I do not like the extolled XTOL

[Grif]

Opinions about developers are a lot like religion - immune to appeal to reason or to fact. I tried a number of developers before I settled on Xtol. Yes, I could be happy with several other options, but I'd prefer to standardize and to really learn the characteristics of a single developer. So why did I choose Xtol? Doesn't matter because I'm not trying to sell anyone.

Agree 100% Same with model airplane motors at the local flying field. MagicBrand is the only good one,,, BrandX is junk because "xxx". Kind of like my feelings about Chevy's. If they build a good one I'd not have to push my FORD all the time. ;-)

There's something called conformation bias that really affects how we come to believe things that are "True". Even knowing about it, studying it, and trying to plan around it,,, it's there and really affects our decisions and beliefs. (cold fusion).

So, here we go. An this is an opinion, based way before Xtol came out. If you pick a product, do your homework, be consistent and rigorous about your use,,, it's going to end up working just fine (like it was designed). If you're that person, only then can you make a valid choice between Microdol X and Perceptol. Oh,,, no.... Xtol and D76,,, I knew that, it's not 1970 any more.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Xtol is an amazing developer. Some people think that the film turns out a little 'soulless' for whatever reason, which I never agreed with. They probably didn't develop the film long enough.
It gives some of the best shadow detail of any developer I've tried (including Diafine). It gives extremely sharp negatives while also giving very fine grain. It is, as far as I'm concerned, the best compromise you can buy as a developer, because it does all those things exceptionally well, and it does nothing wrong, while being exceptionally affordable.

My own processing was with diluted stock at 1+1, 1+2, and 1+3, but mostly replenished stock solution, which yields roughly the same activity as 1+1 from stock, but being replenished it ended up giving slightly less shadow density, sharper negatives, with finer grain. The resulting tonality was one that I preferred to diluted stock, with 'heavier' blacks and more nuanced highlights.
I used it almost exclusively for 5 years, going through dozens of 5 liter packs. I also used the Eco Pro developer from Freestyle intermittently, replenished with it and I saw zero difference in the results.

The developer was, to my eyes, especially good with Kodak's TMax films, along with Ilford Fp4+ (which is stunningly similar to TMax 400 in sharpness and tonality), and Fuji Acros. But it was also really good with the rest of them.

The developer was very robust, I mixed with tap water and didn't experience any problems with activity. The same replenished batch was kept alive for 5 years without having to start from scratch. Never an undeveloped roll or any other issue. I switched from it, because I wanted more grain in my prints.

 

[Grif]

Oh,,, I did a quick search,,, all kinds of mylar foil beverage bags food safe made to reduce oxygen infiltration.

 

[Grif]

Oh,,, I did a quick search,,, all kinds of mylar foil beverage bags food safe made to reduce oxygen infiltration.

 

[rpavich]

Oh,,, I did a quick search,,, all kinds of mylar foil beverage bags food safe made to reduce oxygen infiltration.

I just bought a pack of 10 (500ML each) for 11.00 and free shipping from Ebay

 

[ic-racer]

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?

Have you tried T-max concentrate. Stores like Rodinal (a long time) and is easy to dilute just before mixing. Less grain and more speed than Rodinal. Actually very similar to being a liquid concentrate version of xtol. I have been using T-max concentrate since 1984 for everything.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Oh,,, I did a quick search,,, all kinds of mylar foil beverage bags food safe made to reduce oxygen infiltration.

What size and do they have spouts with caps? If it's for 500ml or even 750ml that's pretty small. I like the 5L wine bags, but they aren't made of mylar anymore. At least not in my area anyway.

 

[David Lyga]

Have you tried T-max concentrate. Stores like Rodinal (a long time) and is easy to dilute just before mixing. Less grain and more speed than Rodinal. Actually very similar to being a liquid concentrate version of xtol. I have been using T-max concentrate since 1984 for everything.

No not yet, but maybe this is worth an attempt. However, I do love Rodinal, as it is always ready and never disappoints. - David Lyga

 

[rpavich]

What size and do they have spouts with caps? If it's for 500ml or even 750ml that's pretty small. I like the 5L wine bags, but they aren't made of mylar anymore. At least not in my area anyway.

They do have spouts and caps.

I didn't mind the 500ml as I assumed that anything that went wrong with one, wouldn't affect the others...sort of like compartmentalizing problems. I thought I'd use a 500ml bag and replenish it from other bags as long as it would work and if it died...I'd just go to another bag.

 

[removed account4]

a little 'soulless'

i wouldn't say souless i'd say FLAT and without any contrast ... but to each their own.
==

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

i wouldn't say souless i'd say FLAT and without any contrast ... but to each their own.
==

I know how you feel about Xtol. To me, as with most other developers, it helps to develop longer, and Xtol responds well to agitation changes too, which will help raise the highlights.

