I do not like the extolled XTOL

Michael Guzzi · Sep 28, 2016

Xtol seems to get the strongest and most polarized opinions of all film developers... what the hell, I'll buy a couple packets and test this stuff out. Can't be THAT bad.

I don't buy the "exceptionally affordable" argument though, nor do I think it should be at all discussed. All comercially available formulas or otherwise are affordable enough, when in contrast with the cost of film, gear, and your time (not to mention the priceless aspect that some images may possess). But crushing some numbers, HC-110 (my main developer) is about 3 times cheaper (I use it one-shot, and develop film too infrequently to use a replenishment system).

baachitraka · Sep 28, 2016

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 28, 2016

Michael Guzzi said:
Xtol seems to get the strongest and most polarized opinions of all film developers... what the hell, I'll buy a couple packets and test this stuff out. Can't be THAT bad.

I don't buy the "exceptionally affordable" argument though, nor do I think it should be at all discussed. All comercially available formulas or otherwise are affordable enough, when in contrast with the cost of film, gear, and your time (not to mention the priceless aspect that some images may possess). But crushing some numbers, HC-110 (my main developer) is about 3 times cheaper (I use it one-shot, and develop film too infrequently to use a replenishment system).

At ten bucks for 5 liters I developed 60-70 rolls of film in my replenished system. That's about 16 cents per roll of film. To me that's exceptionally affordable.

JohnArs · Sep 28, 2016

Neal said:
I've used Xtol almost exclusively for the last 16 years. Never an issue.

Me to even a bit longer since it's release no issues at all!!! Used it at 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 and the last few years replinished, not one failed and never did a testing!

Cheers Armin

hacked - sepiareverb · Sep 28, 2016

I used it for a long time, but after switching from Delta 100 to non T-grain films I found it less appealing. And I got tired of mixing up powders. I prefer DD-X and Studionol (R09 Special). YMMV.

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 29, 2016

Here are a couple of shots in 35mm Tri-X and HP5+. I used replenished Xtol to process the film. Close-up portrait printed on Polywarmton Forte, and the other was printed on Ilford MGIV fiber matte, using replenished Ethol LPD at 75 degrees F.
Close-up portrait toned in Moersch MT-3, followed by selenium, the other portrait is selenium alone to neutralize the slight green cast.

I don't think that the pictures are lifeless or dull in their tonality, and have the right type of contrast. What developer would make the pictures better? For me, one that shows more grain, particularly regarding the close-up portrait.

removed account4 · Sep 29, 2016

nice work thomas, i remember when you first uploaded them the gallery.
i have never said others couldn't get good negatives out of the developer
on the contrary i said i am happy others are able to use it to produce magical images.
as seen from the sampling of the people who replied to this thread,
my results are probably not typical. i never said the developer didn't work, i was able to extract images out of my film
( with VC filters or adjustment in my print developer &c ) i have plenty of photographs from that time, but the film just didn't have the "snap" that i wanted it to have.
i like anchovy pizza, maybe you don't? for me its the same thing ... and i don't think any less of you because you don't like anchovies..
and as i suggested the OP give his xtol away to someone who would love to use it, since you aren' t eating that slice, i would probably ask you for it
and trade you a slice of something you might rather eat.

john

John Wiegerink · Sep 29, 2016

I agree Thomas and I'm now, for the time being anyway, using Xtol replenished and liking it very much. I really can't find fault with it since I get very good grain structure, box speed. good tone qualities from the lower zones up through the higher zones. That is with the films I use, but maybe some films refuse to work nicely with it? Usually David and I are in full agreement on most things, but I have to say not on this one. I will say that I did have to work out my times and agitation regime to get what I wanted, but you should do that with any film/developer combo. One thing I will just say briefly is that the "Massive Development Chart" on www.digitaltruth.com site does an injustice to many developer combinations. Many of the times and temps posted there are from individuals and like fingerprints, no two are the same. Some folks go there, fine the film and developer they are using or want to try and use that data only to get results they don't care for. Then it's "I'll never use that developer or film again". They think it's going to be instant photography gratification. Just like trying to build muscle or lose weight..........."No pain-No gain"! You gotta work at it.

freecitizen · Nov 24, 2016

I have been using replenished xtol for a couple of years now. When I went up to 4x5 and 5x7 I found that the volumes of developer I needed were so large ( tray or tank/inversion ) that I could not reasonably use a developer as one-shot. Inversion in my Jobo 4x5 tank needed about 1.3 litres each time.

