Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I know all too well that Neopan 1600 isn't ISO 1600: http://leica-users.org/v26/msg07247.html I helped a friend process some Neopan 1600 he exposed at 1600 right before I did these and it looked great. It seems, however that it doesn't work for me. Different metering, probably. I personally get the best results with TMZ, but I know different methods and aesthetics like different things. Many of the Neopan 400 photos were developed in Xtol 1+3 with more s-dimezone and isoascorbate added, to bring the concentration of developing agents to be the same as straight Xtol. I also added a small amount of hydroxide to bring the pH to the same as stock because the additional ascorbate made the solution too acidic and slowed it down to glacial pace (underdevelopment after 30 minutes). I'd previously tried using more metaborate, but trials showed the results were the same with a freshly mixed sodium hydroxide solution, which is cheaper. I also needed less. I got this idea from formulae 2-5 in the Xtol patent US Patent 5 853 964. That's here: http://tinyurl.com/7sqrj It's basically straight Xtol with the sulfite of 1+3. I call it 'Xtol Plus'. The developing times are about the same as straight Xtol but as always, test. In commercial settings, the developing times are probably important. I can't tell the difference between 12x16" prints from the original 1+3 developer and the variant. If anything, there may be slightly greater overall contrast and slightly lower local contrast (Less than 0.1 CI) in the negs from 'Xtol Plus'. I would have used PC-TEA, but the only source of triethanolamine I can find in Australia is very expensive because the product is AR grade.