Seasoned XTOL and unseasoned XTOL are so close that one cannot see the difference.
Yet 1:1 Xtol and unseasoned stock Xtol have a huge difference?
I was under the impression that seasoned Xtol is even more fine detailed than 1:1.
No offence Steven, but if you are going to perceive any difference, it will be in acutance, and it is tough to get any sense of acutance from a photo of a grey card!
The differences are small. If they were the only differences between the three different approaches, I wouldn't be such a fan of replenishment, even though I have a small preference for how the films come out.
Unless something is wrong with my Consistency 1:1 has so much better tonality, definition and smaller sharper grain.I was referring to stock XTOL becoming replenished XTOL
Replenished XTOL and 1:1 XTOL are better than stock XTOL. As Matt noted the differences are in acutance and are hard to see, but can be measured. Replenished XTOL is slightly better than 1:1, but replenished XTOL overall is less expensive and long lived while 1:1 is used as one shot development if I remember correctly.
Yet 1:1 Xtol and unseasoned stock Xtol have a huge difference?
I was under the impression that seasoned Xtol is even more fine detailed than 1:1.
I mainly shoot in the same conditions.@Radost that can't be. either your subject matter / light was very different, or you did not develop to the same contrast. Did you use Kodak or Ilford datasheet times? They are different for stock.
I have been developing in stock for a long time. Ever since I started 1:1 ”Nothing else has changed except 2 different fixers that I use“ my development has so much more resolutions.@Radost sure, the difference in grain is there, but I was primarily referring to your "so much better tonality" comment. Something feels off. When you need a 10x loupe to spot the difference, it hardly justifies the choice of those words. However, do not believe me, trust your own eyes! But if you're curious why Steven and your eyes diverge so much, the answer is the contrast level. I bet your stock and 1+1 results have different HD-LD values.
@Radost same here. But my view on developer dilutions, and differences between developers in general, has been significantly affected by introducing control strips into my workflow. I started to notice that datasheet and MDC times do not always produce the same contrast. Try exposing an entire roll on the same test scene, chop it up into smaller strips, and develop using -1m, -30sec, 0, +30sec and +1min of datasheet time (5 strips for stock, 5 strips for 1+1, 10 runs total). Makes for a fun weekend project.
MDC would be much more useful if it did not have so many errors and inaccuracies.
What is mdc?
The “Massive Developing Chart”.
Update:
After 15 rolls of Xtol-R development i started loosing sharpness and got dirt all over the solution.
The negatives started looking under developed. Even with the replenishment.
I dont prewash.
I went back to 1:1. A bit more waist “especially 120” but cleaner and more consistent.
It sucks I ruined 2 rolls of Tmax 3200
In fact the bottle is so dirty a hot water rinse can not clean the bottom.
Update:
After 15 rolls of Xtol-R development i started loosing sharpness and got dirt all over the solution.
The negatives started looking under developed. Even with the replenishment.
I dont prewash.
I went back to 1:1. A bit more waist “especially 120” but cleaner and more consistent.
It sucks I ruined 2 rolls of Tmax 3200
Update:
After 15 rolls of Xtol-R development i started loosing sharpness and got dirt all over the solution.
The negatives started looking under developed. Even with the replenishment.
I dont prewash.
I went back to 1:1. A bit more waist “especially 120” but cleaner and more consistent.
It sucks I ruined 2 rolls of Tmax 3200
Either add more stock solution because you were not adding 70ml/roll or use the replenish times which are longer than stock times.
Was T-Max 3200 the only film you've developed? I do not have much experience with it, but I have plenty of experience of running Xtol-R. It is slightly less potent than stock, i.e. you lose a tiny bit of speed. And, more importantly here, for some reason it does not work with Delta 3200. I have not done any measurements, but visually it's easily more than a stop slower than DD-X or Microphen with that film. Just can't build any density.
If T-Max 3200 is similar to Delta 3200, this may explain what you're seeing.
XTol-R is great for the common ISO 400 films. For ISO 50-100 I would recommend something like Ilfosol (sharp). For fast designed-for-pushing Delta 3200, I'd use Microphen or DD-X, or perhaps TMax developer for T-Max 3200, if you prefer Kodak?
Mine is still going strong after almost three years of replenishing...even though there is a by-product build up on the bottle wall, and bottom is stained black... I do find myself however, going back to good old staining developers
This is what was concerning to me. All the gunk inside after just 18 rolls.
Mine is still going strong after almost three years of replenishing...even though there is a by-product build up on the bottle wall, and bottom is stained black... I do find myself however, going back to good old staining developers
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?