ADOX XT-3 Developer: Further and Final Test Results

Dear photrio-members,

as some of you may remember, some months ago I have reported about my ADOX XT-3 test results. Since then I have done several further very detailed tests with the currently available, final XT-3 version with CAPTURA.
In total I have done so much intensive/detailed tests, that I now can report my final test results.
So here I go:

1. Sharpness, resolution, fineness of grain and sensitivity / speed are on the same (very good) level of original XTOL. No visible differences here.
2. For many films the 1+1 dilution is the "sweet-spot", with overall best performance concerning sharpness, resolution, fineness of grain (more about that please see below, next paragraph).
3. I could generate fine characteristic curves the same way as with original XTOL. Again no visible differences here.
4. In dilution XT-3 behaves extremely similar to XTOL, with one fine difference: In 1+1 dilution with several films XT-3 is delivering a bit better results concerning sharpness, resolution and fineness of grain. Both developers work as a slight semi-compensating developer (a bit flatter curve in Zone IX and X) in 1+1, and have a stronger compensating effect in 1+2.
5. The dissolubility of the XT-3 powder is much, much better compared to XTOL. That is a very nice surprise, as you can dissolve the XT-3 powder very fast in 20°C water (2-5 minutes depending on your stirring technique and speed).
6. The ADOX powder packaging is very good, and you can get all powder out very easily without having any significant rests left in it.
7. XT-3 has the CAPTURA dust binding technology. This innovative technology works really very well. So dust in your lab isn't a problem anymore at all.

Dilution:
I've found over the years that XTOL has the best overall performance concerning sharpness, resolution and fineness of grain with the 1+1 dilution (better results compared to stock solution) with lots of films. The improvements were especially with the parameters sharpness and resolution, whereas the fineness of grain was about identical with stock and 1+1 in these cases. That was already an advantage of XTOL, because with D-76 and ID-11 you can increase sharpness by dilution, but you also then get a little bit coarser grain.
With ADOX XT-3 my results have been that with these films (e.g. Delta 100 / 400, TMX / TMY-2, Acros II) in 1+1 dilution you not only get improved resolution and sharpness, but also slightly finer grain compared to stock solution. The improvements are subtle, and you need big enlargements to see them in comparison. But they are there.

Conclusion:
ADOX XT-3 offers in lots of parameters the same very high quality for which XTOL has had its excellent reputation for.
But in several important parameters XT-3 even surpasses XTOL significantly. Especially the handling is much better and more user friendly.
And if you consider that XT-3 is even much more eco-friendly because of the new buffer system (no borate anymore) and the bio-degradable complexing agents, and that it is also available in both 1L and 5L packagings, we have now an overall significantly better and superior product.
I am very satisfied.
And as this product is "Made in Germany", it is made under extremely high environmental and workforce protection standards. In a democratic state. That may not be important for everyone, but it is important for me.

Best regards,
Henning

Thanks, Henning. If we ever get it over here, I hope that it will be competitive with Xtol.

Thank you, Henning, for a thorough testing work. I really look forward to when my first bags will arrive from Fotoimpex. I just wonder if you have any knowledge to if the XT-3 developer can be replenished in a similar way as Xtol can. I have used Xtol replenished for several years, and if XT-3 behaves in the same way, that woukd be a blessing.
Once again , thank you for the information.

Karl-Gustaf

Andrew O'Neill said:

Thanks, Henning. If we ever get it over here, I hope that it will be competitive with Xtol.

Click to expand...

You are welcome.
Here in Germany XT-3 is only a little bit more expensive than XTOL. For me it is negligible. Considering all the significant improvements of XT-3, for me XT-3 is the better deal, with the better price-performance ratio.
The much much better dissolubility alone makes it worth for me. The quite bad (in relative terms) dissolubility of XTOL with its tendency for clumping was an aspect I never liked.

Best regards,
Henning

K-G said:

Thank you, Henning, for a thorough testing work. I really look forward to when my first bags will arrive from Fotoimpex. I just wonder if you have any knowledge to if the XT-3 developer can be replenished in a similar way as Xtol can. I have used Xtol replenished for several years, and if XT-3 behaves in the same way, that woukd be a blessing.
Once again , thank you for the information.

Karl-Gustaf

Click to expand...

Hello Karl-Gustaf,
I have not tested replenishment so far with XT-3 as I have also not generally used XTOL with replenishment over the years. I have always preferred dilution, for quality reasons (see above). And I also generally prefer "Einmalentwicklung" / one-shot development, because I know and can be absolutely shure that I have always fresh and perfectly working developer.
But that is of course just a personal preference, my preferred workflow.
If you want to use XT-3 replenished, just try it and see if it works for you. My assessment is that it probably will.

