Developing process

[venchka]

The Jobo won't cool down the developing-tank. You could just "aim off" for the temperature gain - meaning start low and end high, but average out at the right temperature (whatever that needs to be). That would only be effective for a range of a few degrees though.

Alternatively, put the tank and chemicals in a washing-up bowl at the right temperature because the larger water-mass will change temperature much more slowly than the tank and chemicals individually. Usually that would be done to keep the tank warm (where I live), but would be fine for keeping everything cool too.

I'm spoiled by Jobo tanks and Uniroller base. No temp. control. I'm working out the moving average temperature. My negatives are ok. I may postpone development until the fall-winter-spring. In the summer my apartment is 79-81 degrees. That causes the developer temp to go from 68 up to 74 in a very few minutes. I may try starting warmer and see how that works. Houston is just blasted hot 90% of the time.

A proper Jobo system can be brought down to 68-70 degrees with ice and held there long enough to develop B&W film.

 

[dfoo]

I developed the film last night and just took at a look at the negatives. I need to do contacts to be sure, but it looks to me like there is no difference between the replenished XTOL and the fresh XTOL. I've currently run 30 rolls of film through the replenished XTOL, which equates to 2.1L of replenisher out of the 5L of stock. After another 30 rolls I'll run the same test and see what I get.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I developed the film last night and just took at a look at the negatives. I need to do contacts to be sure, but it looks to me like there is no difference between the replenished XTOL and the fresh XTOL. I've currently run 30 rolls of film through the replenished XTOL, which equates to 2.1L of replenisher out of the 5L of stock. After another 30 rolls I'll run the same test and see what I get.

Can you post D/log E curves and photomicrographs of grain structure?

I'm not being funny.No apparent difference is very encouraging: many differences are more theoretical than real. But equally, when you start getting heavy, and cranking up the full scientific method, there may be differences that some people (you and probably me) will dismiss as trivial, but which others may use (not necessarily unfairly) as evidence of unacceptable deterioration.

And a lot may depend on how big you print...

Cheers,

R.

 

[dfoo]

I don't have access to that type of equipment. Actually, perhaps I could, but I'm frankly not that interested 🙂 If the contact sheets look very similar, thats good enough for me. Certainly, at the current levels there is not a full stop loss of speed.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't have access to that type of equipment. Actually, perhaps I could, but I'm frankly not that interested 🙂 If the contact sheets look very similar, thats good enough for me. Certainly, at the current levels there is not a full stop loss of speed.

Sure, that's my point, really. It's acceptable to you and (probably) me. Doesn't mean there's no deterioration, or that the deterioration in question is acceptable to everyone.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Some of us shoot lens and film tests while others are concerned with content. A powerful image can sometimes have its impact enhanced by poor technical quality. Things like motion blur, black empty shadows, burned out highlights, too much grain, etc.

The perfect D/log E won't help a meaningless image.

 

[Doug]

Nothing will help a meaningless image except some meaning. If all our images were meaningless I dare say we would not continue for long, so let's put those out of mind.

So we're left with some meaningful images, hopefully, and are they helped by perfect D/log E curves, Leica glow, and great printing? Well, yeah, but those are not *essential* elements in their meaningfulness, just helpful in conveying the meaning more clearly. So there's value in the craft.

But, Al, that argument is old and tired, and we do our best to make our pics technically better while hoping the inspiration will happen and be recorded.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Nothing will help a meaningless image except some meaning. If all our images were meaningless I dare say we would not continue for long, so let's put those out of mind.

So we're left with some meaningful images, hopefully, and are they helped by perfect D/log E curves, Leica glow, and great printing? Well, yeah, but those are not *essential* elements in their meaningfulness, just helpful in conveying the meaning more clearly. So there's value in the craft.

But, Al, that argument is old and tired, and we do our best to make our pics technically better while hoping the inspiration will happen and be recorded.

Precisely my point.

A perfect picture, aesthetically, can survive anything in the way of bad technique.

Many of us fall short of aesthetic perfection and need all the technical help we can get. This is also true of most who deny the importance of technical excellence.

Also, differences in technical quality can be subtle -- mushy grain versus sharp grain, for example -- but the difference between a great print and a so-so print is also subtle in many cases.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dfoo]

My purpose is to make sure I'm not losing something by using replenished XTOL, such as a stop of film speed! At this point, I can say that I'm not losing anything - unless my testing procedure was garbage 🙂

 

[dfoo]

Roger, you were right 🙂 After going through around 150 rolls I've noticed the last 20 or so have had weak shadow detail. I finally got around to doing some tests again today, and the replenished XTOL which I've been replenishing at 100ml per roll is about a stop slower than fresh. I'm going to throw out the stock and start developing one-shot. Probably I'll use 1+2.