Are you still in love with your X?

[aparat]

Well, it sure looks like Kodak is. The Eastman Kodak Company is still making a few of its famous Xes, including:

1. KODAK PROFESSIONAL XTOL Developer
2. EASTMAN DOUBLE-X (5222), and
3. KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 (400TX) black and white negative films.

I ran a five-curve film test of the EASTMAN DOUBLE-X 5222 (ISO 200-250) and KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 (ISO 400), developed in seasoned, replenished XTOL (XTOL-R). I bought my 5222 from the Photo Warehouse, who assure their customers that the film is from “all Cold Stored FRESH stocks.” I seasoned my one-liter stock solution of XTOL by developing twelve 36-exposure films in it and replenishing at the rate of 70 ml of replenisher per film.

But before I show you the results of my analysis, I want to share some of my calibration data.

I run a calibration procedure before each film test. It involves exposing and developing a sample of the films under study four times to make sure that my process is reasonably consistent across trials, both in terms of exposure and development.

I exposed the EASTMAN DOUBLE-X 5222 and KODAK TRI-X 400 for the same amount of exposure and processed in the same Jobo 1510 tank by rotary agitation. To establish a baseline, I processed these calibration samples in stock XTOL (non-replenished) for 7 minutes at 20C.



I guess I overcooked the "green" development a bit, but, overall, the results show reasonable consistency. The curves of both films are well-formed, showing a long, smooth tonality and excellent tonal separation along virtually the entire range. Given enough exposure, these two films are obviously capable of excellent results. Yes, the two curve families have a slightly different overall shape, but it remains to be seen whether XTOL and XTOL-R differ in how they affect contrast, tonality and film speed.

More data coming soon. Your comments and suggestions are most appreciated!

 

[Paul Howell]

I'm surprised, would have thought double x would have a straighter curve, TriX looks a lot like Tmax 400, may be just poor visual memory, I need to pull up the Kodak data sheet for Tmax in Xtrol to compare.

 

[aparat]

@Paul Howell You're right. The Double-X curve does look different. Keep in mind, this is just one development time. Also, Kodak recommends using D-96 with the Double-X, so that is going to affect the shape of the curve to some extent. I may end up testing D-96 at some point.

As I am new to replenished XTOL, I tested how different developer volume affects film speed and tonality, especially contrast. I did a quick test whereby I exposed an entire 36-exposure roll of Ultrafine Finesse 100 for Zone VIII, minus a four-inch piece for the step tablet (using my professional sensitometer), and another inch for d-max. I developed the film in three developer volumes:

1. 250 ml in a Jobo 1520 tank for 8 minutes
2. 150 ml in a Jobo 1510 tank for 8 minutes
3. 75 ml (1+1) in a Jobo 1510 tank for 12 minutes

I guesstimated the 12 minutes 1+1 to be roughly equivalent of 8 minutes 1+0, but it's far from exact. I ran the test three times and averaged the density values over the three trials. The results are interesting. The film ends up being underexposed (due to my sensitometer's exposure for an ISO 100 film), but contrast index does decrease slightly (0.63 to 0.61) along with the decrease in developer volume. Is it a significant reduction in contrast? I guess it's up to an individual user to decide. Zone VIII density was very close, as was d-max, in all three trials, well within typical equipment / user variability. I noticed no issues with unevenness, or any other artifacts, across the trials. Having said that, this is far from a definitive test of developer volume.

I used Ultrafine Finesse 100 because I'd just bought a 100 ft. roll and have a lot of it left. Having to burn nine rolls of TRI-X for this kind of test would have been expensive and potentially a very traumatic experience .

If you want to be certain, it's best to follow the manufacturer's recommendations. To me, in XTOL-R, the 150 ml volume in a Jobo 1510 tank is just fine for one 36-exposure roll and 250 ml for two rolls in a Jobo 1520. Perhaps a 10% increase in development time might be needed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Plus-X
Tri-X
replenished XTOL

 

[ic-racer]

Speed of each?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Plus-X
Tri-X
replenished XTOL

Speed of each?