So I went to replenished, and can simply pour as much developer as I need into the tank and replenish using stock xtol.

I make up 5 litres of Xtol and store it in multiple glass 200ml glass bottles ( discards from the chemist ) with airtight screw-on caps ( each one filled to the brim, no air ). That way my stock Xtol stays fresh without degradation from air contact. The replenished developer is kept in a huge swing-top Grolsch beer bottle which is always filled to the top. I pour whatever is needed into the tank and develop. While agitating, I add 75 mls fresh stock xtol per roll to the bottle and when development is complete I pour the developer from the dev tank back into the big bottle until it is full, then discard any leftover developer down the sink.

The replenished brew has become very stable. I decided to get serious and dialed in my personal film speed ( for Zone I ) and development time to get a proper print value for Zone VIII as per Fred Picker's method outlined in his Zone VI Workshop book. I am getting very consistent negatives with FP4 and HP5, all formats. They generally print well at about grade 2 ( diffusion enlarger ). Sharpness and tonality are excellent. I do proper proofs at grade 2, and include a Stouffer stepwedge on each proof sheet, to see things stay on track.

Going through this process has taught me a great deal and given me confidence in the materials I use. I find I am concentrating more on making pictures, rather than having doubts of the technical variety, at the moment and I am enjoying that.

Peter Schrager · Nov 24, 2016

Free citizen that is a nice post...yes Fred was always about results not the testing . .do tge rests and move on

Ronald Moravec · Nov 26, 2016

David Lyga said:
Thank you for letting me know that the world leader in photo-chemicals made that 'oxidation' error.

I think that carrots can be bought in a vacuum-sealed can. Can developers also be so packaged? - David

I inherited 2 cans of Dektol and one of Microdol X from a pro photog who ran a B&W wedding business in 1960`s. I reopened my darkroom at the behest of my son and being to lazy to mix Dektol, I tried one can. Powder was bright white as new and worked perfectly. The can has to be 50 years old and was starting to rust top and bottom.

The bags now sold have a 2 year life span.

Paper is screwed up also. Chems added to emulsion to speed aging so as to move from manufacturing to store fast. $ saved. Problem being it has no shelf life after I buy it.

mshchem · Nov 26, 2016

I have used XTOL for 20 years . Replenished , one shot: straight , 1:1, 1:2, 1:3. Never had a problem . Before that HC-110, never had a problem ,. Before that Microdol-X never had a problem . I keep my powders dry,cool and dark . My stock solutions in full tightly capped bottles . I've used XTOL stock stored in an absolutely full bottle a year old with perfect results .
16% of our atmosphere is Oxygen , if you've ever seen a bonfire up close you can see how highly reactive it is. I never keep any developer in a partially full bottle . I either decant it into a smaller bottle or throw it away . The glycol based developers are a miracle , I've seen people use the last 30 ml of HC-110 out of a pint bottle , not me but I've seen it done .
I've always thought diluted XTOL was magic . When XTOL and Tmax films came along I thought I had died and gone to heaven . Still do.
Use what works for you . Working up a consistent predictable process is the key and can be accomplished by many roads
Best Regards Mike

mshchem · Nov 26, 2016

freecitizen said:
I have been using replenished xtol for a couple of years now. When I went up to 4x5 and 5x7 I found that the volumes of developer I needed were so large ( tray or tank/inversion ) that I could not reasonably use a developer as one-shot. Inversion in my Jobo 4x5 tank needed about 1.3 litres each time.

So I went to replenished, and can simply pour as much developer as I need into the tank and replenish using stock xtol.

I make up 5 litres of Xtol and store it in multiple glass 200ml glass bottles ( discards from the chemist ) with airtight screw-on caps ( each one filled to the brim, no air ). That way my stock Xtol stays fresh without degradation from air contact. The replenished developer is kept in a huge swing-top Grolsch beer bottle which is always filled to the top. I pour whatever is needed into the tank and develop. While agitating, I add 75 mls fresh stock xtol per roll to the bottle and when development is complete I pour the developer from the dev tank back into the big bottle until it is full, then discard any leftover developer down the sink.

The replenished brew has become very stable. I decided to get serious and dialed in my personal film speed ( for Zone I ) and development time to get a proper print value for Zone VIII as per Fred Picker's method outlined in his Zone VI Workshop book. I am getting very consistent negatives with FP4 and HP5, all formats. They generally print well at about grade 2 ( diffusion enlarger ). Sharpness and tonality are excellent. I do proper proofs at grade 2, and include a Stouffer stepwedge on each proof sheet, to see things stay on track.

