Ilfosol 3 is... Xtol...?

[grat]

I realize that title seems like a troll. But bear with me.

So I know ID-11 is supposed to be equivalent to D-76, but I was curious about how Ilford's lineup compares with Kodak.

Ilford has a very helpful PDF on their site, called "Ilford to Kodak Equivalents", and it lists various current (and past) Kodak chemicals, and their Ilford equivalent (as well as film).

DD-X, for instance (which is what I was looking up) is supposed to be equivalent to T-Max developer. That seems reasonable to me.

But next to "Kodak Xtol" (powder), is "Ilfosol 3" (LC, which I assume is "liquid concentrate").

Now, I like Ilfosol 3-- I used it for my first B&W developing (actually, I think it's all I've used so far), and I've been pleased with the results, even if it is a bit overenthusiastic with highlights (use Foma/Arista 400 at box speed with Ilfosol 3 if you value your highlight detail). I have yet to use Xtol, although I have some of the "good" packaged version on my shelf waiting to be mixed.

But are the two really comparable?

 

[MattKing]

I've never thought that the use of "equivalent" was appropriate.
"Reasonable substitute" seems okay.

 

[foc]

The Ilford - Kodak equivalent chart does say that Ilfosol 3 is non ascorbate based, so how then can it really be an Xtol equivalent?
I think the chart may be more of a suggestion/estimate rather than a direct comparison.
As a marketing ploy, the chart is better to steer someone towards one of Ilford's developers rather than away.
I have used Ilfosol 3 for many years and have found it to be a very good developer. Clean working and it will last a long time if correctly stored. I have some 2 years and counting.
It may still, unfairly, have the stigma of its predecessor Ilfosol S.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It may be that whoever assembled the chart tried to do so in a chronological fashion - thus Ilfosol 3 being the newest Ilford film developer would be directly comparable to the newest Kodak film developer etc. DD-X/ DD is closer to Xtol in aim/ design I think - both use borates from what I recall about DD/ DD-X. Ilfosol 3 seems to be Dimezone-S/ HQ, but with sodium carbonate buffering. DD-X is pH 8.5 at working strength, Ilfosol 3, 10.1-10.2.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think the chart may be more of a suggestion/estimate rather than a direct comparison.
As a marketing ploy, the chart is better to steer someone towards one of Ilford's developers rather than away.
.

I think these lines above may just contain the germ of the nub of the reason for Ilford's statement

pentaxuser

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Ilfosol 3 seems to be Dimezone-S/ HQ, but with sodium carbonate buffering. DD-X is pH 8.5 at working strength, Ilfosol 3, 10.1-10.2.

It is interesting that ILFORD / Harman have never produced an XTOL equivalent, although with the new Adox product, and the EcoPro version available in NA perhaps there wouldn't be sufficient market for a 4th product. I have been using the DS-10 formula recently which works well.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I always thought that DD-X was Ilford's equivalent to Xtol.

 

[Alan Johnson]

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-c.../Ilfosol-3-Film-Developer-EN-F17-44-10255.pdf
The msds gives the concentration of hydroquinone as less than 1% [10g/L]. So the 1+9 dilution would have HQ < 1g/L. That appears low but it could be like FX-37 working solution:
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~simgrant/jackspcs/fx37.htm
Or it could still have ascorbate in it, which would give shorter developing times than FX-37 1+5.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I always thought that DD-X was Ilford's equivalent to Xtol.

I think some of the confusion likely also comes from Ilford not having really launched any developer product geared to an idea of optimised performance with their flat crystal/ epitaxial growth films at the time of their introduction - and that they launched a product (DD/ DD-X) that sort of aimed at the Tmax/ Tmax RS differentiation but which seems closer in composition and era of launch to Xtol (apart from the ascorbate). Ilfosol 3 was much more recent. I'd also question the closeness of DK-50 and Microphen...

 

[Lachlan Young]

Although really, plain old ID-11 is what I would call the closest equivalent since XTOL is just a very slight incremental improvement over D-76. Very, very close.

I'm slightly surprised that no one seems to have done an MQ back substitution on the Xtol patent formula to see what it does - especially in terms of autoreplenishment.

 

[bluechromis]

I always thought that DD-X was Ilford's equivalent to Xtol.

I think it makes sense to compare DD-X with Xtol. I have heard people quote Ilftord employees as saying they felt that Xtol was the second best developer for Delta 3200 after DD-X. They are both phenidone developers so good for film speed and pushing.The trick may be that Kodak characterizes Xtol as high in film speed, sharpness and fine grain. Few developers can match that combo. While DD-X may compare with Xtol with film speed and ability to push, it may not be as sharp. Ilfosol 3 may better match the sharpness of Xtol, but not the film speed or fine grain. So it may be matter of picking which attribute of Xtol to which they want to align since they cannot align with all of them.