John:
Good to know that I'm not the only one who has seen that odd insensitivity-to-quantity phenomenon. I was trying to change density by varying amount of Dimezone, and density wasn't changing. That took me by surprise.

Jerry:
That makes it three sources of Dimezone S. I looked at the price-list of TechChemInc: They're competitive. Thanks for mentioning them.

Ron:
I scanned Tri-X strips, shown below. Same result: Grain is finer with 214D than with XTOL. But I included the bottom edge of the wedges so the Mackie lines would show. They're about the same. Also, I looked at edge-markings in loupes, and both XTOL and 214D are neatly outlined with black (Mackie) lines of similar density. So it appears that sharpening is comparable. Below, the 214D scan is on the right. The left scan is XTOL with slightly higher contrast than 214D, and the middle is XTOL with slightly lower contrast than 214D. Grain in 214D is a bit finer than both. To make the comparison fair, all three scans have been digitally adjusted to have equal contrast.

XTOL1: TriX-F1419-XTOL-Ctr10.jpg XTOL2: TriX-Roll126-XTOL-Ctr10.jpg 214D:TriX-F1429-214D-Ctr10.jpg

Here are the graphs of these three strips:

t.jpg

214D shoulders off later (black line), as usual for these D316-like developers. That should help folks who shoot in contrasty lighting, such as mixed sun and shade.

Mark Overton