Anything between Xtol & FX-39

OK, I know we cannot have everything, but is there a developer that offers a compromise between the two? I like both, but would rather have something in the middle!

As I see it both give full film speed, Xtol has incredibly fine grain and wonderful tonality and FX-39 has aggressive sharpness and grain noticeably coarser than D76...but boy is it crisp! The grain is hardly increased with modern emulsions but less retrained with traditional emulsions. I find Xtol great for films with inherent grain sharpness, such as Delta 100, but less wonderful with others for certain uses. For example, APX100 is a bit coarser than Fp4+ in most developers but turns to cream in Xtol...the grain vanishes and the images look silky smooth - great for certain images like child portraits but awful (IMO) for street or harder stuff. APX100 is sharp, but moderately grainy in Fx-39. d76 is in teh middle but one loses speed. For 120 TriX, Xtol gives very fine grain, but the image to me lacks the grain crispness I would like esp at low enlargement sizes - I find there to be an epic reduction in grain when going from D76 to Xtol with the new TriX - almost too much in 120 - it can be too smooth and lack bite! FX-39 although not meant for fast films produces super sharp, tight, pleasing grain, but it is definitely on the coarse side. In many respects D76 1+1 is somewhere between but one loses 1/2 stop in film speed!

Has anyone tried mixing FX-39 and Xtol ?!?!?! Based on image qualities alone, a developer smack between these two in terms of film speed (they are almost the same) tonality and acutance would be fantastic, but I can't think of one. DDX to me produces grain about the same as Xtol, perhaps a touch coarser but it certainly does not have acutance remotely approaching FX-39.

I know some people mix Rodinal and Xtol, but I dont particularly want to go down that road. I single developer with full speed and between FX39 and Xtol in otehr characteristics would be great and save me using and keeping both! Pyrocat meets the acutance, grain and tonality needs but offers me about ei 250 rather than the full 400 with TriX. The other good thing about Xtol and FX-39 is that a one stop push is easy with both and more than a stop with Xtol. V handy when shooting MF and one needs shutter speed in low light.

If only pyrocat HD had more speed, but in all reality, being in Afghanistan, I do not want to mix developers from raw chemicals, use scales etc, or use staining devs as battling with horrid, inconsistent water is a problem all of its own.

So maybe one could mix: Xtol and FX-39 or DDX and FX-39??? Anyone know what would happen based on their chemistry? I know it might not be simple due to the interaction of ingredients, but it sounds good!

In summary, I get:

TriX with D76 1+1 - Beautiful grain and glowing prints, but coarser look & the speed is about 250-320
TriX with FX-39 - sharp as hell but not good when one wants smoother tonality - full speed
TriX with Xtol 1+1 - smooth as hell, but lacking in acutance, esp with 120 and lower enlargement - full speed

Tom Stanworth said:

So maybe one could mix: Xtol and FX-39 or DDX and FX-39???

Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking as I read your post.

Give it a go - what's the worst thing that could happen?




Steve.

I think you're looking for a magic bullet !

Bill

Dear Tom,

Try Xtol diluted 1+3. If you would like a copy, I have an old data sheet (April 2000) that has starting points for higher dilutions than the newer ones.

Neal Wydra

Try Tri-X in DD-X.

I found it to give me the speed of Xtol and the smooth, classid look of D76.

I am not looking for a magic bullet, just one that suits me perfectly . I guess if you think about it, both devs make the speed i want, only one is super smooth and the other ultra-sharp - so I just want a compromise - if one thinks about it it should be entirely possible! I may experiment with DDX again and I would agree it gives more visible grain than Xtol and that might in the end suit me. I want to cut down on devs and films and get things as simple as possible.

Paterson, can you produce FX-39 for sensitive skin please Half way between Aculux/Xtol and FX-39!

Xtol 1+3 sound interesting, but does it introduce quite a shoulder? I guess FX-39 does that anyway, not that it has been much of an issue for me as it would appear to occur high up on the scale. My enlarger head is VERY low contrast (10x8 colour head)

I may just mix some Xtol 1+1 and FX-39 and do a test roll. Prob is I don't have an enlarger here in Kabul and so can only snoop at negs. I have to do this - sounds like fun!

Harry Lime said:

Try Tri-X in DD-X.

I found it to give me the speed of Xtol and the smooth, classic look of D76.

Click to expand...

And it should! DD-X is Ilford's Liquid concentrate version of Iford Microphen (a phenidone version of D-76). I'd expect DD-X to give a bit more film speed than Xtol.

As a matter of fact, there IS something right snack in the middle,
I KNOW because I did this hunt a few years ago.

Aculux 2... oops, now Aculux 3.

DDX will do nicely too, if you can't get Aculux 3.

Edwal FG7, can be used with and without sulfite, without sharp as a tack, with very fine grain.

I'm looking for a liquid developer giving rather smooth results (for portrait work): would Aculux 3 be OK?

I'll second that. One shot Xtol 1+3 is really nice. Sharp.

- Thomas

Neal said:

Dear Tom,

Try Xtol diluted 1+3. If you would like a copy, I have an old data sheet (April 2000) that has starting points for higher dilutions than the newer ones.

Neal Wydra

Click to expand...

I was thinking ID-68 but, now that Aculux has been mentioned, yeah, that sounds about right too.

Philippe Grunchec said:

I'm looking for a liquid developer giving rather smooth results (for portrait work): would Aculux 3 be OK?

Click to expand...

More 'bite' than Xtol, far less grit than Rodinal, more bite than D76,
smoother than FX-39. Finer grain than D76.

Tonality: more linear than HC-110, very much like XTOL in the shadows and Rodinal in the brights.

