I do not like the extolled XTOL

[Peter Schrager]

Yup..delta 100 and xtol seem to have a great creamy look/feel to them

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

I just souped a years-old and poorly stored roll of 120 400TX and while that format doesn't have the classic salt and pepper grainy look of Tri-X 35mm it does still have the dramatic curve in XTol

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I just souped a years-old and poorly stored roll of 120 400TX and while that format doesn't have the classic salt and pepper grainy look of Tri-X 35mm it does still have the dramatic curve in XTol

I'm glad it worked out for you.

I'm curious: What do you mean by dramatic curve? I've always found that Xtol has a forgiving quality where it's almost impossible to block up highlights, for example, which makes it the opposite of dramatic. But we may be looking at things differently, so I'm curious to know what you mean by that.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

dramatic curve

Because the rounded shoulder compresses the upper range the middle is steeper, which leads to those middle tones being better separated, and that makes that dramatic look when blocked in by the longer toe.

I suppose it mostly matters what printing style you pursue. I keep the bright end and let the shadows drop down a little, and tend to shoot in less than tailored light. I aim for a less severe old Hollywood style from the noir era, which may explain a lot.

 

[cliveh]

Why use XTOL (some sort of alien developer with a vitamin C attitude) when you can use a trusted, universal, always works, no questions asked, perfect results every time, like D76 at 1:1?

 

[removed account4]

Why use XTOL (some sort of alien developer with a vitamin C attitude) when you can use a trusted, universal, always works, no questions asked, perfect results every time, like D76 at 1:1?

people love using xtol, it replenishes well, it is better for the environment, gives more pleasing results and the only reason i used it was when you mix part A and B together it changes color,
kind of like when you pour a pre-wash water bath ( AH layer ) into developer or visa versa, it magically disappears.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why use XTOL (some sort of alien developer with a vitamin C attitude) when you can use a trusted, universal, always works, no questions asked, perfect results every time, like D76 at 1:1?

people love using xtol, it replenishes well, it is better for the environment, gives more pleasing results and the only reason i used it was when you mix part A and B together it changes color,
kind of like when you pour a pre-wash water bath ( AH layer ) into developer or visa versa, it magically disappears.

And XTOL is simply better. You will just have to get over it.

 

[removed account4]

And XTOL is simply better. You will just have to get over it.

whatever ...

you can believe whatever you want.
"better" is a subjective term
plenty of people thnk tmax developer is better ( john sexton )
others think sprint develoepr is better ( sally mann )
others thnk d76 is better ( can't list them all )

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Because the rounded shoulder compresses the upper range the middle is steeper, which leads to those middle tones being better separated, and that makes that dramatic look when blocked in by the longer toe.

I suppose it mostly matters what printing style you pursue. I keep the bright end and let the shadows drop down a little, and tend to shoot in less than tailored light. I aim for a less severe old Hollywood style from the noir era, which may explain a lot.

I have not seen Xtol do this unless agitation is slowed down to every 3m or every 5m, where you get more of an S-curve with compressed highlights and lifted toe (due to the longer developing time), and steeper mid-tones, as you point out.
I always thought of Xtol affecting the film curve very little unless you changed agitation, but loved it for that because of how flexible it is.
Anyway, I'm glad you have something that works for you.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

whatever ...

you can believe whatever you want.
"better" is a subjective term
plenty of people thnk tmax developer is better ( john sexton )
others think sprint develoepr is better ( sally mann )
others thnk d76 is better ( can't list them all )

No. Xtol is best.

 

[mshchem]

Let's argue about hardener in print fixer for a while .
Mike

 

[removed account4]

No. Xtol is best.

LOL

exactly !!

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Xtol was the first developer that actually has an improvement percentage in the patent FWIW. Kodak said 10% improvement.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Why use XTOL (some sort of alien developer with a vitamin C attitude) when you can use a trusted, universal, always works, no questions asked, perfect results every time, like D76 at 1:1?

I think a simple search on here would disprove perfect results every time, but then again the same could probably be said for XTOL !!

 

[JohnArs]

NB: With XTOL, everyone NEEDS to do a clip test; not so with most developers.

