I do not like the extolled XTOL

warden · Feb 28, 2017

Thomas Bertilsson said:
All this talk about Xtol makes me want to use up my current developer inventory and work with it again. Replenished it was an astonishing developer. Particularly with TMax / Acros / Delta films (except D3200 which wasn't ideal). Stunning with Fp4 too.

Hi Thomas, I've found the same; Xtol has worked perfectly for me since 2008, but I don't like how it looks with D3200 (for that I like Ilfotec DDX). I've used Xtol more than any other developer, but honestly of the five or so developers I've tried they've all been great, reliable and easy to use. I just follow the directions and have been happy every time.

Sirius Glass · Feb 28, 2017

APUGuser19 said:
...
If Xtol has a mythical reputation to go impotent as plain water, then so does Microdol 1:3 have an equally undeserved reputation to lower film speed.
Why fool with Xtol? What's so good about it? Can it do one single thing Microdol 1:3 can't do? I don't write this with a confrontational attitude; I really don't know.

XTOL is a great all around developer which is very forgiving. XTOL slightly raises the film speed. All you need to know to answer your question in shown below, but replenished XTOL is even better.

MattKing · Feb 28, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
XTOL is a great all around developer which is very forgiving. XTOL slightly raises the film speed. All you need to know to answer your question in shown below, but replenished XTOL is even better.

View attachment 174121

Sirius:
As that graphic is no longer easily accessible, you should consider starting an APUG "Article" thread with it included.

Craig · Feb 28, 2017

Based on that chart, I don't know why anyone would choose HC-110 over D-76.

Sirius Glass · Feb 28, 2017

How is it not accessible? I have it on my hard drive for each on computer and they are backed up. We all know that digital files last forever, right?

Craig · Feb 28, 2017

Which publication does it come from? I was looking for it last night and couldn't find it.

mshchem · Feb 28, 2017

Richard Man said:
Too many words, not enough photos

FP4+, Xtol 1+3. Hasselblad 203FE with 80/2.8

Fabulous wonderful

MattKing · Feb 28, 2017

It used to be hosted on the Eastman Kodak website as a standalone link. It was fairly hard to find, as it didn't show up on the most obvious index pages.
When Kodak Alaris took over total (not just maintenance) responsibility for the technical documentation for Kodak photographic still film and Kodak photo chemistry, all the links to the data on Eastman Kodak's website were disabled.
Unfortunately, while Kodak Alaris replaced those links with a significant number of new links, they didn't replace all the links.
Documentation respecting all the current Kodak still film and photo chemistry products can be found on the Kodak Alaris site, as can some of the most useful Kodak general reference documentation, but almost all the historical references are not linked to. And that chart is one that is no longer available through the normal channels.

Craig · Feb 28, 2017

Do you know what pub number it was? Google can turn up a surprising number of documents that are dead links on the Alaris site.

bvy · Feb 28, 2017

Craig said:
Based on that chart, I don't know why anyone would choose HC-110 over D-76.

Or why they would choose it at all, for that matter.

MattKing · Feb 28, 2017

Craig said:
Do you know what pub number it was? Google can turn up a surprising number of documents that are dead links on the Alaris site.

It doesn't have a number.
Here is the old link: http://wwwtr.kodak.com/global/en/pr...wFilmProcessing/selecting.jhtml?pq-path=14053

MattKing · Feb 28, 2017

Craig said:
Based on that chart, I don't know why anyone would choose HC-110 over D-76.

I'm not sure that anyone chooses any of the developers listed solely on the factors listed in that chart.
If you are most concerned about grain, HC-110 dil B on that chart is better than all but X-Tol.
And of course, HC-110 is the only developer of the bunch that keeps as well as HC-110.

Richard Man · Feb 28, 2017

Never used HC-110, but isn't its magic power mostly on different dilution? So it may be important to find out what dilution was used in that publication.

I have mainly used Xtol, Harvey 777 and split Pyrocat. All are excellent. Harvey 777 definitely does some magic with the highlight....

MattKing · Feb 28, 2017

Richard Man said:
Never used HC-110, but isn't its magic power mostly on different dilution? So it may be important to find out what dilution was used in that publication.

The chart states dilution B.
And for clarity, to the best of my knowledge, the chart isn't part of another publication.

miha · Mar 1, 2017

I find the chart to be misleading, as we don't know how long the line segments (the discrete part) are. If the line is one mile long, for instance, one inch of a difference means nothing, whereas most folks here interpret the chart in absolute terms.

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 1, 2017

miha said:
I find the chart to be misleading, as we don't know how long the line segments (the discrete part) are. If the line is one mile long, for instance, one inch of a difference means nothing, whereas most folks here interpret the chart in absolute terms.

Yes, nothing about how developers actually end up producing negatives with differing tonality. HC110 negs do not look the same as Xtol negs; you get high intensity highlights, with some understated midtones, while Xtol yields more midtown separation and less intense highlights. Theshadow detail comes into play of course, so film should be exposed differently based on what developer is used.

removed account4 · Mar 1, 2017

if i had known back then ( 14 years ago ) what i know now, i would do what les mclean does which is mix
another developer ( he uses rodinal FWIR ) in with it, and since i dont' use rodinal
it would probably end up being dektol. seeing mixed dektol and caffenolc work well, maybe dektol and xtol will work well too.. and i'd be using it now.

RattyMouse · Mar 1, 2017

bvy said:
Or why they would choose it at all, for that matter.

Hilarious. HC-110 is a very popular developer. Easy to prepare exactly how much developer you need so that you are using fresh chemicals every time you need them. I've tried D-76 many times and don't see one bit of difference between that and HC-110 with my negatives. Since I prefer to use fresh developer every time, I always now choose HC-110.

bvy · Mar 1, 2017

RattyMouse said:
Hilarious. HC-110 is a very popular developer. Easy to prepare exactly how much developer you need so that you are using fresh chemicals every time you need them. I've tried D-76 many times and don't see one bit of difference between that and HC-110 with my negatives. Since I prefer to use fresh developer every time, I always now choose HC-110.

You're preaching to the choir. I love HC-110. My point was that the chart makes it look like an underperformer.

RattyMouse · Mar 1, 2017

bvy said:
You're preaching to the choir. I love HC-110. My point was that the chart makes it look like an underperformer.

Well that chart doesnt exactly exude rigorous science!

1kgcoffee · Mar 4, 2017

I didn't like it at first either, found jnainians assesment about flat images to be true. Well, that was in replenished stock solution with fuji acros. I can say after trying it diluted on kodak tri-x it passed expectation. 1:1 xtol on tri-x 400:

Canada Geese by Aaron, on Flickr

I switched from digital to make photos like this.

I do not like the extolled XTOL

warden

Sirius Glass

MattKing

Moderator

Craig

Sirius Glass

Craig

mshchem

MattKing

Moderator

Craig

bvy

MattKing

Moderator

MattKing

Moderator

Richard Man

MattKing

Moderator

miha

Thomas Bertilsson

removed account4

RattyMouse

bvy

RattyMouse

1kgcoffee

I do not like the extolled XTOL

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency