Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 9:54 PM -0500 3/25/01, Johnny Deadman wrote:
>I shot a bunch of test negs today using 4x5 Delta 400 sheet film. I metered
>carefully, and I was using a lens whose shutter speeds I trust. I developed
>in Xtol 1:2 using a time of 14' @ 68F. I think I was bang on the
>temperature, and I timed it with my digital watch (I still think these are a
>pretty neat idea, Douglas Adams fans).
>
>This was an educated guess as there are no official speeds for D400 sheet
>film in the Xtol or D400 datasheets, but I just now checked with the massive
>dev chart at:
>
> http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~migol/photo/photosource.html
>
>and they use the same time exactly.
>
>Anyhoo, the negs are *incredibly* thin. They are still drying so I haven't
>had a chance to really look at them closely but I have to assume this is
>pretty massive underdevelopment... I would say at *least* 2 stops, more like
>3 or 4.
>
>I'm really at a loss to account for this and need some input. Some factors
>to consider:
>
>* I know D400 was reformulated recently but I can't imagine it was so
>drastic that the times have changed THAT much
>
>* the metered exposures were pretty much what one would expect, for example
>f/11 @ 1/50 in open shade on a cloudy-ish day, around f/4 or f/5.6 at
>1/filmspeed if you use the 'sunny 16' scale of guesstimation. So I think the
>meter was fine.
>
>* the film was fresh and in any case had been refrigerated until the last 2
>weeks.
>
>So as far as I can see that leaves the developer. This was NOT freshly made
>up. However, I used this batch previously and looking now at those negs they
>are absolutely fine. Mind you, that was several weeks ago -- about 6 or 8 --
>and I'm starting to wonder if I exceeded the time limit on Xtol stock. The
>stock I used was from a partially-full, tightly stoppered bottle. I've had
>no problem doing this previously, but as far as I can see this is the only
>possible f*** up factor in all of this.
>
>Anyone able to cast any light on this?
>
>ta in advance,
>
When Xtol goes bad it goes bad in exactly that way, and with little
warning. In full, airtight container it seems to last about 9 months,
but with some air it varies, and seems to last less than 2 months at
times. The problem, compared with most other developers, is that it
doesn't really change colour when it goes bad.
My method of storing it (I use the 5 litre size) is to put it into
used apple juice boxes. These are 6 litre boxes with a plastic bag
with dispenser spout on the inside. I fill them up, squeeze all the
air out, and then set them up so that I can decant whatever quantity
of stock developer I want, without letting any air in. The longest
I've had one of these is 9 months, and it still worked. The last time
or two I used it I did a snip test just for developer action. I was
using some other developers in between, but usually I use it all
within a month or two.
- --
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com