Best regards,
Henning

Old Gregg said:

@Henning Serger as always, thank you so much for the data & your opinion. I am particularly intrigued by your 1:1 results, looking forward to try this when it becomes available. I may consider this as an alternative to replenishment. I have not seen the datasheet for this developer, but did you happen to know what's the minimum amount of stock solution is required per roll? Say I have four 120 rolls in a single JOBO tank using 1:1 dilution. Is there a minimum volume to maintain?

Click to expand...

The minimum amount of stock solution per roll:
When XTOL was introduced to the market in 1998 Kodak also offered the most detailed datasheet for a developer I have ever seen. Impressive work, really. That was not a data-sheet, it was an extremely detailed 34 (!) pages brochure (the German version). I still have this printed brochure.
But in that brochure there is no direct statement about the minimum amount of stock solution. But there are all the times and contrast indices listed for small tank development and for stock solution, 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 dilutions. So if you take the tanks with the lowest amount of needed chemistry (most economical tanks) you are using the JOBO tanks. And if you use 1:3 dilution in combination with the JOBO tanks you get about 60-65ml stock solution per film. That has worked very well in the past, without any problems.
And in this brochure even the times for rotation development and all the dilutions are listed. As you know, the amount of chemistry needed in JOBO tanks for rotation is much less than for the tilting / agitation (hand) development. Therefore in this cases you have even less amount of stock solution per film. So Kodak has not seen any problems with rotation and then even much less stock solution.
And I don't see any reason why that should be significantly different with XT-3.

Concerning your example:
If you have four 120 rolls in one JOBO tank you are using two films per spiral, and two spirals = you are using the type 1540 tank (I do that, too). The minimum amount of chemistry in this tank with tilting (hand development (no rotation) is 975 ml ( I am always using 1000ml because it is easier to measure the chemistry). So with 1:1 (1+1) you have 500ml water and 500ml developer. Makes 125ml developer (stock sol.) per film. That is more than enough (see above), and you are definitely on the safe side. No problems at all.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning, thank you for the work you have done on this film developer. Very much appreciated.

Mick.

From the msds, it contains a lot of CAS 164462-16-2 aka MGDA , Trilon-M.
This is a complexing/sequestering agent with a high pH ~11 that (speculatively) may remove Ca, Mg, Cu, Fe etc, though the main buffer appears to be sulfite/bisulfite.
http://www.andreagallo.it/images/schedepdf/TDS/SEQUESTRANTE_TRILON_M_820129_tds.pdf
msds:
Microsoft Word - SDS XT-3 Part A.doc (fotoimpex.de)

Thank you for your infos and opinions Henning!

I'm on my third (5L) XT-III package and am fully convinced about this product - there's nothing not to like about it.

Thanks henning..I'm still going to do 1+2 semi with my tmy400.. looking forward to trying this developer

You can see my last post in this thread as far as replenishment goes. I've been having good success with replenishment, though did have a possible setback during my last time using it. I'm pretty sure everything is ok but I ended up with a lot of particulates in my replenished stock. I've had this with Xtol as well so the only difference being the color was a bit different with XT-3. I will be checking out the stock probably today and trying it for development next week.

Apart from the particulates issue, the thing I found was XT-3 seemed stronger than my Xtol-R, though I had run two bags of the tainted Xtol through my replenishment batch and that may have been influencing my film tests and things.

I have found that my stock solution turned a bit brownish after time. I am not replenishing. However the developer seemed to work fine. I mixed XT3 into de-ionized water.

vedostuu said:

I have found that my stock solution turned a bit brownish after time. I am not replenishing. However the developer seemed to work fine. I mixed XT3 into de-ionized water.

Click to expand...

Can't confirm that. I've also mixed my xt3 with de-ionized water about 10 weeks ago and it stayed crystal clear ever since. Seems to work exactly like the old Xtol. Mixing was a lot easier

Bundesphotograph said:

Can't confirm that. I've also mixed my xt3 with de-ionized water about 10 weeks ago and it stayed crystal clear ever since. Seems to work exactly like the old Xtol. Mixing was a lot easier

Click to expand...