Box speed with or without the Zone System.
Box speed with or without the Zone System.
With a Jobo processor.

 

[MattKing]

As long as you aren't referring to Kodacolor-X!!!

 

[snusmumriken]

This is really interesting, thank you for doing it and sharing the results. If you had left those graphs un-labelled, I would have guessed that the top one was the Double-X, purely on its reputation.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I'm still in love with Xtol-R, but have to confess to cheating on her a bit. With the last hiccup Xtol (Sino Promise or whatever it is) had, I bought Adox XT-3. Haven't used it yet, but will later this winter. Now, I did love Kodachrome X, but this time she left me too. I did love Plux-X, but only shoot 120 so that's out.

 

[aparat]

And so the story of Kodak's X continues...

I have the curve families and summary tables for KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 and EASTMAN DOUBLE-X 5222 in XTOL-R in a Jobo 1520 rotary processor. One thing to keep in mind regarding DOUBLE-X is that Kodak recommends using D-96, presumably to get just the right kind of contrast and tonality for motion picture purposes. I suppose I should also test DOUBLE-X in D-96 to keep things fair. For now, however, I have the curve families for XTOL-R. Also, while I can be sure of TRI-X being in date, I have to take Photo Warehouse's word that their product is fresh, as well. I have no reason to distrust them, and, judging by the low B+F values, I'd have to say the film seems fresh.

The curves marked "ISO" and "L7" are theoretical curves for the Ḡ=0.62 (ISO standard) and LSLR=2.2 (considered "normal"), respectively. To cut to the chase, as they say, TRI-X turns out to be around ISO 250, whereas DOUBLE-X is about a stop slower at ISO 125. Both films show excellent responsiveness to XTOL-R, showing nice tonality and well over a stop of gain in speed (shadow detail) over the range of development times.

And, finally, I must point out that these data were obtained with a DIY, uncalibrated setup and, as always, YMMV.

 

[snusmumriken]

I just found myself looking at this website with fascination, although I expect it has been flagged on Photrio before. Like many people on this forum, I have rung the changes of films and developers in the past, but I never had the drive to do systematic testing like @aparat or like this Norwegian website. Characteristic curves do show appreciable differences, but visually the differences between different developers on the same film are far more subtle than I thought.

 

[aparat]

I just found myself looking at this website with fascination, although I expect it has been flagged on Photrio before. Like many people on this forum, I have rung the changes of films and developers in the past, but I never had the drive to do systematic testing like @aparat or like this Norwegian website. Characteristic curves do show appreciable differences, but visually the differences between different developers on the same film are far more subtle than I thought.

That's a really cool website. Thank you for posting! I also agree that the actual practical differences are more subtle than the curves would indicate. Scanning vs. wet printing also plays a role, Sensitometric analysis has perhaps most relevance for sheet film users who are very meticulous about their work. Roll film, especially with a mix of different light, subject matter, exposure, technique, etc., is much harder to control, though I know people who do it brilliantly.

Having said that, as an XTOL-R newbie, I am surprised how much I am beginning to enjoy it. I particularly like how it affects Fomapan 400 and Ultrafine Finesse 400, turning out negatives of beautiful tonality and unusually small grain.

 

[Fredrixxon]

Xtol by Eastman Kodak or Sino Promise?

 

[aparat]

Xtol by Eastman Kodak or Sino Promise?

This one:

 

[Paul Howell]

Kodak sold it's chemistry division years ago, first was outsourcing, now Sinopromise owns the label. I doubt if any Kodak patents for B&W are still enforceable. Freestyle most Kodak formulas are offered under house brand or Legacy brand.

 

[NB23]

I dislike xtol.
I consider that it has diminished the visual impact that a lot of my prints would have if they had been developed in another developer, by at least 25%.

 

[MattKing]

Xtol by Eastman Kodak or Sino Promise?

