None at all. The packages look extremely well done, and I’d be surprised if the welded seal had a leak.
Last edited:
None at all. The packages look extremely well done, and I’d be surprised if the welded seal had a leak.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)?
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
One liter? That’s like nothing. I go through a 2.5l bottle in a month and a half. And that is with moderate shooting of a couple of rolls of B&W per week.Honestly, this test made me quite curious. As I have used XTOL in the past for many years, and was always satiesfied with the results. But after the discontinuation of the 1L packs I reduced my usage, as the 5L packs were suboptimal for me.
And as Adox is fortunately offering both a 1L and 5L pack, XT-3 could be an option for me again. So my initial thoughts.
Therefore I started my own tests: With Delta 100 and 400, FP4+, Tri-X, Acros, Kentmere 100, Adox CHS 100 II and HR-50.
To make things short and clear, and spare you members here a long novel ;-) :
My results are in line with yours above, no differences.
And all the handling advantages are indeed really big, a real progress. Nice to see that a small manufacturer can do such improvements to an already very good product.
I will be a XT-3 user from now on.
One liter? That’s like nothing. I go through a 2.5l bottle in a month and a half. And that is with moderate shooting of a couple of rolls of B&W per week.
So give us some examples.I am using several developers. Because I have certain film-developer combinations which simply work perfectly for me and my prefered subjects.
XTOL has never been a "one developer for all types of film" for me.
Therefore using 1-2 1L packs in a reasonable time span works better for me than using one 5L pack. And because of the bad dissolving characteristics of XTOL (XT-3 is perfect in that respect) mixing the 5L packs was always quite dissatisfying for me.
That are of course just my personal preferences. YMMV.
So give us some examples.
Excluding a few specialty developers for micro film and stain, I find the only ones I really need are Rodinal and XTOL, with a rare dip into D76. They compliment each other perfectly.
But I’m willing to learn.
Hmm TMY is interesting. I find XT3 does amazing for t-grain films (as did Xtol).
...TMY-2 in Spur Shadowmax.
Do you perchance have a characteristic curve for TMY-2 you've developed in Shadowmax? Thanks in advance....Shadowmax is specifically designed for best results with TMX and TMY-2.
Where can we buy it in the USA?
I was just in Europe and was thinking to buy some but did not want to fly with bunch of powder.
Freestyle usually, but it's not listed on their website at the moment.
I assume your "not pretty" comment refers to cost. However, the literal ugly is what USPS does to those packages once they arrive in the U.S....You could probably order direct from FotoImpex in Germany, but the shipping won't be pretty...
@Film-Niko:
Thank you very much for sharing your test results here.
@Sal Santamaura:
Thank you very much for the information concerning the problematic handling of packages by USPS. We will react by making a kind of 'special packaging', which will be even more robust than the current one, for the US market.To be sure that the items arrive without any damages.
ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.
THE BEST THINGS IN LIFE ARE ANALOG.
Do you perchance have a characteristic curve for TMY-2 you've developed in Shadowmax? Thanks in advance.
Do you perchance have a characteristic curve for TMY-2 you've developed in Shadowmax? Thanks in advance.
Thanks. Here it is graphed:No problem, here it is:
I have tested / adjusted the TMY-2 / Spur Shadowmax combination for classic optical enlargements with my Kaiser System V enlarger. Here are my logD values for TMY-2 exposed at ISO 400/27°:
Zone I: 0.11 logD
Zone II: 0.26
Zone III: 0.42
Zone IV: 0.59
Zone V: 0.73
Zone VI: 0.89
Zone VII: 1.03
Zone VII: 1.25
Zone IX: 1.45
Zone X: 1.65
...
Me too! What do you use Rodinal for?
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
Well, apart from the occasional stand (when I fucked up a roll one way or the other), I use it for when I want ultimate sharpness and for pulling film. You can be very precise with the high dilutions you can work with.Me too! What do you use Rodinal for?
Thanks Film-Niko.No problem:
- Agfa APX 100 (the real stuff from former Agfa Leverkusen plant - not the current AgfaPhoto APX 100, which is just repackaged Kentmere 100) in Rodinal 1+49.
- Agfa APX 25 in Rodinal 1+99.
(I still have some of both).
- Delta 100 in Spur HRX
- CHS 100 II in FX-39 II 1+9
- HR-50 in HR-DEV
- Adox Ortho 25 in Spur Acurol (still have a few films)
- CMS 20 II in Adotech IV
- TMY-2 in Spur Shadowmax.
You know it might be my X700 that gets fast or loses “last check” when it’s low on battery. Because just today the battery needed changing.The official Kodak times for 400 and 800 for TMY are the same aren't they? I presume that after testing, Kodak decided that it was a film that could be exposed and developed for exactly the same time at both speeds This I think makes it unusual in the ranks of 400 speed film.
My negs and prints at 800 looked fine developed for the 400 time but what suits me may not be what suits you.
When you try an extra minute and a half I'd appreciate a comparison between the two different negs.
Thanks
pentaxuser
It's not TMY specific, they basically say if you've only underexposed by a stop, then don't bother trying to push process your film and they're basically right. It's not ideal, but not a disaster either. Realistically, there are numerous cases where your exposure was off by a stop, because the meter was fooled and you didn't notice it. These are the less than ideal negatives that can give acceptable results when carefully printed/processed. And if this stop of underexposure can give an adequate shutter speed and avoid motion blur, then it's a no-brainer, isn't it? As a bonus, you can mix normal and 1 stop underexposure shots at the same roll and process normally.The official Kodak times for 400 and 800 for TMY are the same aren't they? I presume that after testing, Kodak decided that it was a film that could be exposed and developed for exactly the same time at both speeds This I think makes it unusual in the ranks of 400 speed film...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?