:

 

1. Develop a Kodak Black and White Film Process Control Strip (CAT 180 2990) in your sample of Xtol and measure

the density steps with a densitometer. Compare with your normal results and Kodak's recommendations.

 

2. In ordinary room light, using a 100 μL pipette from a scientific supplier, apply drops of Xtol, suitably

diluted. Put a drop on, then another at 30s, another 1 min later, another 2 min after that and another 4 min

after that, then fixing. Active developer will show a progressive increase in density. If you have a

densitometer, you can work out an average, a 95% confidence interval and set criteria for use. Without a

densitometer, as long as you look carefully in good light and know what it should look like, you'll be okay.

 

These methods work, but don't blame me if this 'test' results in the ruin of your images of a yowie, bigfoot,

Lord Lucan, space aliens or whatever. There are so many ways to screw up the process we all hear about new ones

all the time.

 

>I don't think there is any solid evidence that supports the theory it is a sudden Xtol failure as in one day it's

fine and the next day it's not.

 

If I mix Xtol in Adelaide tap water at my house and use it immediately, it works fine. An hour later it does not

work at all - no frame numbers, nothing.

 

There are some completely different issues with Xtol. The original issue with the 1L packages not sealing

properly has been fixed by Kodak stopping manufacturing them.

 

Another issue is ascorbate oxidation. Xtol relies on isoascorbate to act superadditively with dimezone-S.

Ascorbates are strong antioxidants and will scavenge oxygen from solution. Unfortunately the oxidation products

of ascorbates do not develop latent silver images and do not present a colour change in solution. This explains

what we already know empirically; Xtol can die without warning. I have simulated this by mixing Xtol in degassed

water and diffusing oxygen through it.

 

Another reason Xtol can fail is that the oxidation of ascorbates is catalysed by metal ions in water;

particularly divalent cations (they are the 2+ ones). These include calcium and iron, the former common in photo

grade chemicals, the latter common in tapwater. Odd donut-shaped dots on negatives developed in Xtol are seen

sometimes even by people who are careful about air and mixing. I suspect this occurs when impure dilution water

is used and a little particle of iron or some other substance ends up onthe film, oxidising the ascorbate (and

therefore inhibiting development) forsome distance around. It's not likely to be in the original mix water,

since sufficient impurities there would probably kill the developer, unless it was mixed and then used almost

right away. You can simulate this for yourself by slowly adding small amounts of a soluble calcium or iron salt

to your developer and undertaking the activity tests.

 

The simple fix for these oxidation problems is to minimise air exposure and use good quality deionised/distilled

water.

 

Another potential issue is heat. The only time Xtol ever died on me was after a 15-day-straight 35C+ heatwave.

The developer had been mixed with distilled water and stored in small bottles in the dark. But evidently it

didn't like being slowly cooked.

 

Sudden Xtol death syndrome is real. It can be fixed by keeping small bottles completely full and in the dark,

and not letting the developer get too hot.

 

The upsides of amazing speed and sharpness with fine grain, for me, are greater than this risk.

 

Marty

<div></div>

I experimented with FX-37 but don't routinely use it anymore: I favour ascorbate developers. Increasing the

dilution will increase apparent sharpness, make the grain a little larger and require longer development times

(about 1.5 times the 1+3 time). The difference was noticeable in my tests.

 

Marty

You can develop two rolls of film in a Paterson tank with FX-37 at 1+5 with no problems. Xtol's susceptibility

to exhaustion with certain films comes from the relatively low concentration of developing agents in the formula

and the susceptibility of those agents to oxidation. Kodak says you need 100mL of Xtol stock/roll, although many

people report no problems with less stock per roll than that (me included) for many films. I can use Xtol 1+3

with many films in a Paterson tank at 1+3, which adds up to 67.5 mL of stock per roll of film - about 0.804 g of

isoascorbate and 0.00134 g of dimezone-S per roll of film. FX-37, on the other hand, has plenty of hydroquinone

and phenidone. You could experiment with even greater dilutions than 1+5 with cautious confidence.

 

Marty

Yes, it's a good lens and it's sharp enough.

 

The 50/2.5 Summarit flares less than the 50/2 Summicron, which may be important to you. The Zeiss 50/2 Planar or

the Konica Hexanon 50/2 are also excellent and flare-resistant. All are handy and small. If you can go to a

dealer that has these lenses and you can try them out, one or other may suit you better ergonomically - that is

probably the biggest difference when choosing between these.

 

Marty

Svema (Ukraine), Slavich (Russia), Maco (Germany), Filmotec (formerly Orwo - Germany) and Tasma (Tatarstan), also still make B&W film.

 

There has and continues to be an awful lot of relabelling and reselling.

