• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Experiences of XTOL developer for TMAX 400

whojammyflip

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
188
Location
Wellesbourne, UK
Format
35mm
Hi, my developer (LC29 which I bought for testing pushing HP5+) is looking yellow and its over 6 months old, so I am looking for a suitable replacement. I've liked LC29's results with TMAX 400, the film I've settled with, and understand that the chemicals in LC29 are similar to HC110. I figure using Kodak chemicals with Kodak film is a good plan, and will be getting some TMAX fixer due to the fixing times. I'm thinking of switching developer (either XTOL or D76) at the same time, but am concerned about the results I will get. My alternative is to just start using HC110.

I've heard people wax lyrical about XTOL and D76, and am thinking of trying one of these. XTOL is super cheap and environmentally friendly and sounds like it has the lower grain, but suddenly stops working. I've seen I can get 5l of XTOL powder for about GBP 6 locally, and at that price, I'm easy about storing it in my garage and pouring anything unused away every 6 months. I don't shoot more than a couple of rolls per month, and my printing rate is about 4 photos a week.

I particularly like the sound of XTOL's performance. But is this really that noticeable? I may in the future print some big pics, like 12x16", so low grain may be important, but at that size, grain could be a feature I will like. Its difficult to know without having tried printing that size before (its from 35mm, so 10x enlargement, which I understand is when the half-tone effect can be seen everywhere, and becomes an appealing feature).

Any comments much appreciated.
 
I started with D-76/ID11 then switched to Xtol.

I use the Xtol replenished which is incredibly simple, efficient, and flexible.

I must also say incredibly reliable. I have slowed down on B&W some and the working solution I have is probably approaching a couple years in service, it's been at least 3-4 months since I've added fresh stock to the working solution and I ran two rolls through it last week, it worked perfectly.

As to performance being noticeable, ????. All I know is that I get stuff I like from Xtol.
 
Mark, I use a Jobo, so replenished Xtol is out for me. But I'm intrigued, after hearing many sing its praises here and elsewhere.

How do you store it between sessions? Does replenishment per se increase the shelf life of unused solutions? I'd think that a working solution, even one being replenished, would oxidize even more rapidly than unused, pristine solution sitting peacefully in a full, tightly stoppered amber glass bottle.

Or does replenishment "replenish" storage oxidation as well?

I'm currently sorta bouncing among Xtol, D76H, and TMAX developers for 400TMY. I, too, find myself doing less B&W and more C41, so it's often a while between B&W developing episodes. Long shelf life is a premium consideration, which speaks to either HC-110 (haven't tried it for 400TMY), TMAX, or fresh-mixed D76H.
 
I use xtol dilluted 1+1 for tmax 400 and other roll film and 4x5. I use xtol 1+2 for fomapan100 8x10 film. I discard it after using it and store it in a variety of bottle sizes so there is not much air. Say you mix up 5L into 4 1L and 2 500ml bottles. Use the 500ml bottles up first then refill them with a 1L bottle.
 
Mike,
there's a huge thread on replenishing Xtol
(there was a url link here which no longer exists) and
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I think I'm gonna try it myself to see if I get a 1/3 to 1/2 stop extra speed than D76 but I kinda doubt it
 

I don't know if it really matters but I read somewhere on APUG that by decanting the 1L again into the 500ml bottles, you expose it to some oxygen and it shortens the life. It may be better to just decant into 10 500ml bottles on day one and be done with it.

Myself, I use 20 250ml bottles on day one. If I need 500ml, just open 2 bottles. Since I use the Jobo, the 250ml bottles are about the right size, although when I use ss tanks, I do use more.

JMHO
 
When used replenished, Xtol loses about 1/2 stop compared to 1+1.
 
Thomas Bertilsson said:
When used replenished, Xtol loses about 1/2 stop compared to 1+1.
Click to expand...

I have not had that using XTOL undiluted with replenishment. I have had it last two years.

Steve
 
Is it the concentrate ("syrup") that has turned yellow, or the stock solution? Has it been kept in air-tight storage with all of the excess air removed from the storage bottle?

I found via an unplanned trial (not truly an "experiment") that even the stock solution lasts at least 8 months in a half-full glass bottle, and it seems to exhibit no noticeable loss in its normal activity.

The concentrate, then, must keep darned near forever, especially if in air-tight storage.

Unless you have left your LC-29 out in an open bucket, I would guess that it is still fine.

X-Tol is a great developer, and I would encourage you to try it...but I'd finish off that LC-29 first! It ain't cheap!
 
fotch said:
It may be better to just decant into 10 500ml bottles on day one and be done with it.
Click to expand...

That's what I do. Last six months easy.

Oh, and not that I've shot a lot of TMY yet, but what I have, it looks great in XTOL 1:1. I just ordered another brick of it and am going to start using it more.
 
MikeSeb said:
Mark, I use a Jobo, so replenished Xtol is out for me.
Click to expand...

Actually I use a CPA2 and replenishment works just fine.


The stock is stored in a "wine box", the working solution is in 1.75 liter bottle topped up full.
 

Its the concentrate thats turned yellow. After 6 months I still have half of it left, enough for another 15 rolls, so I'd be chucking GBP 8 down the drain. If it carries on going ok, then maybe I will just save myself the cash and use it rather than getting XTOL yet. I have not put it in smaller bottles, but got a can of the Tetenal inert gas which I squirt in periodically. I also kept the silver seal on top of the bottle, just puncturing it twice to let the developer out and prevent excess circulation of fresh air. I am a little upset its turned yellow so fast.