I am not sure when Eastman Kodak stopped manufacturing most of its "for sale to the public" photo chemicals, but the Eastman Chemicals subsidiary became independent in 1994, so I would guess it was around then.
There may, of course, been some residual "for sale to the public" photo-chemical manufacturing capacity in some of the international Eastman Kodak subsidiaries.
Eastman Kodak outsourced "for sale to the public" photo-chemical manufacturing for many years prior to the bankruptcy. After that, it was Kodak Alaris who outsourced "for sale to the public" photo-chemical manufacturing, until the recent sale of that part of their business to Sino Promise, who are apparently slowly bringing it back after being decimated by Covid.
In and around 2019, when Tetenal went into receivership, Kodak Alaris attempted to move a lot of production to US manufacturers. That didn't go well.
At least some of the Sino Promise labelled product seems to have gone back to EU manufacturing - new Tetenal?

 

[Joel_L]

My favorite used to be Plus-X, when that went away I went to FP4+ and still really like it. A few days ago I received my 400ft roll of Double-X 5222 from Kodak. I have only shot two rolls so far but am liking it. So far have been shooting it at 250. First roll was over developed in XTOL 1:1, the grain was a bit chunky but still looked OK to me. I did a second roll in XTOL at 1:2 and like it much better. There are some samples in the color forum ( mostly because there is a movie film thread there, and I guess anything goes ).

 

[John Wiegerink]

I dislike xtol.
I consider that it has diminished the visual impact that a lot of my prints would have if they had been developed in another developer, by at least 25%.

Hmmm! What other developer(s) would that be? I might just have to run right out and buy a train car load. Wink-wink!

 

[aparat]

@MattKing @Paul Howell Thank you for that interesting information. I am sure some of the forum members, myself included, weren't familiar with the behind-the-scenes details of Kodak's recent history. I have the great 1990 coffee table book by Douglas Collins, "The Story of Kodak," but, of course, the story is told only up to around 1990. It is a fascinating book, full of great information and iconic photographs. Perhaps someone needs to write an addendum. I've looked through Photrio, and there's a lot of bits and pieces on Kodak's recent history scattered throughout the website.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My favorite used to be Plus-X, when that went away I went to FP4+ and still really like it. A few days ago I received my 400ft roll of Double-X 5222 from Kodak. I have only shot two rolls so far but am liking it. So far have been shooting it at 250. First roll was over developed in XTOL 1:1, the grain was a bit chunky but still looked OK to me. I did a second roll in XTOL at 1:2 and like it much better. There are some samples in the color forum ( mostly because there is a movie film thread there, and I guess anything goes ).

I still have Plus-X which I scooped up ahead of the hoarders.

 

[Joel_L]

I have 1 roll of Plus-X in 120 left. I'll have to break it out someday.

 

[MattKing]

I have 1 roll of Plus-X in 120 left. I'll have to break it out someday.

I made a point of using my last roll of 120 Plus-X in my Kodak Tourist - I figured that it was an experience that deserved to be kept within the family

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I dislike xtol...

I like XTOL. I laid in a lifetime supply of it ten years ago, stored in a manner that its inventors agreed should work. See the end of this post:

Ilford Films and Xtol Developer - Page 2

Anyone try FP4 and HP5 with Kodak Xtol developer? The manufacturers literature l ists several other Kodak developers but not Xtol. Either the results were unacce ptable or it is a combination that was just overlooked. I would rather consult t he forum than dive into the unknown. Many thanks

www.largeformatphotography.info

The latest batch I prepared in July 2021, stored in 250ml glass bottles as described, still provides sensitometric results identical to when it was first mixed.

...I consider that it has diminished the visual impact that a lot of my prints would have if they had been developed in another developer, by at least 25%.

How was that determined? Do you possess a "visualimpactometer?" Did you conduct double blind trials between prints from XTOL-developed negatives and those processed in other developers, using "calibrated observers?"

 

[Sirius Glass]

I dislike xtol.
I consider that it has diminished the visual impact that a lot of my prints would have if they had been developed in another developer, by at least 25%.

I disagree. I have found that it works consistently well, produces fine grain, smooth tonality and is very forgiving. It also works well for pushing film.