 

Marty

You may need to experiment: in my experience, Xtol 1+2 didn't have enough developer in a Jobo drum to develop Acros. I had to use 1+1. This also happens with Kodak TMX. It may depend on water chemistry and other factors but has been consistent for me. It may be advisable to get a box of sheets to adjust your development time (much cheaper per frame) and then move to QuickLoads.

 

Marty

You can remove all the silver from your used fixer with Na2O4S2 - Sodium dithionite (aka sodium hydrosulfite or sodium hydrosulphite), added at about 2 tablespoons per litre of used fixer. You add it to the fixer in an open container in a well-aired place (it releases some rotten-egg smells during the reaction) and leave it for a week or so at 20C or thereabouts (if it gets too cold the reaction will slow to the point where the reaction barely occurs). You can then filter out the colloidal silver and dispose of the liquid.

 

Everything else should be okay, unless you're using a whole lot of it.

 

Marty

I've just taken a look at some frames of Neopan 1600, TMZ and Delta 3200 with a microscope. This is a good way to get an indication of the grain type of a film. The data sheets show that TMZ is a monosize flat-grain emulsion and Delta 3200 is an epitaxial monosize emulsion. This is supported by microscopic observations. Neopan 1600 appears to be a traditional cubic emulsion, but the grains appear to be of very even size. It seems likely that Neopan 1600 is a monosize cubic grain emulsion. There is no mention in Fuji's datasheet about the grain type. They refer to Acros as having "Super Fine Sigma" grain, but make no such claims for Neopan 1600 in any of the literature or datasheets that I can find.

 

Marty

Your problem is not with the Xtol. You get a Summicron, I believe

because it's not a solubility issue either. You're not mixing your

Xtol with distilled water, are you?! Calcium and magnesium ions

particularly play havoc with Xtol activity. If your water has any

manganese in it, it will send your Xtol nuts.

 

<p>

 

There has been a recent thread on the Leica users Group about exactly

this problem (with Neopan 1600) and that user reported success after

switching to distilled water for mixing. Try it . . .

In response to the comment about films that would have normal grain

but very high speed, the emulsions are regular B&W silver technology

emulsions that incorporate formate into the emulsion. Formate films

have been investigated by Kodak also, but proved difficult to

sensitize to (particularly) red wavelengths and are tough to store

effectively.

Films from Eftke, Foma Bohemia and Forte all have thick emulsions and

respond very well to the water bath technique, as does Kodak

Verichrome Pan. In Eastern Europe (I take it from your address you're

in Russia) the Foma and Forte films are readily available, relatively

affordable and reliable. I used FomaPan 100 and 400 in 120 format in

the time I spent wandering central and eastern Europe.

Rodinal and Xtol works well. I have processed sheets of Tri-X and

FomaPan 400 2/3 in Rodinal (nice sharp edges) and then finished in

very dilute Xtol for a massive compensating effect. This is

particularly good for working with N-2, 3 or even 4 developments.

 

<p>

 

FortePan 400 is another dual emulsion film, the lower emulsion is ISO

50 and the upper is around 320 in daylight, 400 in tungsten. it is

based on a now discontinued Kodak emulsion.

Check out Prof William Jolly's article 'Silver Mirror and Other

unusual B&W printing processes' (and a subsequent update) in Photo

Techniques Magazine (US). This process provides incredible

Daguerrotype-like mirror finish prints, but is involved and a touch

tricky to get to work properly.

 

<p>

 

You can use Halochrome on FB paper but I suggest RC for 2 reasons - no

silver mirror print is as archival as a regular silver/gelatine print

(the silver is ~very~ vulnerable to aerial oxidation - take a look at

any old Daguerrotype) furthermore the prints on RC paper are more

'mirror-y' because of the inherent reflectivity of the polyester base.

 

<p>

 

I have made portraits and done them both with Halochrome and Prof

Jolly's silver mirror technique and they are stunning, but all look a

bit similar after a while. For a really freaky 'brushed chrome look'

print portraits on heavily textured watercolour paper coated with

Luminos Silverprint liquid emulsion and then Halochrome them.

~Weird~.

 

<p>

 

Later,

 

<p>

 

Marty

I have just finished doing some research for a workshop on low-light photography. It's mostly on hand-held work (stage and candid photography) so I've tested TMZ and Delta 3200 extensively. With Delta 3200 I couldn't get a real filmspeed higher than 640 when developed in PMK. Grain was impressive (even from 120) - I'd experimented with Pyro in the hope that for the 'how do I minimise grain' freaks I could suggest it if the stain in the gelatin masked the silver (grainy) image. I haven't tried bleaching all or most of the silver out of the picture and printing with the stain alone (as seen recently in Photo Techniques) - it seemed too much like hard work.

 

DD-X, Microphen and Xtol are excellent choices with this film.

 

Marty