Excel Film Enhancer?!?!?

[false_Aesthetic]

Photo Formulary Says: "EXCEL FILM ENHANCER will give your favorite film developer increased shadow detail, and film speed, while reducing the grain and developing time. It gives crisp, easy to print negatives without blocking the highlights.

EXCEL is an easy to use non flammable liquid concentrate, which can be used with diluted or undiluted developers by keeping the ratio of 30 ml per liter. Excel is excellent for low light photo sessions and improves push processed films."


+ film speed
+ shadow detail
- grain
- developing time

???????????????????????

Has anyone used this stuff? It sounds kind've like the ultimate awesomeness for night photo (AND COMPLETELY DUBIOUS).

Thoughts?

[Donald Qualls]

It's pretty dubious, alright. It's said to be just a phenidone (derivative) solution that raises the activity level of any developer it's added to. The result, if you don't change your times, is a genuine speed increase of 1/3 to 2/3 stop -- along with a contrast increase equivalent to N+1 or N+2 (aka one to two stop push). That means you gain nothing over a conventional push, which gives about the same real speed increase. If you cut your time enough to get back to the original contrast, you'll find you gain no more than about 1/3 stop in real speed. Its only real gain, IMO, is that it allows pushing without increasing development time, which will improve grain very slightly over conventional pushing via extended development (though probably gain nothing over pushing via dilution and extended development, nor over an optimized speed increasing developer) -- but for night photography, with reciprocity failure involved, you need to *reduce* development in order to control contrast, in many cases.

If you want to get the most true speed out of your film, use XTOL at 1+1 or 1+3 (observing the minimum 100 ml stock per 8x10 equivalent), reduce agitation to every 3rd minute, and extend development (start with 50% longer than your regular or published 1+1 times, double that for 1+3) to get back to normal contrast. You'll get around 2/3 stop speed increase with most films, and little or no grain increase over N development.

If you want to get the absolute highest EI out of your film, ask me about Super Soup, made from HC-110, Dektol, vitamin C, and laundry soda (I can get EI 5000 from Tri-X 320).

[SAShruby]

So, Don, tell us about super soup then. I do low light photography and I would be happy to cut some time from my exposure. Bring it on...:)

[false_Aesthetic]

If you want to get the most true speed out of your film, use XTOL at 1+1 or 1+3 (observing the minimum 100 ml stock per 8x10 equivalent), reduce agitation to every 3rd minute, and extend development (start with 50% longer than your regular or published 1+1 times, double that for 1+3) to get back to normal contrast. You'll get around 2/3 stop speed increase with most films, and little or no grain increase over N development.



Don,

If I were to substitute D76 1:3 for XTOL 1:3 and reduce agitation to every 3rd min would I still double my time?

I.E. FP4+ D-76 1:3 rated at 125 takes 11 min to develop.

Reducing my agitation would make the dev. time 22min?


Sorry to go off on a tangent I just thought I'd ask.

T.

[Donald Qualls]

If I were to substitute D76 1:3 for XTOL 1:3 and reduce agitation to every 3rd min would I still double my time?

I.E. FP4+ D-76 1:3 rated at 125 takes 11 min to develop.

Reducing my agitation would make the dev. time 22min?

Er, wait. I meant that you'd double your 1+1 time if using 1+3 -- if you have a 1+1 time, you'd add 50% for low agitation, then double it if you're using 1+3 instead of 1+1; I did that because 1+3 times are relatively hard to find since Kodak stopped recommending 1+3 for any use. If you already have a 1+3 time, you'd just need to add the 50% to account for agitating every 3rd minute instead of every minute.


So, Don, tell us about super soup then. I do low light photography and I would be happy to cut some time from my exposure. Bring it on...:)

Do a Google search for Super Soup and look for results on Photo.net and APUG. Theres a thread on APUG that even shows *someone else's* results with Super Soup, just to prove it's not me mis-reading or hyper-scanning my negs or otherwise fooling myself. Note that you *will not* gain 3 1/2 stops of toe speed; though my reading of shadow detail suggests you may (seemingly via fog pushing the low end of exposure up off the toe) gain more than the usual limit of about one stop, possibly two or a tiny bit more. Note also that you can REALLY badly fog negatives at this EI in a darkroom dark enough to handle EI 400 for a prolonged time; of the two original negatives I processed in this soup, one was fogged by afterglow from a fluorescent lamp -- that had been off for about twenty minutes!

Short version:

8 ml HC-110 syrup
24 ml Dektol or D-72 stock solution
1 g ascorbic acid
1/2 tsp washing soda
water to make 8 ounces/240 ml.

Multiply as needed for larger volumes. Yes, that *is* four developing agents, heavy on the hydroquinone...

Process with *vigorous* agitation every 30 seconds -- I've given 7-8 very rapid inversions (in about 3-4 seconds), effectively like shaking a spray can. Process for 15 minutes at 70 F to give EI 5000 from Tri-X 320 (this was old film, the new 320TXP may require a little adjustment). Similar results are obtained with Tri-X 400, for those who shoot roll film, and most conventional films will give a large increase in EI, though typically not as much as Tri-X (Fortepan 200, for instance, gives only about EI 1250 at this time, though it might well need more time for best results).

If you're a typical large format shooter, you're almost certain to be disappointed with the negatives; they do *not* have Ansel Adams levels of shadow detail, but there's more shadow detail than Tri-X in Diafine at EI 1600 will provide, despite getting 1/3 the exposure. OTOH, if you're trying to get hand-held photos with an f/4.5 lens on a Speed Graphic in room light or under street lights, this might be right up your alley. Just be sure the RF works, because you won't be able to see the ground glass when it's that dim... ;)