Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Tri-X and Xtol
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:09 pm    Post subject: Tri-X and Xtol Reply with quote

Test roll through an Olympus XA2 (gift from friend) and expired Tri-X to 800, Xtol, 1:1, 10 mins, 20C








In the last pic, shot one-handed, guesstimated comp, girl was talking on her cell phone.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Results look good and grain nearly invisible.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Results look good and grain nearly invisible.


Thanks, Orio, I prefer these results over what I got with Diafine and non-expired Arista Premium 400>800.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent results. I like Tri-X a lot and I usually use D-76. I've found though that if I do a 1:1 developing, I get noticeable grain, whereas if I just reuse the fresh developer it's a very fine grain. But these results you're getting are impressive. Pushed a stop and 1:1 and I can't see any grain. I guess I gotta order some of that XTol. Neither of the two remaining camera shops here stock it. Just D-76 is all they handle anymore.

Your images show no sign of being pushed, either. The third one even suggests some burn through in the bright areas.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael, thanks, forgot to add, the Xtol mix I used expired March of this year, but decided to use it anyway. I did have to increase contrast in these just like Diafine, but the images don't appear as flat.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe i'm wrong, but the images don't seems flat at all but the paper developer seems expired, at least for me, or highly diluted. The blacks seems to lack deepness.
Maybe is the scanning technique, dunno.

Renato


PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm . . the blacks are black on my monitor. I just assumed he scanned the negatives.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, just scanned the negatives.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know, take the pics #3, the ground near the bridge is near paper white, any shadow under the girl which walks, at the same time under the bridge there is no detail where normally we possible would see a lot with this exposure range... I would think about paper dev. time too short...

Maybe i'm wrong, if yes, excuses,

Cheers,

Renato


PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Renato, I have a different take on it. It's obvious to me that #3 was taken with overcast skies. The girl in the foreground has almost no shadow, a dead giveaway that it was overcast at that moment. She also appears to be in a building's shadow -- the building behind the photographer and her, which will even further reduce the amount of shadow she will have. There are no hard shadow linesto indicate the building's edges, so it's mostly educated guesswork on my part, but I feel pretty confident that my analysis is correct. Now, farther away toward the bridge, it is in brighter sun. This area leading up to the bridge was the area I was commenting about earlier that looked to me as if some burn-through occurred. It's paper white because all the silver halide crystals have been lost, possibly due to a bit too much developing time. If you look at the brickwork on the side of the bridge, this too suggests burn through to me. Also, ff you look at the trees in the distance, their shadows are evident, but they are not hard shadows, which further convinces me that it was overcast.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cooltouch,

Your analysis is correct, for me too it's overcast, heavy.
For me the general impression is that the picture lacks some visual information in both ends of the tonal range, but if this is or not crucial to the image itself its another story, depends more to the person who made, what he wanted to show, than what my eyes can see,

Cheers,

Renato


PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the replies, fellas, and Michael has it right, was partially cloudy with overcast at times, then brighter sun. I was about 20-30
seconds past the recommended 10 minutes due to phone ringing which might explain the blown out areas in #3, dunno. Using developer that is 6 months past expiration on film that expired in 2002 may also have something to do with it. Still encouraged by this combo and have another packet of Xtol to mix. I was also undecided about agitation so went with a minute of inversions, then two every 30 seconds, perhaps too much.

a few more, unremarkable test pix, the last pic was shot from the hip as it were, guesstimated comp. Just walked past with switch on minimum distance and snapped:






PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2014 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had an Olympus XA2 many years ago, and found it frustrating in that it would produce results that rivalled several snob cameras I owned that cost 5 times as much.

Your XTol/Tri-X combination looks good. I'll have to try it. I'm still rooted in HC110 and Rodinal, and maybe this is the new developer I've been looking at to add to my two basic soups.