When diluted it does look clear. What I don't want happening is a sudden failure of the developer so I lose some shots. You reckon I am ok to just keep using it?

Maybe when I get down to the dregs, I ought to start making up some XTOL and have an overlap period, where I try processing some test shots first with the XTOL, in case I have messed up the mixing. Looking into the XTOL, it requires you to get storage bottles too. At the moment, I am just using old peanut butter jars with plastic tops for my made up print chemicals. I'm going to have to eat a lot of peanut butter before I can store 5L of XTOL.
 
I reckon you are just fine to keep using it. Mine is a little yellow right now (about halfway through the bottle), and I have used it much darker several times. (HC-110 is yellow from the start, BTW.) I use Ilfotec HC, which is the same chemical as LC-29, but in a different concentration.
 
I store mine in water bottles. Note I live alone so it's not likely that anyone will wander into my closet and start drinking chemicals.

But yeah, I went to the store one day and bought a case of water that had the thickest looking bottles. At the time, it was Dasani. It was like $4 for the whole thing, and I got 24 .5 L bottles. I'm sure for a couple bucks you could buy empty .5 L bottles online or something too.
 
I was an Ilford user until they developed the last revision of Delta400 which almost requires Xtol or DDX to look good although D76 does develope it.

I dislike Xtol because I had a string of failures years back. I began mixing D76 from scratch and continued using to this day with T_Max 400 and 100. The images are among the best I ever made.
Xtol does make a very slightly better neg, but the price is too high. Price in terms of possible failure. D76 never fails unless it is old and brown and my test indicate in a full bottle, it is good for 6 months after which it begins to deteriorate slowly. I store in 4 oz bottles and mix a liter or 1/2 liter as needed. Cost is just a dollare or two for a full gallon so I consider it almost free.

Use TF4 fix or Rapid Fix, no hardener, or you can not wash out the dye. Extending time in other fixers does not accomplish the same thing. Extended wash never removes the pink dye unless you use the TF4 or Rapid Fix at least with 100 film. I just carried over my practice to TMY-2 400 speed.

Either developer should work well. It is just a personel preference.

I use Kodaks time from J78 publication for a diffusion enlarger. Works perfectly. Subtract 10% for a condenser enlarger.
 
I never had a speed loss due to replenishment of Xtol with Tmax 400 either Thomas, over several years of use,
Click to expand...

Yeah, but would you even notice a 1/2 stop reduction in speed? Do you regularly do checks with a densitometer?

I know in my experience, replenished D23 is probably a stop or more slower than HC110. The difference never seemed that big or even significant until I did side-by-side testing. I still use replenished D23, I just make sure I expose a bit more.
 
I'd notice a half stop speed loss in shadow details, either visually or at the printing stage. But then I did my films speed tests with replenished developer, I've used replenished developers since the late 1960's.

Ian
 
2F/2F said:
HC-110 is yellow from the start, BTW.
Click to expand...

The yellow color of HC-110 does not indicate that it has started to oxidize. HC-110 is unlike any other commercial developer in that it contains no water. The absence of water all but stops any aerial xoidation. The yellow color is due to its high concentration and one or more of the ingredients. Kodak uses a mixture of glycols as the chemical solvent. The Ilford product does contain water and is therefore prone to oxidation.
 

HC110 is not unique in this respect, Tmax dev is similar as are one or two Ilford developers.

Ian
 
Well, go figure. I must be special.

When I seasoned my fresh batch of Xtol I had to put some rolls through it. I chose to use what I normally use, and could shoot TMax 400 at box speed and get normal shadow detail.
My replenished batch of Xtol is a 2L working solution, and after about 12-15 rolls I started to notice things settling down. I had better sharpness, finer grain, and - whether you believe it or not - about 1/2 stop less speed. When I started using EI 250 as my normal contrast EI for TMax 400, shadow detail went back to normal again, and that's how I have shot the film since the Xtol became seasoned. I can't quantify it in exact values, but about 1/2 stop extra exposure did the trick to bring shadow detail up to what it was when I shot at EI 400 with fresh stock Xtol.

I'm going to scratch that one off as science fiction.

Ian Grant said:
I never had a speed loss due to replenishment of Xtol with Tmax 400 either Thomas, over several years of use,

Ian
Click to expand...
 
I don't doubt your effective EI of Tmax 400 in replenished Xtol Thomas, it's close to what I used - 200 EI. But then I only ever use developers like Xtol, D76 etc replenished so that's the norm for me, and the EI is still as good as D76, Rodinal, and better than HC110 for the same tonality. So I don't see it a speed loss that's all

Ian
 
Ronald Moravec said:
Xtol does make a very slightly better neg, but the price is too high. Price in terms of possible failure.
Click to expand...

I understand your reasoning. But, apparently, Kodak addressed the issue (years ago) so that failures nowadays seem to be unheard of. Had they not fixed the issue, I'm pretty sure the developer would be discontinued by now (i.e., due to lack of demand) -- instead of being one of the most heavily praised developers on the market. I have never had a failure yet, and there are claims that some users have XTOL last well over 6 months. To me, the price is pretty cheap given the great, consistent results I (and many others) get nowadays.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ronald Moravec said:
....I dislike Xtol because I had a string of failures years back........
Click to expand...

Living in the past hey?

Considering you even state "requires Xtol or DDX to look good" and "Xtol does make a very slightly better neg", and the problem has been fixed and no new reports of the has cropped up, seems like you are just limiting your self.

Oh well, to each their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register