I'm back! XTOL dilution for Tri-x + TF5!?

I've been out of the dark room for a year and a half (apug too). Getting ready to work through an enormous backlog of film. Just mixed up some XTOL and am starting with my Tri-x.

Just writing to get an opinion of dilution. I came from APX 400 with Rodinal 1:25, and have never really got exactly what I wanted out of this TX/XTOL combo. I've been using XTOL 1:2 to reduce solvency, but I would like more contrast than that gives me.

I've been thinking of going to 1:1, or even 1:0 (single shot), and am wondering if the shorter development times will make up a bit for the stronger sulfite concentration? My goal is LESS solvency, but more contrast is my first priority.

-dang, I love Tri-x, but I can never quite get what I want. I get lovely tonality with either Rodinal or 777, but have to choose between too much grain, or too little sharpness. XTOL is ok, but kinda ho-hum. APX 400 + Rodinal was just... oh well, no dwelling on the past. I'm half way tempted to soup it all in Diafine, but it's mostly exposed at EI200, and I think that would end up fat and flat.

Also, I thought I grabbed some TF-4, and realized it's TF-5 now. What is this new stuff, what, no lung burning stink? Can it be trusted?

For more contrast, why not increase development time?

I could do that, but my thinking is that I don't want any more of a low/mid bump that would accompany that, and I'd like significantly more contrast. I'd like to see a bit steeper curve, esp up towards the shoulder; I like a punchy neg.

These days the only dilution Kodak recommends is l:1. Tri X @ ISO 220 in Xtol l:l for l0.5 minutes should give you a very "punch" neg. Try it, you'll like it.

Morry Katz - Lethbridge, Canada

That sounds like a nice starting place Morry. About what I was thinking.

MMfoto said:

I could do that, but my thinking is that I don't want any more of a low/mid bump that would accompany that, and I'd like significantly more contrast. I'd like to see a bit steeper curve, esp up towards the shoulder; I like a punchy neg.

Click to expand...

Regarding using longer development times to get a steeper curve, this is simply an exposure placement issue isn't it?

Why not do a bit of testing and adjust your metering to place the subjects where you like them on the steeper curve?

I've pretty much standardised on Xtol 1:1, it gives me very printable negs from both TX & TXP

You will like the results better if you use undiluted XTOL replenished and slightly longer development times.

Steve

Sirius Glass said:

You will like the results better if you use undiluted XTOL replenished and slightly longer development times.

Steve

Click to expand...

Yep, that too.

markbarendt said:

Regarding using longer development times to get a steeper curve, this is simply an exposure placement issue isn't it?

Why not do a bit of testing and adjust your metering to place the subjects where you like them on the steeper curve?

Click to expand...

Yes, but I've got about a hundred rolls that are already exposed to deal with first. I'm working backwards on this one.

MMfoto said:

Yes, but I've got about a hundred rolls that are already exposed to deal with first. I'm working backwards on this one.

Click to expand...

With plus 1 development I normally only lose a tiny bit of shadow detail, try one roll at +1 and I'll bet you are fine.

If not develop normally and use a harder contrast in the enlarger.

If you've exposed the film at EI 200, and you give +1 development, you'll have negatives that are fat and quite punchy I think. You won't be loosing the bottom end for sure, but you might drive the high end up to where it's unprintable. Depends on the subject of course. The middle should be fine, with a bit more contrast than what's considered normal.

Sirius Glass said:

You will like the results better if you use undiluted XTOL replenished and slightly longer development times.

Steve

Click to expand...

Shoot at box speed and you will have the shadow detail without losing the highlights.

Steve

Steve: I've come back to Xtol replenished - used it for years - after a two-year experiment with divided developer. TriX at 400 using Kodak's time gives me negs that print grade 3.5 and higher and little shadow detail. Some may be metering problems, but I'm not getting the shadow detail I was with D23 divided. I'm sure there's a secret I've forgotten about Xtol replenished. Can you help?

H. James Wolf said:

Steve: I've come back to Xtol replenished - used it for years - after a two-year experiment with divided developer. TriX at 400 using Kodak's time gives me negs that print grade 3.5 and higher and little shadow detail. Some may be metering problems, but I'm not getting the shadow detail I was with D23 divided. I'm sure there's a secret I've forgotten about Xtol replenished. Can you help?

Click to expand...

Start here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/chemistry/filmBWmain.jhtml and down load J-109.pdf

Mark a plastic paint bucket for 0.5 gallon, 1.0 gallon, 4.0 liters, and 5.0 liters.
Fill to 4.0 liters with warm water and s-l-o-w-l-y mix in the A packet with a stirring rod or even a wooden paint mixer.
Only after the A packet is completely mixed, s-l-o-w-l-y mix in the B packet.
When the B packet is completely mixed in pour off 1 quart or 1 liter bottle as your working solution. Pour the rest into a collapsible gallon or 4 liter container as your replenish solution.
To process, pour the amount of XTOL that you need for development into a beaker.
Measure 70ml of the replenish solution into the 1 quart or 1 liter bottle for each roll of 135-36 roll or 120 roll or 80 square inches of film.
Use the XTOL in the beaker to process the film.
After processing the film, pour the used developer back into the 1 quart or 1 liter bottle and dump the excess.

For development times, see above and http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/producttype.asp?n=3&t=Consumer+&+Professional+Films

Steve