• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Kodak Xtol - questions & thoughts vs ID11

Sim2

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
492
Location
Wiltshire UK
Format
Medium Format
Hi there,

Yep, this is going to be another of those "what do you think threads?" that will no doubt include the "why not try it for yourself and see" response, however i will still plough ahead.

I currently shot primarily FP4 dev'd in stock ID11 oneshot and have had some success with HP5 and Adox CHS with the same dev. I intend to keep with the same film choices but am considering switching to using Xtol (or at least giving it a fair crack over the winter).

I have read some about this dev and it *seems* to be finer grained, with shadow detail at box speed than D76 or ID11 (don't know how true this is). I am thinking of using Xtol as a reusable stock solution, with replenishment of around 75/100ml per film rather than as a one-shot dev.

I have read that that as a stock solution, it *beds down* after processing a couple of rolls - is this true? What is the change between fresh and *bedded down*? I have seen times of 5 mins for ID11 at 20C - this seems short and worries me slightly, I like longer times as minor variations have less of an effect over a longer time than a short time, thoughts on times with Xtol?

Can Xtol die really quickly with no warning, even a stock solution?

Open ended bit here - any thoughts on using Xtol with FP4, HP5 or Adox CHS? Good bits, bad bits - bring it on..........

Thanks for your time,
Sim2.
 
Sim2,

I've now migrated to XTOL, having tried most devs over the last 20 years. I think it's as good as DD-X, but much cheaper. At £5.49 for 5L, it ain't expensive. It pushes films really well; I regularly push HP5 to 1600 with minimal grain (albeit with increased contrast). Personally I use it at 1:1 as a one shot dev. I can't see why you'd want to replenish unless you're in a commercial lab with tanks.
I hope that helps.

Best wishes,

Charlie
www.charlie-chan.co.uk
 
Sim2 said:
Can Xtol die really quickly with no warning, even a stock solution?
Click to expand...

Old news. The problem was taken care of years ago. It is not a problem.

Steve
 
Xtol is a nice one, but as it has been said many times before, you need to work with your film/developer combo to get good results, here is the link to how to use it from Kodak:http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf

just the facts, no hearsay, if you follow their directions to the letter and mix entire gallon bag at a time, you will not have a problem with sudden death of the stock solution.
 
Sirius Glass said:
Old news. The problem was taken care of years ago. It is not a problem.

Steve
Click to expand...

Thanks for this, was one of the "nuggets" of info I read whilst trawling the archives here. That, I think can be one of the issues with web based info - once posted it is there as truth, even if an "issue" has been improved on. Thanks.
 
topoxforddoc said:
Sim2,

Personally I use it at 1:1 as a one shot dev. I can't see why you'd want to replenish unless you're in a commercial lab with tanks.

www.charlie-chan.co.uk
Click to expand...

Using it diluted at 1:1 or as one-shot stock was my first thoughts, as this replicates what I do currently with ID11, though when I read about replenishment usage I was quite taken with the idea of a "magic never-ending" pot of working dev!

I was thinking about 1 litre (which is the most I use in one session) as my stock and replenishing from the other 4 litres (from a 5L pack).

It is cheap enough to go one-shot but just musing about possibilities.
 
Xtol is very, very reliable, it's also great for replenishing.
 
Xtol has always been my go-to developer and any time I'm not sure about a film, or under or overrate I use Xtol because for me it's quite predictable. I shoot primarily FP4+ in LF and MF and Arist Premium 400 for 35mm. I have used Xtol for all and I have never had a badly developed roll (related to the dev itself) with any film. Very versatile. I mix it 1:1 into 5 1L bottles and get probably 8-10 rolls of 135 film, 12 4x5 sheets, equivalent 120, etc. During that period I do not replenish or change anything, don't extend time either. It is very possible that I don't have a good enough eye to tell if there's any diff in the negs, but I haven't seen anything change wit this routine. I simply do not recall what Ilford says about how many rolls per liter. I might be throwing it out at 50%, I'll have to read it again. Last thing, it lasts for literally 6 months at 1:1 in a tightly closed full bottle. I know because I've done it, several times.

So all that was a mouthful of ancedotal evidence, but I'll vote for Xtol any day with any film I have ever used - which ain't many.

Good Luck!
 
I *think*, the sudden death problem has been resolved. My personal experience is in full bottle with no air, the working solution lasted anywhere between 8 to 11 months. At 8 months, it was OK. At 11 months, it was very inconsistent so I threw it out. After the 6 months period where Kodak says it'll last, I was doing cilp test before using the solution just to be sure.

To me, XTOL has been finicky. It seem to be hyper active where even with very careful control of agitation and temperature, it would develop extreme contrast. At -15% development time, it seems to work ok for me most of the time. I've started using D-76 and I've been happier.

I've been communicating with a lot of people here on APUG about XTOL. It seems some people swear by it and some just can't get it to do what they want. I've been told, it should work just as well as any other developers, but my personal experience tells me otherwise. I had very senior/experienced person here tell me, he gets very thin negs for no apparent reasons. (sorry, this is a hear-say)

You'll just have to try it and see if you like it. It may work well for you, or not.
 
I think Xtol will bring advanced results in comparison to D-76 / ID-11 in terms of grain. If you use it at stock solution, it should work with the finest grain. The more you dilute Xtol, the more the sharpness will be increased at the expense of higher grain. Thats the same with D-76 and many other similar developers: You never get all pros at once.

