Ilford Delta 100 in Xtol 1+1.

[Cybertrash]

I've been unable to find any Ilford-published developing times for Delta 100 in Xtol 1+1. The official film processing chart only lists Delta 100 in Xtol stock, and looking at the Massive development chart the times for Xtol stock is not concurrent with the times published by Ilford. This makes me a little sceptical of their data. Does anyone have experience with this film + developer combination? Is it unsuitable and therefore not published by Ilford (Simon?), or is it because they haven't done extensive testing with their competitors developer? Any advice is appreciated.

Edit: I just noticed that the times published by Kodak in their J-109 PDF for Xtol aren't the same as those published by Ilford either. Who should I believe?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

You're probably going to see this quite a bit: The only way to know is to take a guess by what's offered here and by going with the charts and estimating what looks about right. It'll help if you have an exposure chart and access to a densitometer. This will help with determining exposure index too.

 

[pentaxuser]

You are right in your observations but the difference between the Ilford and Kodak stock times is only 30 secs so either time will give you OK negs,. Try the shorter time and if the negs look as if slightly more time is required then use the longer time for the next film.

If you use Xtol at 1+1 then you can only rely on the Kodak times which will be fine and once again if you feel the negs needed longer development then I'd add at least a minute or maybe two next time.

As others have said it depends on the way you process and the way you want your negs to look

pentaxuser

 

[andrew.roos]

Iris Davis / Chris Johnson recommend 10 minutes @ 20C/68F for normal development with an EI of 80. See http://www.chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/charts.shtml#Xtol.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

See Kodak's Pub J-109 for all things Xtol.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf
As with every manufacturer they qualify their data as "recommended starting....."/ YMMV. They show recommended starting times for Delta 100 and 400.
I use Delta 100 with Xtol 1:2 in a Jobo rotary system and the time I finally settled on turned out to be :15 seconds different than their recommendation. I used a lot of film and developer and time to learn a lesson: Kodak and Ilford know more about their products than I do.

 

[Dr Croubie]

I've also just mixed up a batch of Xtol and was looking for this exact time last weekend. Gave up looking and just used Rodinal. Whatever you use, let us know the times and how it turns out.

 

[markbarendt]

Both of my grand mothers amazed me with their cooking; it was always great, but the recipes were never exact, they were always adapting to what had been available in the grocery and the number of people at the table and ... and that adaptation included the time. Some, a pinch, a taste more or a little less, it's thicker it needs a bit more time; the vocabulary reflected the "art of the task" rather than the hum of "a production line" and absolute exactness.

One of the lessons learned was that there is some slop in art and in analog activities.

Film can be treated as an industrial process, and works very well as such, but it's not required.

If one thinks about the variables just a bit to get a feel for how diluting say XTol affects other films then a good guess will generally plenty close enough, at least in my experience.

(Please note that I'm not suggesting one should be sloppy in their work, I'm just suggesting that there is generally a fair amount of tolerance available and it's fun to "lighten-up" and take a scientific wild ass guess now and again.)

 

[lucaguerri]

This is the official Kodak Professional XTOL Developer technical datasheet pdf, see page 6...

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf

 

[Tom Kershaw]

(Please note that I'm not suggesting one should be sloppy in their work, I'm just suggesting that there is generally a fair amount of tolerance available and it's fun to "lighten-up" and take a scientific wild ass guess now and again.)

I like to have my film processing under some reasonable control; it means one has less to worry about and can concentrate on printing considerations etc.

Tom

 

[markbarendt]

I like to have my film processing under some reasonable control; it means one has less to worry about and can concentrate on printing considerations etc.

Tom

Nothing wrong with that.

All I'm suggesting is that when stretching one's boundaries/learning a new tool educated guesses are all we really have; even if they are printed in the manufacturer's pamphlet.

We each need to refine from where we start.

 

[pdeeh]

Quite.

To suggest exercising one's judgment is not to suggest some sort of hapless free-for-all.

I've started to use D23 for almost everything now. There are very few published times from reliable sources for D23 and modern films ... so I've had to take a punt and start somewhere with each of the films I use and hope that I at least get usable negatives for my first roll. So far I have, but I am also refining my times as I go.