 

[Arctic amateur]

Have you tried T-max concentrate. Stores like Rodinal (a long time) and is easy to dilute just before mixing. Less grain and more speed than Rodinal. Actually very similar to being a liquid concentrate version of xtol. I have been using T-max concentrate since 1984 for everything.

It's rather more expensive to use one-shot than is XTOL, but working-strength T-Max developer keeps reasonably well and can be used several times.

 

[dasBlute]

it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

 

[John Wiegerink]

They do have spouts and caps.

I didn't mind the 500ml as I assumed that anything that went wrong with one, wouldn't affect the others...sort of like compartmentalizing problems. I thought I'd use a 500ml bag and replenish it from other bags as long as it would work and if it died...I'd just go to another bag.

I was thinking of using a 500ml bag or two for my "topping off" replenisher. I have my main lot of Xtol in a Boston brown gallon glass jug. I develop my film, then add 80ml replenisher to the gallon after which I had my used developer to top off the gallon jug.

 

[removed account4]

Have you tried T-max concentrate. Stores like Rodinal (a long time) and is easy to dilute just before mixing. Less grain and more speed than Rodinal. Actually very similar to being a liquid concentrate version of xtol. I have been using T-max concentrate since 1984 for everything.

i hope if you use it with sheets or you replenish you use the RS version, ifyou don't, you will have troubles ...
and if you do, just use farmer's reducer, to get rid of the green metalic fog... it works like a charm.

it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

maybe, but i have never had any trouble building contrast on my film with any other developer ...
and i have used a handful of developers for film since 1980-1981

its like using a cheap screwdriver whose blade bends every time you use it. other people the blade doesn't bend ... and other screw drivers are fine, its just tha one. ...

 

[LAG]

Opinions about developers are a lot like religion - immune to appeal to reason or to fact. I tried a number of developers before I settled on Xtol. Yes, I could be happy with several other options, but I'd prefer to standardize and to really learn the characteristics of a single developer. So why did I choose Xtol? Doesn't matter because I'm not trying to sell anyone.

Agree 100% Same with model airplane motors at the local flying field. MagicBrand is the only good one,,, BrandX is junk because "xxx". Kind of like my feelings about Chevy's. If they build a good one I'd not have to push my FORD all the time. ;-)

There's something called conformation bias that really affects how we come to believe things that are "True". Even knowing about it, studying it, and trying to plan around it,,, it's there and really affects our decisions and beliefs. (cold fusion).

So, here we go. An this is an opinion, based way before Xtol came out. If you pick a product, do your homework, be consistent and rigorous about your use,,, it's going to end up working just fine (like it was designed). If you're that person, only then can you make a valid choice between Microdol X and Perceptol. Oh,,, no.... Xtol and D76,,, I knew that, it's not 1970 any more.

Excuse me

"Like it or not" is valid as an opinion, and perhaps not as much as argument of some importance, but clearly far from being a doctrine for anybody.

It is not about processing 1,000,000 films, or doing them all with the same developer, trying to be the best with it, as a starting or an end point. That operating method could appear to be right, but there is no conflict between having a standard, and use many other options to extend the outcomes (learning) at the same time, without closing ears or blinding eyes (to others developers/opinions). It's more fulfilling and enriching. Not to say that different developers work in different directions with sensitive materials.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Excuse me

"Like it or not" is valid as an opinion, and perhaps not as much as argument of some importance, but clearly far from being a doctrine for anybody.

Yes, but it means something when the opinion is tied to RTFM and following the instructions rather than wily-nily making up new processes.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

maybe, but i have never had any trouble building contrast on my film with any other developer ...
and i have used a handful of developers for film since 1980-1981

its like using a cheap screwdriver whose blade bends every time you use it. other people the blade doesn't bend ... and other screw drivers are fine, its just tha one. ...

John, I don't know what kind of trouble you had with Xtol, but are you sure it was as bad as you say? The reason I sometimes hesitate to recommend Xtol is because of your experiences with it. That tells you how much I value your opinion, I hope.

 

[removed account4]

yeah thomas, for me it didn't work.
no matter what i did, as i described previously in this thread ...
even massively over exposing and over processed the film ( fresh ) not over agitating
but more time in the developer, like instead of 8 mins ( or whatever it was ) i would develop for 15,
still it was flat. years later, i over developed and over processed film ( expired )
this time it was sheets of tmy400, instead of rolls of 35mm, in caffenol c, also a low contrast vit c developer ..
( no other developer splashed in as i typically do ) and my film was BULLETPROOF i mean
so extremely dense -- using a strong flashlight you could barely see the image on the film, you know a 15 second expose on rc paper with
a 300 watt light-dense ....
i just figured it was a love affair that wasn't meant to happen. i am happy other people are happy
with xtol ... i wanted to be happy with it, really, ... i tried using it off on and off and on for years
maybe if i added some ansco130 in it i wouldn't have had the problems i encountered.