Best,
Andreas
 
Both developing agents in Xtol are not as sensitive to bromide buildup as those in ID-11/D-72. Therefore Xtol is a better choice for replenishment.then ID-11/D-72. I do not enjoy darkroom work and learned years ago that I could shorten the amount of time so spent by printing negatives that were developed consistantly. Thie requires the use of a one shot developer. Negatives produced by a replenished developer vary in density and contrast as the developer is replenished and thus require more metering and/or test strips etc. Consistancy saves time.

Fresh developer is more active than partially used developer. Typically the edge was taken off a fresh batch of developer by developing some scrap film in it. Is this what you mean by "bedded down"? For I have never heard this expression before the usual expression is "seasoned". Again the intent was to produce consistant results.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
instructions say you gotta mix the entire 5L package, also use development times LONGER than 5 minutes - 2 things that seem to be mandatory for rock solid, reliable results. don't know if i'd experiment there...
 

Sorry, my bad - yes "seasoned" is what I meant and should have used, sorry for any ambiguity. "Bedded down" was the phrase that popped into my head at the time (think that comes from new engines, moving parts or new wood that alters once it is started to be used for the first time - probably an inaccurate explanation there !!

Thanks to an earlier postee for the link to the PDF, had a peruse, interesting and good info. Times there are different to what I had seen elsewhere and are more workable for me - 8 mins @ 20C for FP4 is a comfortable time.

Thanks for all the thoughts and experiences (more welcomed!) - I can see some trials and testing on the horizon - can always go back to the ID11 if Xtol turns out to "finicky" for me and my processing.

Sim2.
 
I've been really happy with XTOL and Fuji Acros, Ilford HP5+, and Fuji Neopan 1600. I dilute 1:2 and rate the first 2 at box speed. Neopan I use rate EI 1000 - 1600, depending on the subject. Shadow detail is very good at 1000, not bad at 1600.
 

I pretty much agree with this posting. I currently use XTOL 1:1 with 35mm film -- mostly Tri-X @ EI400 -- and am quite pleased with its overall performance. It's easy to mix (follow the directions on the packaging), and easy to use -- I find it's consistent in performance. I can always adjust agitation and developing time to suit contrast changes.

Good luck.
 
I use Xtol 1:1 for TMAX400 and TriX. It is an excellent developer. It is inexpensive so unless you are processing acres of film, I would use it 1:1 as a one shot developer.

I find that Xtol needs more time than other developers I have used, especially if "pushing" it. Start with the development times that Kodak suggests. For 120 film, I just do what Kodak says and my results are pretty good. With 4x5 and 8x10 film I did BTZS testing to get my own data.
 
One more bit of inormation check the website www.covingtoninnovations.com/Xtol for lots of info on this developer, dilutions & times, etc. While your there also check out the sister HC110 site.
 
I use XTOL exclusively for B&W films, after screwing around with D76, Rodinal, FX-1, and a bunch of other weird developers. Basically it works a lot like D76 but pushes better, gives better shadow detail, gives finer grain, and mixes more readily. I usually run it at 1:1, although for pushes I'll frequently do 1:3 or 1:2.

The bomb-out business seems to have been a failure of the 1L packets (which have been discontinued for ages). I've heard some folks suggest that the ascorbic acid can sometimes get degraded by poor water, and we sure have lots of crap in the water around here, so I habitually use distilled, which is pretty cheap. Never had a problem with it, with or without distilled water.
 
i'm sure that you probably have all the info you need but i would say that xtol is at least comparable to d-76 id-11 if not more reliable. i have only used as one shot so can't comment on replenished developing but i can say that i live in nth qld in australia and it is very hot up here. rarely gets below 26 degrees and regularly gets over 35 degrees in the summer, not to mention the humidity in the tropics. xtol has lasted well over 6 months stored as stock solution and the the fine grain results after storage are better than d-76. it may not be the best developer for any one film but if you are using it as a one-film-solves-all then it is a very solid choice. tri-x, delta, efke, apx100 have all worked well for me.

dane.
 

Put all of your chemicals and in the refrigerator of an hour or an hour and a half before processing the film ... it will be below 75º.

Steve
 
Sirius Glass said:
Put all of your chemicals and in the refrigerator of an hour or an hour and a half before processing the film ... it will be below 75º.

Steve
Click to expand...

A water bath with ice in it will cool chemicals much faster than placing them in a refrigerator.

I wouldn't put chemicals in a refrigerator that contains food.
 

Kodak was rather vague as to the exact problem. At one time the packaging machine was said to be not sealing the 1l bags correctly and air oxidation was the problem. Another reason stated was the difficulting in the automatic measurement of small quantities of some chamicals for the 1l size.

"Sudden death" was probably caused by the Fenton reaction which is catalysed by iron or copper ions. The contamination can come from tap water but was more likely caused by impurities in one or more of the chamicals that Kodak used. Photograde chemicals may not be very pure compared to other grades as the standard only says that they must be free of photograhically active impurities. Until the widespread use of ascorbic acid small amounts of iron or copper were not considered to be important. The problem was fixed by the addition of an appropriate chelating agent to ascorbate formulas.
 
Robert Budding said:
I've been really happy with XTOL and Fuji Acros, Ilford HP5+, and Fuji Neopan 1600. I dilute 1:2 and rate the first 2 at box speed. Neopan I use rate EI 1000 - 1600, depending on the subject. Shadow detail is very good at 1000, not bad at 1600.
Click to expand...

Robert, is that 1 part xtol plus 1 part water, or 2 parts water?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register