According to the experts, this photo could not exist.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

So since most people are not capable of reading instructions carefully enough 1:2 and 1:3 dilutions are something NOBODY should use?

Kodak made that decision because they got such an overwhelming number of complaints about Xtol 'dying' and they were getting bad press in the darkroom oriented magazines of the time. The cause of the problem was partly the manufacturing problem I mentioned in my earlier post, but that was fixed early on. The use of high dilutions in small tanks was the biggest cause of the problems people had with Xtol, and even today, as Venchka references in his original post, Xtol has a bad reputation that it doesn't deserve because it simply isn't strong enough to handle much dilution in normal use under the conditions that most users will use it in.

Having tested the higher dilutions, used correctly, back when Xtol first came out, I cannot see any advantage to them over the 1+1 dilution. To me, it is just making life difficult on yourself for no reason.

 

[robklurfield]

photo? what photo? I don't see any photo. burn him. definitely a witch.

Villagers: (enter yelling) A witch! A witch! We've found a witch! Burn her! Burn her!

(After Sir Bedimere gets the crowd to admit that they dressed her up as a witch, their only basis for accusing her is that one of them claims that she turned him into a newt. But because he "got better", they need some way of determining her guilt).

Bedimere: there are ways of telling if she's a witch. What do you do with witches?

Villagers: Burn them!

Bedimere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?

Villagers: Wood?

Bedimere: Right! So why do witches burn?

Villagers: Because they're made of wood?

Bedimere: Right! . Now, what else do you do with wood?

Villagers: Build bridges with it!

Bedimere: But do we not also build bridges from stone; does wood float in water?

Villagers: Yes.

Bedimere: And what else floats in water?

King Arthur: (after more confused suggestions from the villagers) A duck!

Bedimere: Right! So, if she weighs the same as a duck, she'd float in water, and she must be made of wood, so.

Villagers: A witch! Burn her!

(They weigh the woman on a large scale with a duck in the other balancing basket, but inexplicably the scales do not tilt one way or the other. As the villagers drag the woman away, the witch looks at the camera and says with resignation "it was a fair court".)

Bedimere: (to King Arthur) Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

 

[venchka]

So since most people are not capable of reading instructions carefully enough 1:2 and 1:3 dilutions are something NOBODY should use?

Clarification:
When I began developing again i went for the old standy: D-76/1:1. I realized in a hurry that I couldn't process much film with D-76's volumne requirements. Enter Xtol with the 120ml requirement. I did the math. I could develop more film per batch with Xtol. Several old timers waxed poetic about the qualites of Xtol 1:3. I also had my own reason: Houston summer tap water temperatures and development times longer than a nano second. I sometimes resort to standing Rodinal when the tap water starts to steam.

125ml/80 sq. in. of film @ 1:3 works out to 2 rolls of 120/135 or 8 sheets of 4x5. I'm comfortable with that.

PS: I have the Gospel According to AGFA whereing it says "10ml of Rodinal per 80 sq. in. of film." We all know that figure can be reduced to 3ml-4ml. Folks do something similar with D-76. I suppose the minimums were written by the legal department to avoid lawsuits.

 

[venchka]

... To me, it is just making life difficult on yourself for no reason.

Ah, but there are reasons. Read my response re: hith water temperature.

I refuse to circumvent the high tap water temperature with Diafine. Sorry. Won't do that.

 

[venchka]

One country boy to another, "Thank you kindly Dave."

Paper white to India ink black. Every tone you can see in between. That is not flat.
This is a tough crowd. With uncalibrated monitors maybe.

 

[venchka]

Critical piece of information omitted: The angel was photographed on the morming of 9-11-2010. About 9am CDT. Spooky? Maybe.

 

[ChrisP]

But...

But...

Did the internet really tell you it was impossible at 3200? Or just 1600? Maybe there something at 1600 that makes everything disapear... The internet's never lied to me before ...

That's the spirit! It's always nice to prove internet 'wisdom' wrong. I did it myself recently with the Fomapan 400 that someone claimed was 'impossible' to push to 1600. Well, it certainly looks fine at 3200.

