ADOX XT-3 Developer: Further and Final Test Results

[m00dawg]

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.

It could be that indeed. My X700 gets a bit funky on low batteries too. That said I have had trouble figuring out both TMY and Delta 400. I can't seem to get the exposure/time down to the point I will probably end up doing some basic film tests for those. TMX though, always seems to come out wonderfully in XT3 (as does HP5, CHS, and really most other films).

 

[MattKing]

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.

Increasing development time doesn't significantly increase film's sensitivity, it increases contrast.
That increase in contrast will have little effect on the deep shadows, a useful effect on the appearance of high shadows and mid-tones, and a potentially deleterious effect on highlights.
When Kodak recommends what they do, they are saying that any improvement on the high shadows and mid-tones is more than offset by the deleterious effect on the highlights. In short, it is the result of a balancing of priorities.
For most people, the appearance of highlights tends to have a much greater impact on the perception of quality of a print than the appearance of shadows. Thus their choice of priorities.
TMY has a useful response to one stop of under-exposure - better than a lot of films - so the choice of priorities make even more sense.

 

[Helge]

Increasing development time doesn't significantly increase film's sensitivity, it increases contrast.
That increase in contrast will have little effect on the deep shadows, a useful effect on the appearance of high shadows and mid-tones, and a potentially deleterious effect on highlights.
When Kodak recommends what they do, they are saying that any improvement on the high shadows and mid-tones is more than offset by the deleterious effect on the highlights. In short, it is the result of a balancing of priorities.
For most people, the appearance of highlights tends to have a much greater impact on the perception of quality of a print than the appearance of shadows. Thus their choice of priorities.
TMY has a useful response to one stop of under-exposure - better than a lot of films - so the choice of priorities make even more sense.

This might be true in principle.

But, if you have a perfect storm of a meter being slightly off, the light being low contrast, tungsten or just wonky, and lastly your development being off, just slightly in temperature, dilution, agitation etc. then you might very well run out of margin/slack.
You’d save that by giving the film a bit more time, perhaps even without agitation.

Yes, with the result of a bit more contrast. But you said yes to that when you set your meter above box speed.

 

[MattKing]

This might be true in principle.

But, if you have a perfect storm of a meter being slightly off, the light being low contrast, tungsten or just wonky, and lastly your development being off, just slightly in temperature, dilution, agitation etc. then you might very well run out of margin/slack.
You’d save that by giving the film a bit more time, perhaps even without agitation.

Yes, with the result of a bit more contrast. But you said yes to that when you set your meter above box speed.

This assumes that the cumulative uncertainties lean toward under-exposure or under-development.
But it is just as likely that they lean toward over-exposure or over-development. Particularly if you are using a shutter that tends to run slow.
I'm part of the cadre that tends to prioritize mid-tones and highlights over shadows, so if uncertain I'm unlikely to make choices that benefit the shadows at the expense of highlight rendition.

 

[MattKing]

If scanning is a part of one's workflow, I'm with Helge on this one. It is easier to deal with excess of contrast digitally than with lack of density. When facing uncertainty (new emulsion, new chemistry/dilution) I err on the side of over-development.

I actually get better results scanning slightly low density (due to less development) negatives than higher than optimum density (due to excess development) negatives.
And of course, the under-exposed shadows don't really differ, either way.

 

[Helge]

I actually get better results scanning slightly low density (due to less development) negatives than higher than optimum density (due to excess development) negatives.
And of course, the under-exposed shadows don't really differ, either way.

Highlights is one of the, yeah, highlights of negative film.
It has always taken something extra to get them out, but the information is there. That’s what counts.
About an extra minute or so of development is not going to blow those.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Maybe this?
https://www.photoinfos.com/Fotolabo...wicklung/Kodak/Kodak-Xtol-Entwickler-2001.pdf

 

[MattKing]

Also found on Tim Gray's 125px site, along with several early versions of the datasheets.
https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/xtolEntwickler.pdf

 

[mshchem]

OK, I'm US citizen, native born, I can read most Spanish signs etc. But German nicht gut!

 

[Philippe-Georges]

The ADOX XT-3 5l pack arrived this morning, it's mixed and cooling a little, now I can finally try it out...

 

[Henning Serger]

Maybe this?
https://www.photoinfos.com/Fotolabo...wicklung/Kodak/Kodak-Xtol-Entwickler-2001.pdf

Yes, that is the German version of the very detailed original Kodak XTOL data sheet I have mentioned above.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[m00dawg]

Another update just pointing out how good XT-3 is! I haven't used it in a while as I've been testing out D23 and 510-Pyro. Those are good developers for sure, but XT-3 is still my go-to for a few things - notably pushed HP5. I love the look! Well, I hadn't used my XT-3 Replenished in over a month so opted to dump a bit and add more stock to the solution thinking both it and my (now fairly old) stock might be declining. I ended up over-doing it a bit as my negatives, even pushed, are on the dense side, oops! Not overly crazy but, and while this is a bit anecdotal, it means to me that the keeping properties of XT-3 (replenished and stock) seem to be pretty fantastic! For a water-based developer that uses ascorbic acid that's pretty stellar! I don't know what Adox is doing to make it so stable, but whatever it is, it works! My replenished solution is going on 153 days and still working wonderfully!

 

[mshchem]

The ADOX XT-3 5l pack arrived this morning, it's mixed and cooling a little, now I can finally try it out...

