matthew_batista

Thanks for your responses so far. I spoke with the lab this morning. Their dip and dunk

processor was custom made for them by an Italian company. Like an e-6 processor it has

eight tanks, and the time in the developer can be fully customized for push/pull

processing. This lab only does custom B & W work, nothing else. Yes, the XTOL is

straight. Should I be surprised by the fact that they've never worked with the Bergger

sheet films? Perhaps most people using bergger are using PMK/ ABC Pyro? If I'm going

the XTOL/dip and dunk route from now on what film have others had success with (not

that I want to turn this into a "favorite film" thread. Any other thoughts? I'll post my

results here for posterity.

Thanks,

Matt

Bill J. wrote:

"Richard,

Are you sure that's right? If "thick" doesn't allow a lot of light to get through, wouldn't that

contribute to "underexposure"? Conversely, if "thin" allows a lot of light through, wouldn't

that potentially cause "overexposure"? Just when I thought I had these figured out..."

Bill, Richard is correct. I think you're skipping ahead and talking in terms of the print,

while Richard is referring to qualities of the negative. In terms of the print you are correct

in thinking that a dense (over-exposed) negative would need a longer exposure to achieve

a normal looking print. In terms of the print a thin negative (underexposed) would need a

relatively short time to achieve a normal looking print.

Hi,

After years of tray developing I have to switch to a lab for film development. I shoot

Bergger BPF in the 8 x 10 size and rate it about 100 asa, maybe a bit lower (I prefer

slightly dense negatives with good shadow detail.) The lab hasn't worked with Bergger

sheet films before. They use a large tank machine processor (dip and dunk) with

"seasoned" XTOL. I don't know their dilution or if XTOL is a standard dilution for a machine

like this. Does anyone have an educated guess as a start time for a Normal negative? What

about expansion and contraction development? +/- 20 to 30% ? I have some negatives to

test, but I need a good place to start.

Thanks for your help.

-Matt

My scanning experience is limited to the now gone Canoscan fs4000us and an older

version of the current Nikon scanners. The canoscan has a plastic cage that snaps closed

over a strip of negatives. This cage has a row of teeth on the bottom that a motorized gear

engages and pulls into the scanner. There is no manual sliding back and forth of the

negatives to scan one vs. another. This never scratched one of my negatives.

I used a Nikon scanner (looks similar to those made today) about four years ago (2001).

This film holder was plastic and metal. Two flimsy pieces of plastic snap closed over a

strip of negatives, then slides within a metal housing. One had to slide and/or rotate this

holder by hand to scan different positions of negatives. Later I noticed quite a few of my

negatives were scratched.

Has Nikon corrected this type of film holder? Have other people had problems with Nikon

holders? What current scanners use the (Canon-type) motorized film holder drive?

Thanks for your help.

-Matt