A very useful developer, and dilution and agitation can be adjusted to suit your taste.

OK df, you've got my attention!

My developer wish list for TX is: pin prick grain like Rodinal, but finer please, and I don't care so much about film speed cause I overexpose to a fault anyways.

I really like Rodinal with APX400, but now I'm returning to TX, and it's just a bit too grainy for me. XTOL 1:2 is way too smooth and mushy for me. I also find Rodinal gives me a beefier neg than other developers (I suppose this suggests pumped up mid-tones). I like a thick neg that I can print down. HP5 and Acutol was nice, but alas.

Aculux 3?

Aculux is close....but its speed is way down on DDX/Xtol/FX-39 and it is not a good choice for pushing.

I have a feeling I am going to try mixing some developers together to see what happens! Could be interesting! Being in Kabul I get most of my supplies thru the US APO, and getting Paterson chems does not seem easy in the US. Anyone know of a reliable mail order place that sells them?

If you don't mind mixing your own, PC-TEA may be a good fit for what you're looking for.

Tom Stanworth said:

Aculux is close....Being in Kabul I get most of my supplies thru the US APO, and getting Paterson chems does not seem easy in the US. Anyone know of a reliable mail order place that sells them?

Click to expand...

Paterson chems never were terribly abundant here and now, they're just plain scarce. As much as I liked Aculux2, I quit using it when its availability became unreliable. I haven't checked the usual online sources lately but judging by my recent visits to several retail stores in the area, it doesn't seem like much has changed.

TrY XTOL D1LUTED 1:3

Yes, do give XTOL 1+3 a try. I think you'll like it. I too have an old XTOL data sheet with development times for the 1+3 dilution. It's in German. The numbers are the same.

Xtol has a pH about 8.2 and its primary developing agent is a phenidone derivative.
FX-39 has a higher pH but my guess is that it also uses a phenidone as primary agent.
If the two are mixed my guess is that the pH will be increased resulting in swelling of the emulsion,more grain clumping and more gritty grain.

fschifano said:

............. I too have an old XTOL data sheet with development times for the 1+3 dilution...........

Click to expand...

I have the English one, if you'd like it emailed.

Incidentally, is there anywhere where these useful no-longer-current pdf files can be placed so that everyone could access them?

FWIW, this site has many XTOL 1+2 and 1+3 times. The Massive Dev Chart also has such times.

Tom Stanworth said:

Aculux is close....but its speed is way down on DDX/Xtol/FX-39 and it is not a good choice for pushing.

Click to expand...

My experience with Aculux 2 is that it's Zone I speed is about 1/2 stop less than Xtol, same as D76, 1/2 stop faster than Rodinal. It is good for the ISO speed on the box.

We must be doing something differently !

Xtol wins for 'pushing, of course.

df cardwell said:

My experience with Aculux 2 is that it's Zone I speed is about 1/2 stop less than Xtol, same as D76, 1/2 stop faster than Rodinal. It is good for the ISO speed on the box.

We must be doing something differently !

Xtol wins for 'pushing, of course.

Click to expand...

I rate most films at box in D76 and Aculux (I used it a while back) in overcast conditions but reduce films bu 1/3 to 1/2 stop in very contrasty light Tri X at 320 and 250). In contrast I find that FX39 and Xtol both give me 400-500 with TriX and Neopan 400 in contrasty and flatter light. DDX gives even more speed - for me about 500-640 with TriX in flat light. I am not suggesting that Aculux is slow, ony noticeably slower than Xtol - as you say 1/2 stop. I dont want to lose that 1/2 stop.

I just developed a roll of film in mixed FX39 and Xtol 1+1 - I will report back soon!

I had a roll of old acros (only 4 years out of date) knocking about and shot off a test roll. I developed in a 50-50 mixture of FX-39 1+9 and Xtol 1+1 at a time average between the two adjusted for my soft enlarger (I develop longer than most). I rated the acros at 80 and used the mamiya 7 internal meter.

The aim was to see if there were any catastrophic changes to film speed or grain. The result: Fine but super crisp grain and film speed that is about smack on. there is no grain clumping in evidence under a 10x loupe. The grain is far sharper than Xtol alone would account for and the tonality looks fantastic. its still smooth with well controlled highlights.

Now that I know it develops with a time vaguely between the two developers and holds film speed as expected, I will test on a more grainy film for which I have plenty of examples developed in FX-39 and Xtol 1+1 separately. I will choose Neopan 400 and rate it at 500, which is my speed in Xtol 1+1 and Fx39 1+9 with my somewhat extended developing times for my 10x8 colour head. Initially I will shoot one roll and develop in the mixed developers and compare to my example frames (there is an epic difference in sharpness and grain between the FX39 and Xtol such that the FX39 negs appreciably look sharper to the naked eye and grain is crispy and visible under a 10x loupe whereas the xtol is still very faint tight grain). If this shows that the mixed developer is something worth continuing with, I will shoot a test roll, cut it in three and develop it in Xtol 1+1, FX-39 1+9 and the two combined and do more direct comparison. Might be a while before I can print them though as I am far from civilization!

The acros test roll shows grain sharpness more like FX-39 than Xtol 1+1 so I want to be sure that the combination of these two is not simply the same as FX-39 alone as by mixing it with Xtol I am effectively diluting it further which would increase acutance, potentially offsetting the benefit of the fine grained action of the Xtol. we will see, but looking interesting! If I can get more speed than D76/Aculux, but with grain half way between Xtol and FX39, I will have found my perfect normal use developer for fast films. for slow films such as Delta, FX39 is hard to beat.