</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ Jan 30 2003, 04:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Les McLean @ Jan 30 2003, 05:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I was given a sample of Diaxtol by Barry Thornton but the results were appalling and I followed the instructions to the letter. I know of other photographers who had the same experience. However and in fairness I have spoken to photographers who swear by it.

I&#39;m getting lots of good and encouraging replies in this forum and it seems as though PMK is coming out tops. I&#39;ll give it a try when I get the chemistry. Thanks for the tip about Ed&#39;s web site. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Les, was this the two step or the one step procedure you tried? I have heard the two step is very unreliable and that most people just went and settled for the one step. I have not tried it, and at the prices the stuff is selling for I probably never will.

David, There really is not much more to it, as with most developers you have to experiment a little to get the results you wish. After most of the experimenting is done I find I am back to the same original stuff I was using. One thing is for sure I never would go back to a &quot;regular&quot; developer for my films. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I am not a big fan of grain except that grain creates greater accutance and makes a photo appear sharper - usually. So for 4x5 - I am no longer experimenting with film developer - It is PMK. Now - for 120. I am an avid DiXactol convert. The times published are rubbish - so - after I figured out the correct times for my... geographic location, I found that DiXactol has all the benefits of PMK (tanning, restraining - local contrast control, staining) and SMALLER grain. Which makes a huge difference when making an 11x14 from a 6x6cm negative. It IS more expensive and it also works great with 4x5 and IMO too grainy for 35mm. I use mostly the monobath method - It pushes and pulls very well. 1.6ml A, 11.6ml B and 488ml water at 68F. For 6x6cm film, it is the magic bullet. The two bath configuration really does work - BUT it is N-2 in my darkroom and you can really ruin a portrait - I makes an average scene very flat - But if you screw up a roll and don&#39;t know what to do - the 2 bath will give a pritable image if there is any latent image at all. I am back to Metol for 35mm now. I use a split D-23. The 2 bath gives bot a solvent action fine grain effect and also increases accutance in the very weak second bath. Kind of like having my cake and eating it too.