I am using FomaPan 100 4x5 sheet film and would like to know if anyone has used it with Xtol at 1:1 and if so what are your thoughts.
I have only ever used HC110 and would like to try a different developer and Xtol seems to appeal to me from what I have read although I havent spoken to anyone who has experience with Fomapan and Xtol
Ian
Originally Posted by IanBarber
http://filmdev.org/recipe/search?search=fomapan+xtol
I've been using Xtol 1:1 with Fomapan 100 some 20 times. A good combination.
Compared to HC110 you are to obtain some additional shadow detail. Other differences about better Xtol grain/sharpness are not to be noticed at all with the 4x5 format, IMHO. So tonality is a bit different, but this also depends on what darkroom printing or what digital post.
HC110 is convenient because liquid, Xtol has very low toxicity...
To me, HC-110 can be a good choice for rotary processing if one wants to control contrast by dilution http://www.erikgouldprojects.com/col...ol-with-hc-110
Personally, I prefer having that slight shadow detail and low toxicity of Xtol, and controlling contrast with time and agitation in trays.
Just, with Xtol, take care to not blow up your highlights, as Xtol delivers full box speed. If your highligts get blown then you can reduce dev time by 15% to 20% less time.
Regards
Thanks Pere for your detailed description. Now that I know that Fomapan does work with Xtol, I can now proceed to mix up the powder tomorrow having just bought a 10 litre bucket to mix it in. Out of interest, what other films do you use with Xtol.
Xtol is my main developer, I use it also for TMX, TMY, HP5, FP4, Neopan. Some times (smaller formats) I want grain and then I use Rodinal. For Adox CMS 20 I use Adotech, of course.
Here you have a photographer that uses Fomapan with Xtol (1:1 , 1:3)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/326815...in/dateposted/
IMHO, the developer choice is more important in 35mm or MF because grain structure gets involved, LF shows little grain, so differences are more related to tonality, but tonality it can also be controlled in darkroom or digital post. Still some people will like some developers more than others, to me this is more related with having control of the process.
If you are to use hybrid process (scanner and digital printing) then you can modify tonality with PS as you like. For an authentic darkroom optical print things are not that easy, better if negatives are easy to print for the aesthetics one want to get. There are powerful darkroom techniques (that I try to learn) to obtain the print one wants, but better if negative makes things easy.
Perhaps the kind of developers that are a bit different (some people say) are staining developrers: Pyro, Pyrocat HD
http://sandykingphotography.com/reso...ing-developers
To me Pyro developers are very interesting if one plans to use the negative also with alternative processes such as platinum or palladium. Others say it is easier to obtain some special aesthetics with it.
But HC110 vs Xtol, IMHO, is more about of convenience, and adjusting its usage to obtain the results we like.
One practical thing, drop Part A very slowly to water while agitating, if powder accumulates in the bottom of the bucket it forms an stone.
Use distilled water to make stock dillutuion, specially if your tap water has a lot of iron content. This will allow extended shelf live. Later you may use tap water to make 1:1 dillution at the moment you process the film.
If your stock developer is 2ºC under the desired temperature, then make 1:1 diluttion by adding water that is 2ºC over the desired temperature. This is the fastest way to get 20ºC.
Also you can make a "drop test". Lights open, take a film end and let fall a drop of developer every minute. Fix it. Then 8 months later you can repeat the test and check if densities match, so you'll know if developer has the same strenght, or if you should correct developing time to make it match.
Regards.
Pere, thanks for the "drop test" info. I used replenished XTOL and am going to add that test to my arsenal.
Foma 100 builds density very fast..I use xtol 1:2 for all my development. ..in mf it's a semi routine
I think this film is a sleeper and renders tones like older films...let us know how it works please
I used Xtol replenished for quite a number of years, it's a very easy economic way of working particularly with LF films. It worked well with Fomapan 100 & 200 and with all films once seasoned gives far better results than Xtol FS or 1+1.
If using dilute I'd go for 1+2 like Peter suggests, I've done the same with ID-11/D76 and I know others using Perceptol at this dilution.
Ian
Hello Stephen,
There are a number of process control tools. You may know that professional grade one: "ILFORD FP4 Plus PROCESS CONTROL STRIPS", suplied in 30m cans for some $100.
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/webfiles/...1214382932.pdf
You can also make contact copies of an Stouffer density wedge, processed in the darkness.
Drop test is for free as film ends can be used, and convenient (lights open). If you want quantitative measurements of course you can use a densitometer, or you can scan the film end with the "drop test" ...side by side with an Stouffer density wedge, with all scanner image enhancing features disabled (curves, adaptative contrast, etc).
One important thing with drop tests is to use the same film end and ambient light and routine for the series, as excessive exposition may have solarization effect in some special situations.
What I do to go straight is to make fall the drops at the edge of the film (I use a cutter to cut a 35mm strip in halves). Then I compare both side by side, the reference strip (fresh developer) with the strips processed with seasoned developer, on a light table. This will also deliver information about how much development time it takes strong highlights to built a level of density, with a given seasoned developer. And one knows very well how the thing will work.
I found Xtol is very stable over shelf life, more stable than D-76 for example, this is using distilled water for stock dillution, and tap water to make working dillution 1:1, 1:2, etc.
I think replenishment is nice for tanks, but as I develop in trays (paper safe) I prefer one shot. IMHO some process control is very important with replenishment, but also it is with a seasoned developer.
Regards.
I process film in inversion tanks these days , Paterson or for 5x4 Jobo 2000 series but have used deep tanks as well. I began using replenishment while at school in the late 1960's very easy, simple, incredibly consistent results, no need for any special process control, just replenish as required after every so many sheets or rolls of film. I used to keep a notebook to begin with but found it unnecessary.
The beauty of replenished Xtol is it's self replenishing with fresh solution so doesn't have a separate replenisher. So I kept a 2.5 litre container of stock working solution and the rest of the 5 litre pack - the other 2.5 litres of solution for the replenishment. The only reason I stopped using Xtol was I was living much of the year abroad and often travelling.
Ian
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks