From: Rocky (rocky@pdq.net)
Date: 07/17/02-04:09:43 PM Z
XTOL 1:1 works well for me with Tri-X rated at ISO 250 and push processed
+20% for a small contrast boost.
I have used regular tap water from the west side of Houston with it for
several years and have not experienced any of the reported problems. I tried
distilled water and saw no difference. I use the 1Ltr packs and also have
not experienced any of the reported problems. Even had the A pack hard as a
rock a couple of times and had to break it up.
I do Platinum/Palladium, Kallitype, Silver B&W and transparencies. I shoot
35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 and use XTOL in all cases. I also have used many
other films with this developer and found them all satisfactory.
The only problem I experienced was pinholes with the XTOL 1:1 and Astia
combination. I believe it was due to the stop bath. I discontinued using
stop bath in all my negative development but did discontinue using the Astia
at the same time due to poor service support so am uncertain if it was the
film or the stop bath. It doesn't seem to have made any difference in any of
the other films.
Rocky
Houston, TX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shannon Stoney" <shannonstoney@earthlink.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: HP5+ and LONG development times
>
> >
> > You might try Xtol. This contains milder developing agents that you
would
> > probably not be sensitive to. Also Steve Anchell says HP4 and Xtol is
the
> > best B&W combo available in terms of tonal range.
>
> Do you mean HP5 or FP4? I would like to try Xtol. Today I was looking at
> the Kodak site and they didn't list it as a recommended developer for Tri
X,
> but that doesn't mean, I guess, that it doesn't work. When I run out of
D76
> maybe I'll try some.
>
> I can tolerate D76 if I'm careful.
>
> --shannon
>
> >
> > Bob Schramm
> >
> >>From: Shannon Stoney <shannonstoney@earthlink.net>
> >>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> >>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> >>Subject: Re: HP5+ and LONG development times
> >>Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:16:19 -0700
> >>
> >>Thanks for this info. I'm not quite ready to use pyro as I am very
> >>sensitive to photographic chemicals and I'm afraid it's too toxic for
me.
> >>Maybe if I ever get a jobo processor and don't have to deal with
splashing
> >>developer too much...I will look at Sandy's article though for future
> >>reference.
> >>
> >>Maybe I should switch back to Tri-X, my old favorite, although I would
have
> >>to buy it in boxes of 50.
> >>
> >>--shannon
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>----------
> >> >From: Clay Harmon <wcharmon@wt.net>
> >> >To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> >> >Subject: Re: HP5+ and LONG development times
> >> >Date: Wed, Jul 17, 2002, 4:55 AM
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Shannon:
> >> >
> >> > Hp-5 is notorious for reaching so-called 'gamma infinity' quickly.
That
> >>is
> >> > where at some point, additional development does not increase the
> >>contrast,
> >> > but only adds additional base+fog density (not desirable!) . You may
> >>need to
> >> > use a staining developer such as PMK, rollo pyro or Pyrocat-HD, which
> >>will
> >> > give a proportional (to silver density) UV blocking stain in the
> >>highlights
> >> > and behaves like additional density when printing UV sensitive
> >>processes.
> >> >
> >> > I use HP-5 with pyrocat-HD all the time in my big cameras and it
works
> >>fine
> >> > with a density range of about 1.3-1.4. The stain actually makes the
> >> > effective density range more like 1.8-1.9. Pyrocat times for the
density
> >> > range you're looking for would be about 11-13 minutes at 75 degrees.
> >>Check
> >> > out the Sandy King article at www.unblinkingeye.com for all the info.
It
> >> > also is one of the cheapest developers around, and is pretty easy to
> >>mix.
> >> >
> >> > Staining developers are about the only way to go with HP-5 for
alt-photo
> >> > density ranges, unless you only shoot really high contrast scenes.
The
> >> > pinhole may be making your efforts a little harder also because of
> >>internal
> >> > flare.
> >> >
> >> > Clay
> >> >
> >> > on 7/17/02 12:48 AM, Shannon Stoney at shannonstoney@earthlink.net
> >>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I am shooting HP5+ in the 8x10 format in a pinhole camera for
> >>cyanotypes. I
> >> >> am having trouble getting the highlights dense enough. I am up to a
20
> >> >> minute development time now, and still the highlights only have a
> >>density of
> >> >> 1.71. I would like a density range of about 1.6, starting at 0.35,
> >>say, in
> >> >> the shadows. (I have to shoot it at like 3200 to get the shadows
this
> >> >> thin!) Should I keep increasing the development times? Is it "bad"
to
> >>go
> >> >> over 20 minutes? I process in straight D-76 in a homemade
BTZS-style
> >>tube,
> >> >> at 68 degrees. I am thinking maybe I should make the temperature
warmer
> >> >> rather than making the times longer. But, then what will I do if I
> >>ever
> >> >> have to increase the development time further for a low-constrast
> >>scene?
> >> >> (Excuse the cross posting if you read
> >> >> the pinhole and alt-process lists.)
> >> >>
> >> >> --shannon
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
> > Check out my web page at:
> >
> > http://www.SchrammStudio.com
> >
> > also look at:
> >
> > http://www.wlsc.wvnet.edu/www/pubrel/photo.html
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:11:01 AM Z CST