 

[Tom A]

Well, in 50+ years of taking pictures - I have learned to never trust an expert - only your own experience. Advice can be good - but nothing beats figuring out for yourself anyway.
The negative is a matter of taste - some like them "thin" and some like them "dense".
Personally I am not an Xtol fan, prefer D76 1:1 for 35mm. Anything larger (120 film and up) is usually done with Beutler (slow speed film) or Pyrocat HD (medium speed film).
It is all a matter of what works for the individual!
As for streaks with cont. agitation - the culprit is the sprocket holes in 35mm film. With larger surfaces -120/4x5/8x10 this is not a problem.
Oh, I like the quality of the OP's shot!

 

[venchka]

Thank you Tom. You I believe!

 

[Luna]

With uncalibrated monitors maybe.

😛😛😛 Experts say you need calibrated monitors?

 

[tlitody]

Experts are usually sheep worriers who have their own agenda related to taking your money.

 

[sepiareverb]

Paper white to India ink black. Every tone you can see in between. That is not flat.

Perhaps the complaint was about the statues bustline?

 

[TaoPhoto]

This is a fun thread. What strikes me as best about it, though, is the willingness to experiment. Too often these days, we have an idea about something to try, we google it, the Internet tells us it shouldn't be done, so we put the idea aside. When there was no google, no moment by moment easy access to the opinions of hundreds of fellow photographers, all our predecessors could do was experiment. And in their experimentations, with film, with lenses, with development, they created stunning, one-of-a-kind photos that we all study today. Forums are fun, but don't let that get in the way of your spirit of adventure. Art doesn't come from creating within the consensus opinion.

 

[dfoo]

Its not flat. Great shot... despite the processing 😀

 

[venchka]

This is better than straps and levers and Summicron minutiae.

 

[varjag]

Congrats with the photo Wanye, but.. did anyone really say all that? BW process is really very forgiving.

 

[Jaans]

I think you're hard to please regarding the OP's pic ... but I do agree partly with what you say about Xtol. I went back to Rodinal as my go to developer a while ago and immediately noticed more 'bite' in my images.

Keith: Thats a fair point, I was probably being a little too harsh regarding the OP's photograph and didn't choose my words carefully. The OP definetely debunked some of those myths surrounding film and the processing of it. I actually do like the photo - the aesthetic of the angel surrounded by trees is one I never tire of, esp. when done well. This photo does have a mystical quality and the composition is also great.

So, I guess I should have been more succint with my words. I mean I don't really like the treatment with said developer or the sheen of the finished product. This is not my criticism of the photographer, but more of XTOL as a developer. Like you aptly put it, Rodinal certainly does give more 'bite' to the final look of the image.

Personally I am always torn between the 'bite' of Rodinal (with my TRI-X) or the 'nip' of D76 1:1. I guess it depends on the situation and treatment required. I can find the Rodinal a little harsh in some situations and D76 is a nice middle point between the three.

In keeping with the vein of this post, I guess if Rodinal has 'bite', and D76 1:1 has 'nip', then XTOL has 'lick', meaning it produces a glossy image and this brings me back to my original point about 'sheen'. In 35mm I can't see the point of using XTOL when shooting at box speed, as you are better of saving your money and going digital, as they are often difficult to tell apart.

But having said that and I do contradict myself here: XTOL is an excellent push developer, so it does have its purpose after all. But at the end of the day, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so it all depends how large you like your grain.

I hope this helps fill in some of the gaps in my original post.

Jaans

 

[venchka]

Indeed you have. Thank you.

 

[venchka]

Congrats with the photo Wanye, but.. did anyone really say all that? BW process is really very forgiving.

Thank you so much.
In one form or another. I didn't make up too much. Embellished a bit perhaps. Suffice to say, for every facet of photography, there are at least two schools of thought. Like "To UV filter or not to UV filter." I can show you volumes on that subject alone. Silly. It is just like the big ender-little ender fight in Gulliver's Travels.

 

[Chris101]

But if he takes your advice and doesn't believe what you say then he will beleive everything on the internet 😕

Illogcal. Norman, coordinate. Beep beep beep.