Never did one never had a problem not even with the 1liter packages!

Just my experience!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Why use XTOL (some sort of alien developer with a vitamin C attitude) when you can use a trusted, universal, always works, no questions asked, perfect results every time, like D76 at 1:1?

1. Because it can be successfully replenished without using fancy replenishing solutions, just stock Xtol. Replenished it works really wonderfully and yields wonderful results (much better than D76 if you ask me, I can even quantify it if you want me to).
2. It has very low environmental impact.
3. It's more economical when using it replenished. Out of a 5 liter kit I can process 70 rolls of film.
4. Xtol was trusted by a LOT of commercial labs for many many years, just because it replenishes so well, is incredibly stable, you can't really over-replenish it, and the results in large tanks with dip & dunk machines are very good.
5. It gives really great film speed.

You can do most of the things with D76, of course. It's a great developer. But it doesn't compare to Xtol in terms of practicality, being replenishable with ease, and having incredible economy along with environmental impact.

 

[RattyMouse]

There doesnt seem to be much reason to use XTOL if you dont have a replenishment fetish.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There doesnt seem to be much reason to use XTOL if you dont have a replenishment fetish.

It's really great diluted as well. Excellent for push processing. And you still retain the benefits of sharpness, shadow detail, fine grain, and low environmental impact.
In my opinion it's the best all-round developer I've ever used.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There doesnt seem to be much reason to use XTOL if you dont have a replenishment fetish.

It works well without replenishment and certainly does not require fetishes. It works even better replenished as do other developers.

 

[bvy]

There doesnt seem to be much reason to use XTOL if you dont have a replenishment fetish.

1+1 one shot with constant agitation. XTOL works well with constant agitation.

 

[JohnArs]

It's really great diluted as well. Excellent for push processing. And you still retain the benefits of sharpness, shadow detail, fine grain, and low environmental impact.
In my opinion it's the best all-round developer I've ever used.

1+ Amen!

 

[baachitraka]

It's really great diluted as well. Excellent for push processing. And you still retain the benefits of sharpness, shadow detail, fine grain, and low environmental impact.
In my opinion it's the best all-round developer I've ever used.

Indeed. Again I repeat what you have said, it does not require an another special mix to use as replenisher.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

There doesnt seem to be much reason to use XTOL if you dont have a replenishment fetish.

There are a number of reasons to use XTOL one-shot. Primary for me is its capacity.

Most 'standard' developers (D-76, ID-11, D-23, Perceptol, etc.) require at least 250ml stock solution per 80 square inches of film if one wishes to reliably avoid exhausting them regardless of scene content. XTOL can do the same with 100ml of stock solution.

High ambient air and tap water temperatures most of the year here make developing at 75 degrees F optimum. In a Jobo 3004 drum, used on a CPP-2 processor rotating it at 45 rpm, I dilute XTOL 1+1.5. That is, 400ml stock solution plus 600ml water. This respects both the developer's capacity limit and the processor's one liter rotation motor limit while developing four 8x10 sheets simultaneously. My time for 320TXP, established through densitometric testing, is exactly seven minutes, long enough to ensure perfectly even results.

Bonus features of XTOL compared to the 'standards' include finer grain, greater sharpness and increased exposure index. While resulting in a contrast index of 0.53, my above 320TXP regime provides a 0.1 over film base + fog speed of 500. I shoot it at EI 250, thereby raising all zones above the film's toe, although diluted XTOL also straightens out most films' curves compared to straight stock solution (it or other developers).

I don't know whether you think considering these factors amounts to a 'fetish.' I also don't care.

 

[cliveh]

There are a number of reasons to use XTOL one-shot. Primary for me is its capacity.

Most 'standard' developers (D-76, ID-11, D-23, Perceptol, etc.) require at least 250ml stock solution per 80 square inches of film if one wishes to reliably avoid exhausting them regardless of scene content. XTOL can do the same with 100ml of stock solution.

So it is about cost?

 

[Sirius Glass]

If cost is a consideration then replenished XTOL is much more economical than one shot XTOL.