Going through this process has taught me a great deal and given me confidence in the materials I use. I find I am concentrating more on making pictures, rather than having doubts of the technical variety, at the moment and I am enjoying that.

I've done the same in past years with XTOL and HC-110 . I totally agree with your observations . A well seasoned replenished developer is totally reliable . Last few years I've fallen in to the spell of a Jobo machine and use Xtol 1:1 one shot. One of these days I will be yearning for the good old days and go back to replenisher and inversion.
Best Regards Mike.

Jerevan · Nov 27, 2016

David Lyga said:
No, I do not like the developer with a personality that can suddenly turn nasty: failure, dangerous to dilute, no visual indication that it is going bad, does not interact well with benzotriazole for fog reduction ...

But I have much part B and I was wondering if that can be used as a preservative when making B&W developers from scratch, using metol and HQ? It has sodium sulfite, sodium isoascorbate, and sodium metabisulfite (did I spell correctly?)

Excuse me while I take a bath in the much nicer Rodinal.

Comments?

There is nothing that never fails. Trying to use the part B: perhaps there are trace elements in there needed for its original functionality that would make it unpredictable in use for other things?

David Lyga · Nov 27, 2016

The truth of the matter is that I always 'test' stuff by pushing the boundaries very far. With developers, I dilute far more than I am 'supposed' to dilute. With almost every other developer you can get away with this. (Geoffrey Crawley actually formulated a high definition developer that uses only 0.5 gram of metol (FX 1) as the sole developing agent for a whole liter of developer, so my madness is maybe not so mad, even though people here are fearful of 'capacity requirements' warning for minimum amounts of developer per roll and might strongly state otherwise.) Below is the formula and to those who insist upon capacity requirements, please tell that to the former editor of the British Journal of Photography!

http://www.cjballphotography.org.uk/form1.htm

With XTOL I found that there really are limits that do not deviate too far from Kodak's directions. I did not like that and THAT is my reason for not extolling XTOL. Perhaps I am a spoiled brat. - David Lyga

David Lyga · Nov 27, 2016

Ronald Moravec said:
The bags now sold have a 2 year life span.

If, and ONLY if the bag has not been creased. This idiocy of packaging challenges my positive perception of Kodak. - David Lyga

John Wiegerink · Nov 27, 2016

David Lyga said:
If, and ONLY if the bag has not been creased. This idiocy of packaging challenges my positive perception of Kodak. - David Lyga

David,
I don't "push the boundaries" any more than I have to and find Xtol a very fine developer. I only use it replenished now and find it as good as anything out there. I do like other developers also, but Xtol is my main one at the moment. With pricing and other problems(bleed through on 120 backing paper) it's getting very hard to think positive about Kodak. So, you and I do agree on that fact at least.

David Lyga · Nov 27, 2016

Please do not get me started on this obscene 'bleed though'. The stature of a company as great as Kodak with not knowing about this is pure idiocy. I am so very thankful that I use 35mm (no paper backing). - David Lyga

John Wiegerink · Nov 27, 2016

David Lyga said:
Please do not get me started on this obscene 'bleed though'. The stature of a company as great as Kodak with not knowing about this is pure idiocy. I am so very thankful that I use 35mm (no paper backing). - David Lyga

Yes, a company like Kodak should have never fallen for this suppliers "new" ink or backing paper or both, without thorough testing. They would not have had this problem in the "old" days and shouldn't have had it now. I also don't buy any of the excuses that folks come up with as it pertains to the "bleed through" on 120 film. There is only one excuse I buy and that's cost cutting by some stupid bean counter. If Kodak disappears from the market people will say it's because we didn't buy enough of their film or other products. Yup, and who's fault will that be? I don't find it advantages to have a big old number 9 or Kodak written in the sky of a beautiful landscape or the forehead of a pretty lady. I'm not using any Kodak film until things get completely straighten out. I'm not even going to mention the higher cost of Kodak film. Whoops, I guess I just did. I just stocked up on Ilford and Fuji and they are working fine for me. Still, I would miss Xtol if it were to suddenly disappear, but I'm sure I can do fine without that too.