Mine is 11 weeks old. Only one liter left

Thank you so much for this analysis, @henningserger. If I’m reading correctly, you tested mostly with t-grain films (delta/tmax) - have you (or others) done much work with conventional grain films? I’ve been enjoying the results I get with Fomapan 200 and Ilford FP4+ in Xtol 1:1, and wonder if XT-3 would yield the same advantageous results (sharpness / grain).

lenshood said:

Thank you so much for this analysis, @henningserger. If I’m reading correctly, you tested mostly with t-grain films (delta/tmax) - have you (or others) done much work with conventional grain films? I’ve been enjoying the results I get with Fomapan 200 and Ilford FP4+ in Xtol 1:1, and wonder if XT-3 would yield the same advantageous results (sharpness / grain).

Click to expand...

I have of course also tested it with conventional grain films, e.g. with FP4+, HP5+,Tri-X, CHS 100 II, HR-50, Kentmere 100.
With FP4+ I've found a subtle advantage with grain. With CHS 100 II and HR-50 a subtle advantage in sharpness and resolution. HP5+,Tri-X, Kentmere 100 were about the same, no visible significant differences.That was to be expected, as these are all lower sharpness and resolution emulsions. The developer has limited influence on these emulsions.

Two very important general comments:
1. Concerning the three main developer parameters fineness of grain, sharpness (and resolution) and speed any developer can only be optimised for max. two of these parameters. An optimization of all three is impossible!! There is no "magic bullet" or "wonder developer" which give you perfect results for all three parameters. Mostly developer designers / chemists therefore try to concentrate on 1-2 of these three parameters, and with the other 1-2 they accept the compromise and lower performance.
For example if you want maximum detail (by finest grain and best resolution / sharpness) by your developer you have to accept a loss in sensitivity / speed.

And then we have developers which are not designed for best performance in 1-2 of the parameters, but for an overall good compromise of all three parameters. In Germany they are called "Universal-Entwickler". Typical developers of that class are D-76, ID-11, Ultrafin (liquid) and XTOL. Whereas XTOL surpassed D-76 in fineness of grain and better eco-capabilities.
Both XTOL and XT-3 are designed to deliver a very good compromise of these three developer parameters. But they are neither designed nor be able to offer a top performance or "best-in-class" performance in one of these three main parameters. So we need to have realistic expectations, no matter what developer we are using.

Example:
Delta 100 in XT-3 delivers about 105 Lp/mm resolution in my standardized resolution test. A very good value. But when I want the finest detail (finest grain and best resolution and sharpness) I can get that with SPUR HRX developer, which is optimised exactly for that. With that developer I get about 130 Lp/mm with Delta 100. But I also have to accept a lower speed compared to XT-3 and XTOL.
There is no free lunch!
As a photographer I always have to decide which parameter(s) is/are the most important for me. And according to that I have to prioritize.

2. I have seen the following a lot both in my workshops and on film photography forums, including photrio:
People are using films with conventional grain, and then want a "magic developer" to give them incredible sharpness, extremely fine grain and the highest resolution.
But that does not work! The performance of the emulsion is the decisive factor! The developer can change that only in a quite limited range.
Or in other words:
If you want a really significant improvement in fineness of grain, sharpness and resolution choosing the right emulsion/film type is the way to go! And not looking for a "wonder developer" (which does not exist ).
So the way to go is either
- to choose a low(er) speed film with conventional grain structure like the former Agfa APX 25, or the current ADOX HR-50 / SCALA 50 or CMS 20 II
- or in the medium and high speed range to go for the modern emulsions like the Deltas, T-Max and Acros.
Delta 100 will always give you much better detail than FP4+, no matter what excellent developer you use for FP4+.
The same is valid for T-Max vs. the former Plus-X. And the same is valid for Delta 400 vs. HP5+ and especially for TMY-2 vs. Tri-X.

I hope these explanations help you.

Best regards,
Henning

Thank you for devoting the time & attention to such a thorough and generous response. And thanks again for the original post. I fear I gave the impression of looking for a magic bullet, when that's not what was behind my question at all. I use Xtol for a combination of reasons, with environmental considerations high among them. I'm fortunate that I really like the results I get with it - especially with the emulsions I mentioned. I'd never assert that those results are the sharpest, nor the finest grain. But the character I get with those emulsion/developer combinations is pleasing to me. That said: Xtol has had well-documented quality issues. If there is an alternative to Xtol that may yield an increase in sharpness, and/or a reduction in grain, well, that sounds like it's worth investigating. I don't expect those increases to be miraculous, and probably wouldn't like them if they were. (Although at the moment it's academic for me, since I don't think XT-3 is yet available in the States.)

lenshood said:

Thank you for devoting the time & attention to such a thorough and generous response. And thanks again for the original post. I fear I gave the impression of looking for a magic bullet, when that's not what was behind my question at all.

