DiXactol PhotoFomulary Single or Two-Bath Developer

[hortense]

Single or two bath Film developer ostensibly Barry Thornton’s.
http://www.photoformulary.com/uploads/01-5030.pdf

I would love to gain the Positive Features of this developer but the Negative Features cause concern but since I am not as well acquainted with developers of this chemical makeup as many APUGer’s. Researching APUG, I fine extreme difference in success? Any relatively recemt comments would be appreciated since I have had to shift from large format to medium format and would like to gain as many advantages as possible.

Positive Features:
• Less burning while printing
• Superior image gradation
• Superior image acutance
• Improved quality on a narrower contrast spread of printing paper.
Therefore, less control than that offered by the VC paper manufacture?
• Reduction of halation in heavily exposed images (e.g., windows)
• Consistent staining color across films of different manufactures
• Softens contrast of paper due to staining effect
• Long working life for solutions A & B (6 months) - But, under cool condition.
• One shot developer
• Temperature range plus or minus one degree F.
Negative Features:
• CHEMICAL SAFETY: Solution A toxic irritant, Solution B strong alkali implied
• Storage temp in SW
• One shot developer
• Sensitive to intra-bath combinations from minute quantities
• 5 minutes in each bath agitating every 30 seconds (10 minutes total)
p. 3 Read BS in first paragraph!

 

[John Simmons]

I have used this developer many times. I would go with the single bath modified stand development as outlined by barry thornton. I would use a fresh new developing tank and reel as this developer is ultra sensitive to contamination. Distilled water for each step (i.e. developer, water stop, alkaline fix). I have achieved very good results with this developer but for me it was very tempermental. I have since switched to Pyrocat HD and have not looked back as the results are very similar without all the hassels.

 

[fhovie]

yep - me too - DiXactol - great developer - often overcompensating and twitchy - Pyrocat is better - I am really liking the -P version now.

I have used this developer many times. I would go with the single bath modified stand development as outlined by barry thornton. I would use a fresh new developing tank and reel as this developer is ultra sensitive to contamination. Distilled water for each step (i.e. developer, water stop, alkaline fix). I have achieved very good results with this developer but for me it was very tempermental. I have since switched to Pyrocat HD and have not looked back as the results are very similar without all the hassels.

 

[Dan Henderson]

I switched to DiXactol single bath/partial stand development for the acutance and compensation advantages. Unlike others, I have not experienced inconsistency or tempermentalism (?)...it has worked well for me every time I've used it. I find it produces very sharp negatives although I have not been able to find the mackie lines that Thornton wrote about. And since I have had limited shooting and printing time since switching, I really haven't been able to adequately judge the compensation feature, although I have not encountered any hard to tame highlights. I've not used Pyrocat so I can't compare one to the other, but I would recommend trying DiXactol.

 

[Blighty]

I have used Dixactol extensively in the past. I found it to be a great developer with MF, but its high acutance did accentuate the grain somewhat. Despite all the warnings, I didn't find it particularly sensitive to contaminants (just make sure you practise basic cleanliness). I used the single bath/regular agitation method and got very good HP5 negs. I did get the accentuated edge effects, even with my agitation method. Partial stand might increase these somewhat. What I really like about Dixactol is the way it renders out of focus areas. It's difficult to explain, but light/dark boundaries seem to 'glow'. It is difficult to put into words. It handles high-contrast scenes admirably.

 

[Helen B]

...
I find it produces very sharp negatives although I have not been able to find the mackie lines that Thornton wrote about.
...

I used to use DiXactol a lot before it became unavailable after Barry's death. I've since switched to other developers and haven't gone back to DiXactol, much as I used to like it.

The only time I saw anything resembling Mackie lines - and they were unpleasantly obvious - was the first time I tried it with Delta 400. This was just after Delta 400 replaced 400 Delta. I modified my technique for Delta 400 after emailing Barry and the problem went away. I can't remember what I did though.

Best, Helen

 

[hortense]

Thank You

John, Hovey, Fire, Helen and Blighty: Thanks for your helpful comments.

 

[m_liddell]

Never used DiXactol due to the mixed opinions on the net. I think Barry made this developer to his own requirements and since he always printed pretty small from MF the grain wasn't so big of an issue.

I use Exactol Lux which is finer grained and very similar to pyrocat.

 

[Blighty]

I use Exactol Lux which is finer grained and very similar to pyrocat.

This is, in fact, my preference over Dixactol. Much finer grained, but still with good acutance and useful compensating qualities.

 

[fhovie]

Mackie lines, when I have had them, ruined the negative. It was a one hour stand process that yielded them. I do not semi-stand process in p-cat over 35 minutes any more because of this.