Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
We typically used small strips (35mm x 12") to check new coatings and new chemicals out. Then we processed a full roll. I have never seen this happen. These were 1 L to 2 L tanks for the strips and about 2L - 4L for the full rolls. We used both hand agitation (dip and dunk) and Nitrogen burst, and these were all comparable.
I have no explanation. PE
Here are the curves between the test-dev and XTOL. Note that the test-dev *strip* matched XTOL well. On these rolls, I shot the Stouffer wedge twice, the second with longer exposure, and thus was able to catch the shoulders:


Notice that XTOL has an abrupt shoulder, and that the test-dev shoulders-off gently, giving more useful dynamic range. We know about the trade-off between contrast/grain/sharpness. I'd like to add another item to that list: dynamic range. This test-dev would show detail in clouds better due to its gentler shouldering.

Also, I thought I accidentally developed the roll for one minute too long, so I did it again. Here's are the curves for the two rolls:


This gives you an idea of the repeatability of my work. And it shows that the time is correct (nuts!).

This dev contains some propylene glycol, which is a difference from XTOL and other dev's that Kodak developed. I noticed that PG retarded development, so my 12.25 minute time increased to 13.1 minutes (keeping pH constant). Ratios of the curves above tell me the time should be 12.1-12.3 minutes, which is where it originally was. Could a roll undo the PG-retarding?

Mark Overton

EDIT: Rudi, I'll remember to measure before/after pH for the next roll and see if it rises.