Click to expand...

No problem at all, all is fine .
My explanations were primarily intended as general ones, dedicated to the whole audiance here.

lenshood said:

I use Xtol for a combination of reasons, with environmental considerations high among them. I'm fortunate that I really like the results I get with it - especially with the emulsions I mentioned. I'd never assert that those results are the sharpest, nor the finest grain. But the character I get with those emulsion/developer combinations is pleasing to me. That said: Xtol has had well-documented quality issues. If there is an alternative to Xtol that may yield an increase in sharpness, and/or a reduction in grain, well, that sounds like it's worth investigating. I don't expect those increases to be miraculous, and probably wouldn't like them if they were. (Although at the moment it's academic for me, since I don't think XT-3 is yet available in the States.)

Click to expand...

I completely understand your assessment and personal preference. It is well thought and make much sense.
I have tested much more than 40 different developers over the years in my testlab. And considering this market segment of standard / universal developers which are designed for a well balanced equilibrium
- Kodak D-76, Ilford ID-11, Tetenal Ultrafin (liquid), Agfa Studional / Refinal and Kodak XTOL -
this new ADOX XT-3 is the best of all, considering all relevant parameters overall.
Because there is no parameter in which XT-3 is worse compared to these other competitors. But there are several parameters in which it is significantly better (see my test results above).

Best regards,
Henning

Henning, since you mentioned HR-50, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the effective speed and dev-times using XT-3? I use a rotary process with a pre-wash with my times being around 7 minutes both in Xtol and, by visual inspection, XT-3 though I plan on validating that with step-wedge tests once I can get more HR-50 (I'm down to a single roll). In my Xtol I was finding my actual dev times to get a CI of around 0.56 to be closer to 6 minutes as I recall and my effective film speed was looking closer to something like ISO 6 (!) which didn't seem right.

So I plan on doing those same tests again with XT-3 to see what the results are. I would guess I was doing something wrong the last time or my Xtol was tainted as it had 2 recalled bags run through it during its lifetime.

I am curious what will become of Kodak branded products, I won't be buying them. I have enough of the Tetenal produced XTOL I'm good for a while

The mixing and dust control is a huge improvement. I bought a variable speed, propeller, lab mixer and support stand to mix XTOL. Mixing always involves heating DI water setting up the mixer. I got so when using warmed water and this powerful mixer I could mix 5 liters in 5 minutes. The mixing improvement of the Adox version is a huge user benefit.

MHO, Mike.

I have 12 500mL bottles of Adox Rodinal on order from Freestyle, supposed to ship mid July. Also Adox Rodinal is very reliable.

photosamples?

m00dawg said:

Henning, since you mentioned HR-50, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the effective speed and dev-times using XT-3? I use a rotary process with a pre-wash with my times being around 7 minutes both in Xtol and, by visual inspection, XT-3 though I plan on validating that with step-wedge tests once I can get more HR-50 (I'm down to a single roll). In my Xtol I was finding my actual dev times to get a CI of around 0.56 to be closer to 6 minutes as I recall and my effective film speed was looking closer to something like ISO 6 (!) which didn't seem right.

So I plan on doing those same tests again with XT-3 to see what the results are. I would guess I was doing something wrong the last time or my Xtol was tainted as it had 2 recalled bags run through it during its lifetime.

Click to expand...

I am currently "burried by work"......I will come back to you with a detailed answer in the coming days, please 'stay tuned'.
So long and best regards,
Henning

Understood, no worries, and thank you!

I think even once I get the times/dev down, it looks to me like it might have a more limited dynamic range than say CHS ii. That's not the whole story of course (I rather like the look I get on HR50 when I do properly expose it for instance). And likewise my initial results with using it for IR were pretty good! So still an exciting film but one that has been rather elusive for me. CHS ii, by comparison, only took a few go 'rounds to get right, at least in 4x5.

I had a devil of a time getting the B powder to dissolve.
I think I stirred for half an hour, and had to use the ladle to crush the hard cakes that had formed.
Maybe the anti dust stuff produces clumps under certain conditions?
It seems to do exactly what salt makers have tried to stop salt doing.
When you pour the powder beware of big lumps of powder splashing the A solution.

Only one roll in, seems to work well though.

Sounds as if yours might have gotten some moisture into the B packet, @Helge -- was there any evidence of a break in the airtight layer(s)?