ADOX XT-3 Developer: Further and Final Test Results

[Helge]

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)?

None at all. The packages look extremely well done, and I’d be surprised if the welded seal had a leak.

 

[Film-Niko]

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

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.

 

[Helge]

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.

 

[Film-Niko]

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.

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.

 

[Helge]

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.

 

[Film-Niko]

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.

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.

 

[m00dawg]

Hmm TMY is interesting. I find XT3 does amazing for t-grain films (as did Xtol). I have been testing out D23 with Fomapan 200 in 4x5 and quite like it so I think I'm gonna try that with CHS and T-max (in 4x5 also) at some point. I liked the sharpness I got with D23 while still having a pretty clean look.

XT3 is just brilliant for pushing HP5 though. I love that combo!

 

[Film-Niko]

Hmm TMY is interesting. I find XT3 does amazing for t-grain films (as did Xtol).

That is correct. XT-3 is really very good for all modern film emulsions.
With Shadowmax I just got a bit more speed - shodow detail in direct comparison. Shadowmax is specifically designed for best results with TMX and TMY-2.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...TMY-2 in Spur Shadowmax.

...Shadowmax is specifically designed for best results with TMX and TMY-2.

Do you perchance have a characteristic curve for TMY-2 you've developed in Shadowmax? Thanks in advance.

 

[Radost]

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.

 

[Mackinaw]

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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Freestyle usually, but it's not listed on their website at the moment.

Takes time to get through the COVID-affected distribution channels. You could probably order direct from FotoImpex in Germany, but the shipping won't be pretty...

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...You could probably order direct from FotoImpex in Germany, but the shipping won't be pretty...

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.

Yesterday I received some film ordered directly from FOTOIMPEX. All tracking stopped after the box arrived at JFK and was transferred to U.S. Customs. Then, one day shy of three weeks after FOTOIMPEX's handoff to DHL, it appeared at my front door. Still no change in USPS tracking ("Inbound into Customs"). Unusual for us in August, there was light rain here yesterday. The shipping box was soaking wet on one side, of course the surface that including shipping documentation, which I peeled apart and set out to dry. Fortunately, water didn't penetrate inside.

"Inside," however, was a less than definitive concept. Just like the last time I ordered directly from FOTOIMPEX, USPS had brutally crushed the package. It could almost be rolled, as opposed to being a cube. There were two sheet film boxes inside and, despite my choice of EPS peanuts rather than the offered shredded "eco" packing material, slight denting of each film box's corner had occurred. I haven't opened them to check yet, but doubt it was severe enough to penetrate the inner, nested boxes, much less damage the film.

The only consolations are that, even with DHL's "pandemic surcharge," total cost was less than it would have been ordering the same film from Freestyle. Also, it's been out of stock at Freestyle for many months, with expected arrival dates constantly changing from June, to July, to August and currently to September. Who knows if that one will be revised too.

I strongly encourage FOTOIMPEX to not abandon its efforts toward finding an alternative shipping channel for individual U.S.orders.

 

[Team ADOX]

@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.

 

[Radost]

@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.

When can we expect to get some in freestylephoto?
Thank you for the great product.

 

[Film-Niko]

Do you perchance have a characteristic curve for TMY-2 you've developed in Shadowmax? Thanks in advance.

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

In my humble opinion TMY-2 is the best ISO 400/27° BW film. No other BW film in that speed-class has such an excellent sharpness, resolution and fineness of grain. It is even surpassing lots of the conventional-grain 100 speed films like Fomapan 100, Kentmere 100, even FP4+.
But it also has a bit less speed than e.g. HP5+. With most developers you don't get a real effective light sensitivity of ISO 400.
With XTOL and XT-3 I am getting a real speed and EI of 250/25°.
With Shadowmax I get full box speed. So I am using that combination when the situation requires that full speed.
XT-3 and TMY-2 give you very good sharpness, resolution and very fine grain. Really pleasing results! With 1+1 dilution sharpness is a little bit better compared to stock solution, and grain is on the same level. Therefore I prefer 1+1.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Do you perchance have a characteristic curve for TMY-2 you've developed in Shadowmax? Thanks in advance.

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
...

Thanks. Here it is graphed:

 

[Film-Niko]

Me too! What do you use Rodinal for?

I have already posted it above: Please see my posting, it is No. 33.
In addition I am using Rodinal with grainy 35mm films in the cases when I want very accentuated, visible grain for certain subjects and looks / moods.
Or when I need a compensating developer, then I use dilution 1+74 or 1+99.

 

[Henning Serger]

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

@m00dawg:
Sorry for the delay! Plans and intentions are one thing, but then life gets in the way......
Concerning XT-3 and rotation processing of HR-50: As much as I like my wonderful JOBO CPE-3 processor, which I am using for E-6, C-41 und BW transparency, for BW negative I prefer conventional inversion / tilt developing by hand.
Therefore all my XT-3 tests I have reported about here were done the conventional way, and not in rotation.
Concerning the real effective sensitivity you can get with HR-50 in XT-3: It of course depends on the Contrast Index (CI) you need. And that is depending on your used imaging chain / workflow: Are you making optical enlargements (silver-halide prints): Then which kind of enlarger you are using - classic double-condensor, mixed system double-condensor with diffusor-box or a complete diffusor system. Depending on that the traget CI's are 0.55, 0.62 and 0.70.
Or when you are using a hybrid-workflow with scanning then it depends on the scanner-type you are using.
As a "rule of thumb" for a CI of 0.62 HR-50 in XT-3 is about an EI of 32/16° to 40/17°, and for a CI of 0.70 you can use box speed and an EI of 50/18°.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Helge]

Me too! What do you use Rodinal for?

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.
Rodinal is also very good for slower film that has been preflashed and pushed a bit.
Delta 100 @ 200 with a -2 stop pre-flash and 20C, 20 min low agitation 1+49 Rodinal is pure magic.
Not for the slight speed increase so much as the look. Flat without being flat at all.

 

[Helge]

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.

Thanks Film-Niko.
I’m curious about HR-DEV.
How much different will it be from XT-3 1:1 for HR-50? Gotta try to be sure I guess.
HR-50 is lovely stuff, but on the contrasty side.

 

[Helge]

Just did a roll of TMY @ 800 in XT-3 1:1 in my X700. The shots came out flat-ish. Salvageable for the most part, but not optimal.
I did the standard 9.5 minute 20c, but later discovered it's the same time as for 400.
With just a small mis calibration in the meter (yes, flat and thin can look similar or contribute to each other) and a small off-ness in the development (at most half a degree) it's probably enough to get the flat effect.
This just to say that TMY @ 800 in XTOL/XT-3 should probably always have the one to one and a half minute more, to get a proper little push. Probably the same with Delta 400 @ 800.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[Helge]

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

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.
After that a roll of TMX at box speed came out perfect.
I still will give TMY @ 800 half a minute more though.

 

[Anon Ymous]

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...

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.