Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,573   Posts: 1,545,674   Online: 883
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu
    I've two issuses of Darkroom Techniques from the early 80swhich extol the virtues of Perfection XR-1 and it's speed increasing
    abilities. Why fight it. At www.unblinkingeye.com they have
    a good article on XR-1. Three agents are used but maybe two
    will do.
    Can anyone tell me if the two issue of Darkroom Techniques that feature XR-1 provided any evidence of sensitometric testing to support the claims made for speed increasing ability? I have looked at the article at www.unblinkingeye.com but see nothing there about how it was determined that this developer is indeed speed increasing.

    When we compare developers for effective printing speed, sharpness and grain it is essential that the comparison film be developed to the same CI in both developers. If not one or more of the features we would like to compare will be different on the two films and the comparison rendered virtually useless.

    From my own experience in testing films and developers I have come to the conclusion that true increases of effective film speed of more than 1/4 stop are extremely rare when the comparison films are developed to the same CI. And this has been true even when comparing developers at the extremes, i.e. a developer such as ABC Pyro which is known to be speed decreasing with one of the phenidone based developers reputed to be speed increasing. There is of course plenty of anecdotal literature that claims speed increases of two or three stops but when you look at the testing you find that the methodology is too flawed to support the conclusions rendered.

    Sandy King
    Last edited by sanking; 12-04-2004 at 07:39 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #32
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu
    The use of CI when zone VIII is meant has had me wondering and
    Mr. Gainer off on a tangent.

    I don't understand Mr. Gainer's questioning your results. After
    all PC and TEA are to some extent his babies.

    I've two issuses of Darkroom Techniques from the early 80s
    which extol the virtues of Perfection XR-1 and it's speed increasing
    abilities. Why fight it. At www.unblinkingeye.com they have
    a good article on XR-1. Three agents are used but maybe two
    will do.

    Your ph may be a bit high. You've mentioned perhaps more grain
    than will result from a lower ph solution. Dan
    I'm not fighting it. I just don't believe it. Apparently not enough people believed it to keep it in production. Maybe its shelf life was not long enough. The fact that 96 F was specified for some uses may have contributed to its demise. I would suggest that you might try mixing most of the ingredients of the stock in TEA or glycol. If you do that, you will need only a gram of so for each gram of hydroquinone to get the activity, and you may find the grain to be pretty good. You could add as much sulfite to the working solution as the spirit moves.

    If you multiply the amounts of the developing agents by 2.5 and dissolve them in 100 ml of TEA, a dilution of 1:25 will have the same ingredients as the stock listed in Unblinkingeye and pretty close to the specified pH. Diluting 1:50 would be the same as diluting the XR-1 stock 1:1. If anyone wants to try it, I won't accuse you of stealing my idea. Unless, of course, it turns out to be the supreme developer of all time. Try it first without sulfite. Add sulfite a gram at a time to the working solution to see if it helps.
    Gadget Gainer

  3. #33
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    P.S.
    You might try substituting ascorbic acid for the hydroquinone. It does not need sulfite for superadditivity with either metol or phenidone.
    Gadget Gainer

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    ...I have come to the conclusion that true increases of effective
    film speed of more than 1/4 stop are extremely rare when the
    comparison films are developed to the same CI. Sandy King
    Did you take notice of the very large amount of phenidone in
    Perfection XR-1? Dr. Gudzinowicz has an explanation of XR-1's
    phenominal performance at rec.photo.darkroom. I think you
    can find that post by searching there for, perfection xr-1
    anneman .

    I've a copy of the patent; 4,083,722. There may be room for
    A. acid as one of the three agents used. That would make xr-?
    a PMC developer. AMP I prefer, A for Ascorbic.

    The June 1981 and December 1982 issues of Darkroom Techniques
    have very convincing articles. The first is by WEG Thomas and
    the second by J. H. Shelton.

    I have mentioned Perfection XR-1 because psvensson saw
    increased shadow density with increases in phenidone
    levels. Dan

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by dancqu
    Did you take notice of the very large amount of phenidone in
    Perfection XR-1? Dr. Gudzinowicz has an explanation of XR-1's
    phenominal performance at rec.photo.darkroom. I think you
    can find that post by searching there for, perfection xr-1
    anneman .

    Dan
    Yes, I did look at the formula and it is indeed quite unusual. However, I am a very skeptical person by nature and my optinion is that getting a *true* speed increase of two or three stops from any develper is simply not possible if we adhere to standard protocol for determining the speed point of fillm, or for that matter if we observe only the protocal of comparing films developed to the same CI. So regardless of what other experts may have theorized, until I see a set of comparision curves made with XR-1 using sensitometric testing based on good methodology I am going to remain totally skeptical about any and all claims for this level of speed increase.

    Sandy

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    Yes, I did look at the formula and it is indeed quite unusual. However, I am a very skeptical person by nature and my optinion is that getting a *true* speed increase of two or three stops from any develper is simply not possible if we adhere to standard protocol for determining the speed point of fillm, or for that matter if we observe only the protocal of comparing films developed to the same CI. So regardless of what other experts may have theorized, until I see a set of comparision curves made with XR-1 using sensitometric testing based on good methodology I am going to remain totally skeptical about any and all claims for this level of speed increase. Sandy
    I took a closer look at one of those articles. A test of Tech Pan in
    Technidol, FG-7 and XR-1 was made with three rolls of 35mm.
    All prints published look a stop underexposed. EIs of 25, 25,
    and 100 were used in that order.
    EIs of 12.5, 12.5 and 50 I think would be about right
    looking at the published photos; all outdoors of the same subject.
    At 16 diameters the FG-7 looked horrible.

    The other article, by WEG, has really fine photos. Several films
    were tested. Increase in speed ran from three to 10 times 'box'
    speed. Psvensson uped his Tri-X one stop and he was'nt
    even trying. Dan

  7. #37
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    I am leary of anecdotal speed increases. I would rather see the results of tests made on sections of the same subject photographed on the same roll of film. The relative speed means more to me than the absolute speed. My practice is to shoot 1 36 exp. roll of a pictorial subject and one of a step density wedge, each roll at the same f-stop, shutter speed. Prints and plots of density will reveal more than any statement of the sort "I shot it at 200". Different people use meters differently, and rarely have I seen it specified exactly how it was done.

    I have used Tri-X at 800 according to my camera, but I would not want to guarantee that any other camera would do the same. Same for light meters. My favorite method used to be to set the meter for 1600 and read dark shadows. Was I actually using ISO 1600? not by a long shot.
    Gadget Gainer

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin