[Leica] Hints on JOBO auto processing.

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On 7/25/04 6:52 AM, "Nathan Wajsman" <n.wajsman@chello.nl> typed:

> Actually, as far as I recall, Kodak's recommendation is 100ml of pure
> XTOL per film. And there are people here, like Mark Rabiner and yours
> truly, who have often violated this rule because we like to use XTOL 1+3
> (which BTW is no longer recommended by Kodak). My Jobo tanks take about
> 1/2 l of solution, and so a 1+3 dilution of XTOL will have 125ml of XTOL
> in it. I have routinely developed Fuji Acros in this soup, 2 rolls at a
> time, with excellent results.
> 
> Kodak of course wants to err on the conservative side, plus the cynic in
> me thinks that if everyone follows their recommendations (the 100ml
> minimum, no dilutions greater than 1+1) then Kodak will sell more XTOL ;-)
> 
> Nathan
> 
> Frank Filippone wrote:
> 
Kodak did that because of problems with TMX (Tmax 100).
So they made it an across the board thing. Why not?
Maybe the guy whose ultra thin TMX came out perfect for printing on Brovira
#6 and little else put the fear of God into them. Or his lawyer did.
But I also found problems with delta 3200 at 1:3.
I could never build up enough contrast with increased time.
And it seemed kind of foggy.
So I went 1:1 and got all the snap in the world.
There may be more films out there which "eat" Xtol or films in the works.
I do know that Xtol is incompatible with the new CCD in the Nikon D2-H.
So I always develop those files in Rodinal.

Any solvent developer is usually best used at the highest dilution possible.
This makes it look less like a solvent developer as the sharpness obtainable
is fairly respectable and the grain is not battered but even reasonably
sharp and regular.
D76, D23, Microdol-x, Perceptol all are "solvent" delivers, (usually from
powdered mixes, and most of the powder in the envelope being Sodium Sulfite
which is the solvent/preservative)
But with Xtol delivering a level of sharpness above all the others in this
category and approaching or equaling the next higher category of developers.

This category of developers is what Anchell (not Ansel) refers to as "GOOD
Acutance" developers.
I think of them (out loud sometimes) as "syrup developers". As most of them
are syrups. And are great when poured over ice cr?me. If you want to kill
somebody.
Kodak's HC-110, Edwal's Fg7, Patterson's Unitol, Agfa's Rodinal.
I don?t think of them as "GOOD acutance" developers as I think we get "GOOD
acutance" from highly diluted solvent developers and certainly Xtol.
But most of these syrups in the acutance department seem to be "GOODER" that
which we get from the highly diluted solvents.
At the expense of much more in your face grain.
Again excepting Xtol whose grain stays well out of your face.
To the subliminal area.

We are using the syrups they way they were designed to be used in the first
place while with solvent developers we are diluting the heck out of them to
turn them into something they are in essence really not. So there is
something to be said for that. Maybe.
Harupfff!
Although someone may know that Rodinal was not supposed to be what it is
either. It was designed to be used in much more stronger dilutions and for
high contrast applications like graphics separation negs or x-ray films.
Who knew?
Wer wu?te?

But there are two more developer categories to go of according to Anchell
The guy who wrote "The film developing cookbook".
http://www.unknown.nu/julia/sounds/hundred.mp3
4 categories in all.
The solvents being at the bottom: #4.
The syrups #3.

#2 developers are "HIGH acutance" developers.
PMK, Paterson's FX39, Acutol (FX 14)
FX-2, Formulary TFX-2, FX37.
PMK being the only developer I'm particularly interested in.
And which as taken the super in the track developing world by storm.
Completely taken over. Are we having a PMK day?
Notice these are all a full level about Rodinal which is in level #3!
Rodinal is "GOOD" not "HIGH" acutance!
And you thought you were doing the ultimate when you were doing the Rodinal
thing! You were right about halfway there!
FX-2 by the way as I just checked it out seems to have way too much sulfite
in it to me to be in this category. It sure looks like solvent developer to
me with some Glycin in it.
70 grams of sulfite is not 7.
I don?t get it. Glycin is not metaphysical developing agent.
So we are talking about developers most pretty good darkroom workers have
not even heard of and we are not even at the top level yet.

And the top level of developers according to Anchell (not Ansel)
Level #1:
Beutler, Neofin Blue...
Synonymous probably but the Beutler is not blue.
Or it world be Bluetler.
Is Neofin Blue really blue? Or just the box? I've never used the stuff.
Maybe it's only blue with the lights out.
I think of FX-1 is the Crawley Beutler, or Beutler Crawley I'm not sure
whose came first. If they are not the same they are close. But I think Chuck
Yeager came first with the X-1. The developer which broke the 100ml
sharpness barrier.
And there is Windish Pyrocatechin developer.
Which is in the area of "tanning" developers. For nice brownish negs that
Zonker would love. A true professional in the world of tanning.
Sharp as heck.
As is the "other" Pyro, Pyrogallol; which is the "Pyro" in the burgeoning
PMK developer...
and is the "Pyro" must Pyro maniacs dream of.
When they dream of Pyro.
So it is Pyrocatechin which really is the "other" Pyro.
Although true Pyro maniacs may be dreaming of white phosphorous.

I look upon the whole topic with dis stain.



Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/