Here's the deal:
In about a month and a half I will be taking a trip to northeastern Brazil, like I did in 2002, and plan on shooting LOTS of film. Last time I was there I found two labs that processed B/W, one was a small business which used hc-110, the other was a bigger lab which used XTOL.
Being familiar with hc-110, I used the small lab at the time, which was also very cheap. I quickly learned why. Most my negs were over way developed, and I later learned that they had NO temp control. Very scary.
So this time I'm leaning towards the bigger lab, if they are still in business (cant see why not, though). The problem is I have absolutely no experience with XTOL. For the past year or so all I've used was d-76 1:1
How do tri-x and the Macophot (efke 100?) compare in these two? I ask because I tested the tri-x and began to test the Macophot Up-100, and have found the true E.I for both (or at least got close on the Maco).
It is irrelevant what the E.I. was, since it relates mostly to my meter and how I use it (well, tri-x at 200, Maco at 80), but I want to know how to rate these films when I'm there.
I know, the correct thing to do would be test them, but I can't process film at home as of yet, and being a college student who works his butt off as well, I simply don't have the time.
so, if anyone has experience with either film in XTOL and D-76, or even just XTOL, I would appreciate it if you share. I just don't want to lose any pictures...
Worst case scenario, I'll just keep rating both at 200 and 80.
For awhile I had to get my negs processed at a lab. They used XTOL and I was using FP4 and HP5. In both cases the XTOL came out just fine. Any problems in contrast could be corrected in the darkroom with VC papers.
Don Kirby (www.donkirbyphotography.com) uses TMX100 and XTOL with stunning results. He uses it in 4x5 format.
I have no direct experience with Tri-X and XTOL but you could contact either Kirby or Bruce Barnbaum (www.barnbaum.com) for their comments. Bruce uses Tri-X for 90% of what he does but developes in HC-110. He probably has tried XTOL however and might be able to give you some insights.
I have been using Tri-X and XTOL for the last few weeks and have been very pleased with the results. But I have found that I have to shoot tri-x (400TX) at 400 and develope for 9 minutes (1+1).
I am also shooting here in the bright Santa Fe New Mexico sun.
Although I have not shot the Maco film, I do have 20 rolls sitting on my desk that I have been meaning to try.
Thanks all for the responses...
I will probably not contact barbaum as he uses LF, and I shoot trix in 35 and Maco in 120....
Eric, I agree with the VC deal, but the negs I got last trip have to be printed at a #1 (color head) or worse. But they are dense as hell and just annoying... Not to mention the contrast of an overdeveloped neg at 1 is not the same as a well developed neg at 2... but thank you still.
db1, the macophot is a pretty film, but the one I got was surplus from JandC. No drop in speed like they suggested, but the emulsions have tiny scratches parallel to the length of the film.... I like the look, you may not, so shoot extra frames in your first roll and see. I bought 100 rolls of it, and I'm not upset about the scratches at all.
Thank you all once more for the input, it is a relief. I'll keep shooting the tri-x at 200, since db1's 400 might just match my 200.... better to have more shadow detail than less.
So now the countdown begins! 13 of May, here I come.
MikeK is an authority of sorts on different developers, and also started me using the Maco up100. He is part of this place, just PM him.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I have PMned (how do you conjugate that??) him. Thanks Aggie.
P.S. don't brag about the Bay area thing. I get nostalgic....