GO TEAM !

 

[Dismayed]

Then why post at all? You can tell us why it works for you without suggesting that it will work that way for everybody. I, for one, am curious to know.

My point was that I'm not here to push Xtol, and that there are no magic bullets. Just choose a developer and learn to use it.

There is plenty of info on Xtol available.

http://lavidaleica.com/content/choosing-bw-film-developer

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

yeah thomas, for me it didn't work.
no matter what i did, as i described previously in this thread ...
even massively over exposing and over processed the film ( fresh ) not over agitating
but more time in the developer, like instead of 8 mins ( or whatever it was ) i would develop for 15,
still it was flat. years later, i over developed and over processed film ( expired )
this time it was sheets of tmy400, instead of rolls of 35mm, in caffenol c, also a low contrast vit c developer ..
( no other developer splashed in as i typically do ) and my film was BULLETPROOF i mean
so extremely dense -- using a strong flashlight you could barely see the image on the film, you know a 15 second expose on rc paper with
a 300 watt light-dense ....
i just figured it was a love affair that wasn't meant to happen. i am happy other people are happy
with xtol ... i wanted to be happy with it, really, ... i tried using it off on and off and on for years
maybe if i added some ansco130 in it i wouldn't have had the problems i encountered.

GO TEAM !

Well, if it's any consolation I have found that for my own purposes I never massively overexposed with Xtol. Replenished soup and EI 250 with TMY-2 in high contrast lighting, and maybe EI 320-400 in normal to low contrast, sometimes EI 800 in very low contrast. I always got negatives that I was super happy with. Very strange.

 

[dpurdy]

It is interesting the different experiences of people with nearly every technical thing in photography. It seems like unexplainable different realities for different people. The idea that Xtol gives flat results is twilight zone to me.
Dennis

 

[LAG]

Yes, but it means something when the opinion is tied to RTFM and following the instructions rather than wily-nily making up new processes.

If tied, no news there! Anyway, far from being of an importance in both cases, and nothing to say Amen

 

[Wallendo]

It is interesting the different experiences of people with nearly every technical thing in photography. It seems like unexplainable different realities for different people. The idea that Xtol gives flat results is twilight zone to me.
Dennis

I think it's because, despite all the technical aspects, we each have our own ideas of what an image is supposed to look like. Otherwise, we could all just shoot Tri-X in D-76 and have nothing else to talk about.

 

[markbarendt]

Well, if it's any consolation I have found that for my own purposes I never massively overexposed with Xtol. Replenished soup and EI 250 with TMY-2 in high contrast lighting, and maybe EI 320-400 in normal to low contrast, sometimes EI 800 in very low contrast. I always got negatives that I was super happy with. Very strange.

Like your experience Thomas, Xtol has treated me well.

The only disappointments I had, were self inflicted.

 

[removed account4]

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 ...

david i agree with you for some of this, although you can supposedly do a clip test in room light to see if
the developer works put a piece of film in some of the developer in room light and see if it turns black. black is good,
not black is not good. they stopped suggesting people use extreme dilutions back in the 90s ..
kodak realized that beyond a certain dilution the developer didn't work as well ... i have no idea
what dilutions you are refering to, people tend to have good results straight/1:1, 1:2, 1:3 ..
they don't seem too dangerous .. and are commonly used.
ive never used benzo... i have some, but it has sat on a shelf for 15 years..
some developers seem to like fog more than others, that's just their thing, my guess is if you don't like fog
or are developing old foggy film you might use
something like hc110, or an active developer like dektol or ansco130 dilute for film strength
1:dilution for dilution minutes. foggy i would probably do strong diltions and short developing times
but that is just me, and like everything it is all subjective, so test to see what works for you

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?)

no clue and it seems everyone who has posted has zoned into this as a " i'm a xtol fan, you must be a developer hacker from earth II thread "
/ first part of your question, not the 2nd. i don't know what is in part a or part b ... personally i wouldn't re-use either
i'd take them to wherever you recycle your spent chemicals and use rodinal ( ive never used that either,
and i am guessing if someone posted similar ideas of yours about rodinal being a terrible developer
you would get morten **, the rodinal god to come back to apug and tell you how wrong you are,
along with other people suggesting you are nuts ... or they might ask which of the 3 or 4 versions
of rodinal RO9 you were using because they aren't all the same .. i've never used it so i
have no opinion at all about its strengths or weaknesses, you can interchange rodinal with
PC-TEA. and "pyro" and the same thing would happen but be advised badmouthing pyro or rodinal
might start another war ... )
or i would find another photographer who might enjoy using xtol ( as you can see from most
of the responses in this thread, there are lots ! )
and give it to them as a gift, they will be happy to use it , and it seems you would be happy to get rid of it .

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

sounds like a plan .. if it was me i'd be sticking to dektol .

** (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)