Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,914   Posts: 1,521,736   Online: 1087
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8

    Kodak Xtol & TX graph

    Quote Originally Posted by bowzart View Post
    Sounds far too good to be true. I'll rush right out and buy some!! Is it going to separate zone 1?

    Thanks.
    Here is a Kodak Xtol publication (in German ).
    I've highlighted the CI .75 curve in red, Kodak's suggestion for EI 1600.

    Xtol, for me, gives 1/2 stop more shadow speed than D76, with tighter grain. The highlights don't rise as abruptly. This picture is pretty much what I've always got from Xtol. Even BETTER with TMY, but that's off topic... :o
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails XTOL-1+1-TRI-X.jpg  
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  2. #12
    Mike Richards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Preveza, Greece
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    101
    Images
    4
    I'm in Europe and also recommend Tetenal Emofin.
    Mike Richards' Mobile Me gallery, including the Holocaust and Turkey Expo.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Prague, Czech republic
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    29
    Thanks for your recommendations.
    I also have Instant Mytol, actually same developer as XTol, and is great to achieve details in shadows. But I do not like the very small blured grain, which is reason of big amount of sodium sulphite. It was reportage shooted during sunny days, and I exposed it as 1600 just for having times usable handheld with MF camera. As I read your posts, I think the best option for me will be Emofin, Diafine or AM74. I like look of 135 Tri-X in Rodinal 1+25/1+50, and that is something what I want to achieve with rollfilm pushed to 1600.

    Btw. I know, Tri-X is really not ISO400, but something between 250-320, but it is better then Delta/TMax 3200, which are really something around ISO1250

    After I make some tests I will posts some experience. Thanks!!

  4. #14
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Btw. I know, Tri-X is really not ISO400, but something between 250-320

    Test the folklore before you believe it or publish it. Test it before you shoot it.


    .
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  5. #15
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,239
    Quote Originally Posted by berraneck View Post
    ... Delta/TMax 3200, which are really something around ISO1250
    Kodak says TMZ is ISO 800 in most developers. From their tech pub:

    The nominal speed is EI 1000 when the film is processed in KODAK T-MAX Developer or KODAK T-MAX RS Developer and Replenisher, or EI 800 when it is processed in other Kodak black-and-white developers. It was determined in a manner published in ISO standards. For ease in calculating exposure and for consistency with the commonly used scale of film-speed numbers, the nominal speed has been rounded to EI 800.
    This passage has been in the tech info sheet for TMZ since it came out. I had the manager at the lab I worked in at the time enlarge and post this section at the drop off window. I always wondered if that vagary about the rounding meant it was rounded up. I know most of our customers thought it meant rounded down... a lot. Even so, most went back to pushing Tri-X past its limits. My mantra at the time was "if you want me to print more shadow detail, put it in the negative."

    Ilford's tech pub says Delta 3200 is ISO 1000 in ID-11, nothing about "rounding".

    Lee

  6. #16
    bowzart's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Anacortes, WA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,217
    Images
    15

    tmz & Δ3200

    I tested them both, simply can't remember what in, though. It's probably in the files somewhere. Whatever it was would have been fairly generic, most likely hc110b. I do remember the results, though, at least what I determined as a practical ISO for general use. Speedwise, it was 800 for both. Now I'm curious so I may try to find the data.

    Some fewer years back I retested Δ3200 in Beutler's and for that I do have some accessible records. I worked that one up because my wife shoots Zone Plate images on it. We were looking for a combination that would give us excruciatingly sharp grain with which to present the very soft images. Turned out to be just great. Of course, though, the zp itself imposes a different and more gentle kind of gradation which is pretty forgiving at both ends; almost more like an equal increment scale, rather than typically photographic.

    So here's something found in my notes for whatever it's worth:

    "First impression of the wet results is typical in my experience with these high speed films in that the first visible separation in the zone tests appears to place zone one in the realm of 400 ISO.... The subject exposures ... following the zone patches was made at 1600 ISO using the camera's metering system... They are underexposed. The granularity is visible to the naked eye, and there is a beautiful uniformity to the images, which nonetheless appear to be both underexposed and underdeveloped. I suspect that the useful rating will be ISO 800, and the developing time will be around 17 minutes."

    I had been living then in a barn with no densitometer and hardly a darkroom at all at the time, so I was doing these tests the old way; visual determination of separation from a controlled dead black on a contact print for the speed; marking with a sharpie on the upper zone patches enabled determination of separation from pure white on the same sheet. I know that these sheets are around somewhere. We always have to wonder, though, what they may have done to the film in the meantime. That was 8 years back.

    Even back in the mid '60's visual determination was pretty marginal on zone 1; Minor White suggested working from a clearly visible zone 2 as a practical adaptation. Ansel Adams' method from the old Basic Photo series was based on films that had a lot more silver in them (apparently). I'm curious about how these tests would work with the Adox films, whether a visual zone 1 might still be there. I have a good densitometer now and a better lab setup.

    Anyway, I have fair confidence in these numbers still, although with the zp's we kick the development time into the stratosphere since the negatives we get otherwise are a bit hard to deal with since they don't have enough contrast.

    Phil Davis' issues with the zone system seem to be born out with your data on xtol (df); he points out that the assumption that the lower zones don't move is invalid. With more typical film/developer combos, this is true, but practical results can be achieved nonetheless. Your xtol data shows that we may need to take a closer look at the whole curve if we are interested in any kind of precision.

    All this is fascinating and seductive. But maybe too complicated. I'm going back to scratching on stretched animal skins with burnt sticks.

  7. #17
    MarcoGiardini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Milano - Italy
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    95
    Images
    12
    i did a lot of works pushing trix @ 1600 and developing in Ornanto Fino St33 (http://www.ornano.it/english/default_eng.htm). I find it really great. Good results also with D76

    .oesse.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    [QUOTE=bowzart;639015]Hey Paul, better make that sulFITE. Sodium sulfide is the active ingredient of b solution of sepia toner. Wouldn't work. If not aware of the difference it might be easy to get the wrong stuff, especially if buying on the web because I'm sure Bostick and Sullivan and PF have both in their catalogs.

    You know, using diafine, it is possible to cycle through several iterations of the process with water rinse in between. In this way, you can promote the shadow development while holding down the highlights. Just a thought. That is, A, then B, then thorough rinse, then A, then B, then rinse....

    Sorry about the Fite rather than Fide, sometimes I post when I am rushed. I have not tried the multiple passes in Dianfine, I know that others report to get good results shooting TriX at 3200 with 2 or 3 passes. You would really make sure you give a good wash after B. At one point the pushed look with dark shadows without much details was in fashion.

  9. #19
    Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oakville and Toronto Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,368
    Images
    308
    Count me as another fan of Tri-x in Diafine for low light photography. I always get what I want with this combo.

    Bill
    "Life moves pretty fast, if you don't stop and look around once and a while, you might just miss it."
    Ferris Bueller

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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