View attachment 285813

I've got that exact same graduated pitcher. I found it used on Ebay, invaluable! I like your bottles, where did you find those?

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I've got that exact same graduated pitcher. I found it used on Ebay, invaluable! I like your bottles, where did you find those?

Good Morning Mshchem,
In these bottles the 25 % sulphuric acid came I needed to balance the pH value of the chromogenic developer of the E-6 process.
I treasure them as they are wide neck and thus easy to fill and to pour, have good caps, and made of strong thick glass.
I have seen this kind of bottles on the net, there is a Dutch webshop supplier who delivers easy to handle small quantities, by the dozen, but not very affordable and the glass is rather thin...

The graduate pitchers, of all kinds, are easy to find in kitchen supply hardstores, and as they are made for containing food the plastic is rather 'inert', and of a lesser cost than lab hardware...

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I've got that exact same graduated pitcher. I found it used on Ebay, invaluable!

That pitcher does look useful. I have a couple of 5000ml ones, but the full capacity is not really usable the the '5000ml' mark is just below the top of the pticher.

 

[Auer]

I've got that exact same graduated pitcher. I found it used on Ebay, invaluable! I like your bottles, where did you find those?

While were at it, I had those exact same instant read thermometers for years

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Here are my first results:
The one in the underground bicycle parking (the entrance) is taken with a Hasselblad 500C/M + Planaar 80mm on Tri-X @ 1600 ASA, handheld t1/60 sec F2.8.
Developed in Adox XT-3 1+1 15 min @ 20°C (next time it will be16 min) alternating inversion and rolling agitation in a small SS tank.

The table top (nectarines) is taken with a Flexbody + S-Planaar 150mm + a light Blue filter, with inverted Scheimpflug for reduced depth of field, on Ilford FP4 @ 100 ASA in daylight t1 sec F11.
Developed in Adox XT-3 1+1 11 min @ 20°C, alternating inversion and rolling agitation in a small SS tank.

All the negatives were dry scanned on an Epson 750 and post processed in LRC (the first one will be wet printed for my new project).

 

[LOOSE JESUS]

very excited to try this developer as my last developing sessions with xtol were sub par compared to results from previous batches. tho that could definitely been user error. lollll

 

[Helge]

Well, I tried my Contax T with TMY @ 800, a camera that give perfect slides.
Still flattish, even with thirty extra seconds.
No problems with Tri-X, TMX, Delta 100, HP5 or HR-50.
Curiously (or not) a single roll of Delta 400 sent through was also kind of flat.
So maybe what’s wrong affects faster tabular film more?

It’s either my mixing, the batch, or the aforementioned caking/clumping of the powder that has resulted in the slight speed anomaly.
10:30 minutes next time.

 

[MattKing]

How are you evaluating the negatives?
Try TMY at box speed before deciding.

 

[Helge]

How are you evaluating the negatives?
Try TMY at box speed before deciding.

Good point. The two normally rated TMY rolls I sent through the batch has come out good. But perhaps that is not enough data to base a conclusion on.

 

[MattKing]

The other caution I usually mention is that the T-Max films (100 and 400) tend to have a slightly different visual appearance than the more traditional films, so I would be wary of depending on that method for evaluation, at least until one is used to how they appear when using a particular developer.
I don't trust anything until I have a chance to make a print!
But if you use other methods to present the result ....

 

[Helge]

The other caution I usually mention is that the T-Max films (100 and 400) tend to have a slightly different visual appearance than the more traditional films, so I would be wary of depending on that method for evaluation, at least until one is used to how they appear when using a particular developer.
I don't trust anything until I have a chance to make a print!
But if you use other methods to present the result ....

You make me feel so dirty! Next you'll be telling me to subscribe? ;-P
In seriousness I find that scanning and printings "best" kind of negative is not that far apart. In fact I find they are more often than not the same type.
Flat can be OK, and is often all you need for a screen display, but for ultimate tonality..?
Flat is most often the fault of the developer or the developing though. Not the film or the exposure,

 

[MattKing]

You make me feel so dirty! Next you'll be telling me to subscribe? ;-P

I always support virtuous choices .
I too deal with Satan's spawn - the need to scan - but while I agree that good negatives generally print well and scan well, I have really strong feelings about how misleading the scanning process can be when trying to evaluate films and developers.
Whether you use scanning software, or camera digitization, it seems to me that the firmware and underlying software are constantly adapting to what you put in front of it - leaving it difficult to make comparative evaluations.

 

[MattKing]

Every single digital tool available in the camera or non-industrial scanner world adapts to that which is before it.
It isn't impossible to work with, but you are never going to be able to exclude the variables that are designed to work in the environment for which digital cameras and scanners were designed - small user photographic ones.
So while that may be great for general photography, and excellent for the flexibility needed for digitizing from film, it isn't as great for comparative analysis.
You could certainly design scanners to work in different ways that make use of the modern sensors available to the photographic industry - I'm confident the ones that the motion picture industry uses are designed that way - but the ones available to us don't work that way.
There may also be modern sensors used in lab related equipment without all the intervening algorithms and software and firmware systems, but they aren't found in any camera we can buy.
And RAW is just the result of a sensor and a whole bunch of processing. Just look at all the discussions about which RAW converters work the best.
I'm not saying don't use the tool available. I'm saying be cautious because those tools tend to intervene in comparative analysis - leading to a result that is only truly meaningful in the context of that particular digital environment. Not useless for a single user, but problematic when used as a review tool.