Quote Originally Posted by albada View Post
Here are scans of test strips, identically exposed, and developed with XTOL and PC-Sulfite.
The XTOL scan:
Attachment 43620 And a crop: Attachment 43621

And the PC-Sulfite scan:
Attachment 43618 And a crop: Attachment 43619

These images are darkish because I set the white-point as high as possible in the scanner, to clip as little data to white as possible (i.e., maximize the dynamic range). The black-point was set to the left side of the histogram (which was always the same). Gamma was 1.5.
This is part of my camera-collection, lit by the overhead tungsten candelabra. It's hard lighting, which creates plenty of specular reflections to see how the dense part of negatives are doing. Unfortunately, my Coolscan IV ED scanner doesn't have enough dynamic range to cover such specular reflections well (and still show shadow-detail in the neg's), so many reflections clip to white.

In the crops above, PC-Sulfite appears to have slightly less grain than XTOL. That's not true. In 22X loupes, they seem to have the same grain. The scanner's focus has a little variation, and the film isn't held perfectly flat, so grain is defocussed by unpredictable amounts. To get sharp images of grain, I want to photograph negatives in a microscope.
Between these images, the XTOL negative clearly has more contrast and accutance than your PC-Sulfite. You can't judge a developer by comparing things like this.