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 27, 2016

John Wiegerink said:
Yes, a company like Kodak should have never fallen for this suppliers "new" ink or backing paper or both, without thorough testing. They would not have had this problem in the "old" days and shouldn't have had it now. I also don't buy any of the excuses that folks come up with as it pertains to the "bleed through" on 120 film. There is only one excuse I buy and that's cost cutting by some stupid bean counter. If Kodak disappears from the market people will say it's because we didn't buy enough of their film or other products. Yup, and who's fault will that be? I don't find it advantages to have a big old number 9 or Kodak written in the sky of a beautiful landscape or the forehead of a pretty lady. I'm not using any Kodak film until things get completely straighten out. I'm not even going to mention the higher cost of Kodak film. Whoops, I guess I just did. I just stocked up on Ilford and Fuji and they are working fine for me. Still, I would miss Xtol if it were to suddenly disappear, but I'm sure I can do fine without that too.

For what it's worth, the Legacy Pro 'Eco' developer is a clone of Xtol, and I've used both side by side in a replenished system and there's no practical difference; they are equal.

I buy Kodak 35mm film, because I LOVE Tmax 400. I'm weary of the 120 film, though, and am sticking to Ilford HP5.

MartinP · Nov 27, 2016

Thomas Bertilsson said:
For what it's worth, the Legacy Pro 'Eco' developer is a clone of Xtol, and I've used both side by side in a replenished system and there's no practical difference; they are equal.

For us in Europe it may be easier to get hold of Foma Excel as an alternative supplier of Xtol-like developer. It is available in one litre and thirty(!!) litre packages and is replenishable, according to Foma.

John Wiegerink · Nov 27, 2016

Thomas Bertilsson said:
For what it's worth, the Legacy Pro 'Eco' developer is a clone of Xtol, and I've used both side by side in a replenished system and there's no practical difference; they are equal.

I buy Kodak 35mm film, because I LOVE Tmax 400. I'm weary of the 120 film, though, and am sticking to Ilford HP5.

Thomas,
I don't burn much 35mm film anymore and if I do it's usually PanF+ or maybe FP4+. I do shoot some bulk-loaded Ultrafine Xtreme 100, but that's usually to test out newly acquired or just repaired 35mm cameras. If I had to choose one best "all-around" film it would be TMY2, but I won't use it until the bugs have been exterminated. I did try some Legacy Pro "Eco" and it seemed everything that Xtol was/is, but I only tried it one-shot and not replenished. It's nice to know it worked replenished for you and will be my go-to if Xtol bites the dust.

Arvee · Nov 27, 2016

Interesting thread! My experience with Xtol never worked out; I went through 9-5L bags (from B&H) and never got any satisfaction. The first week or so it was fine; after that the developer gradually lost contrast/density until it petered out completely after 3-5 weeks.

I mixed the chemicals exactly as instructed in a plastic 7L bucket with minimal stirring (to minimize stirring in too much air) and stored the developer in seven brown 750 ml wine bottles and sucked out the excess air with a Vacu-Vin creating a vacuum in each of the bottles. Stored in the basement at 65 deg in the darkroom. All the bottles pretty much went bad together. I floated the problem on Apug thinking it was the distilled water that was destroying it. No joy. Tried several brands of distilled H2O to no avail. Finally gave up and went back to 76. Haven't had a problem in a couple of years.

Never did figure it out! I use the exact same system with my Dektol and the stuff lasts forever!

MattKing · Nov 27, 2016

Fred Aspen said:
Interesting thread! My experience with Xtol never worked out; I went through 9-5L bags (from B&H) and never got any satisfaction. The first week or so it was fine; after that the developer gradually lost contrast/density until it petered out completely after 3-5 weeks.

I mixed the chemicals exactly as instructed in a plastic 7L bucket with minimal stirring (to minimize stirring in too much air) and stored the developer in seven brown 750 ml wine bottles and sucked out the excess air with a Vacu-Vin creating a vacuum in each of the bottles. Stored in the basement at 65 deg in the darkroom. All the bottles pretty much went bad together. I floated the problem on Apug thinking it was the distilled water that was destroying it. No joy. Tried several brands of distilled H2O to no avail. Finally gave up and went back to 76. Haven't had a problem in a couple of years.

Never did figure it out! I use the exact same system with my Dektol and the stuff lasts forever!

Maybe it was your 7 litre bucket.

Arvee · Nov 27, 2016

MattKing said:
Maybe it was your 7 litre bucket.

Maybe 'what' with my 7 liter bucket? Any help would be appreciated. You think maybe it was leaching chemicals into the solution or outgassing and oxidizing the developer?

I do not like the extolled XTOL

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency