Lab Saga (XTOL, etc.)

[images39]

Here's my lab saga...

I'm reliant on labs to develop my film (black and white, mostly Delta 100 and Delta 400). I've had the best results with labs that use dip and dunk processing with XTOL developer. First it was Allied Photo in St. Louis (oh, how I miss that lab since they folded up!). I moved to another lab that also used dip and dink with XTOL. All was fine, until they switched to Ilfotec HC developer due to supply issues (around Covid time). The results have a different look; not sure how to describe the difference technically, but it's not as much to my liking as the negs developed in XTOL. When my negs were developed in XTOL, I liked the fine grain and the tonality that my negs had. I only print in the darkroom, no scanning/hybrid process involved.

My questions:

1) Are there any labs that still use dip and dunk with XTOL? I realize the answer is probably no, since it seems XTOL is either gone or hard to get.

2) There are some other labs that I'm considering; they use dip and dunk with either Ilford DD-X or Clayton F76. Can anyone comment on how these developers compare to XTOL?

Appreciate any feedback on this!

Thanks,
Dale

 

[Steven Lee]

Delta 400 user here. Compared to Xtol, DD-X delivers much uglier grain and a more linear curve with less highlight compression. Actually it's the worst developer I ever used, but my opinion doesn't mean much because I stopped after a single bottle. YMMV. Clayton F76 has been described as a "father of DD-X" by a Clayton rep here on Photrio, I remember googling an old thread where he said that DD-X is a clone of F76.

TBH you won't find a better developer than Xtol if grain/sharpness balance is a priority.

Another thought I had while reading your post is that the results cannot be explained by a developer alone. I happen to think that Ilfotec HC is a superb developer, and maybe the lab wasn't using it optimally with Delta 400.

And finally, and I know this will be said by other people here, consider developing your own film. I do not believe that labs in general have the incentives to develop B&W films properly. If they charge the same price per B&W roll as C-41, they must be cutting corners, like souping different films using the same development time. In other words, blame the lab not the chemistry they use.

 

[images39]

Delta 400 user here. Compared to Xtol, DD-X delivers much uglier grain and a more linear curve with less highlight compression. Actually it's the worst developer I ever used, but my opinion doesn't mean much because I stopped after a single bottle. YMMV. Clayton F76 has been described as a "father of DD-X" by a Clayton rep here on Photrio, I remember googling an old thread where he said that DD-X is a clone of F76.

TBH you won't find a better developer than Xtol if grain/sharpness balance is a priority.

Another thought I had while reading your post is that the results cannot be explained by a developer alone. I happen to think that Ilfotec HC is a superb developer, and maybe the lab wasn't using it optimally with Delta 400.

And finally, and I know this will be said by other people here, consider developing your own film. I do not believe that labs in general have the incentives to develop B&W films properly. If they charge the same price per B&W roll as C-41, they must be cutting corners, like souping different films using the same development time. In other words, blame the lab not the chemistry they use.

Thanks for sharing your experience. This is discouraging, particularly if there are no longer any labs using XTOL.

I used to develop my own film some years ago, but due to personal circumstances my time is constrained enough that I have to allocate it to printing, rather than developing film. And for years I had such good results with processing by Allied Photo, that I couldn't see how my own results would have been any better. When Allied closed, I started using Photolab in Berkeley CA. Continued to get great results until they switched to Ilfotec HC. I agree that it might be how they are using Ilfotec, rather than a blanket condemnation of that developer.

I've also had some quality issues with Photolab's processing that aren't related to developer, but that's a separate issue.

Dale

 

[Steven Lee]

@images39 Oh! Small world! Berkeley photolab is my local lab. They use Ilfotec DD, not HC. This explains the results you're getting, because DD is the replenished version of DD-X. And by the way, they used Xtol prior to switching to DD, and their Xtol results were a bit worse than mine. They routinely under-developed Delta 400 in Xtol for me.

 

[images39]

@images39 Oh! Small world! Berkeley photolab is my local lab. They use Ilfotec DD, not HC. This explains the results you're getting, because DD is the replenished version of DD-X. And by the way, they used Xtol prior to switching to DD, and their Xtol results were a bit worse than mine. They routinely under-developed Delta 400 in Xtol for me.

Steven,

Interesting... when Photolab initially changed developers, I'm pretty sure they told me that they were going to Ilfotec HC, but that was two or three years ago so it could be that my recollection is off, or they made another change. And yes indeed, they used XTOL previously, which worked well for me.

I sure miss XTOL. As you mentioned, the grain/sharpness was great; it certainly delivered the results I was after. Now I have no idea what lab to use...

Dale

 

[retina_restoration]

Xtol isn't "gone" - you can buy it right now from Freestyle or B&H. Probably others.

 

[images39]

Xtol isn't "gone" - you can buy it right now from Freestyle or B&H. Probably others.

I see... but I can't find a lab that still uses XTOL. If anyone knows of a lab that uses it, please let me know!

Dale

 

[Disconnekt]

Northeast Photographic (located in Maine) says on their site that they "maintain a replenished XTol lime" (here: https://www.northeastphotographic.com/our-services). Prices arent that bad either.

 

[Disconnekt]

Color Resource Center (out in New York) also say they use Xtol. Here's their site: https://www.colorresourcecenter.com/shop

 

[images39]

Northeast Photographic (located in Maine) says on their site that they "maintain a replenished XTol lime" (here: https://www.northeastphotographic.com/our-services). Prices arent that bad either.

Thank you for that information, I'll definitely check them out.

Dale

 

[MattKing]

Best to check directly with any lab that references using X-Tol, given that it may not still be available.
There are attempts by competitors to supply similar replacements, but I don't know whether the commercial labs are likely to take up those - particularly in North America.

 

[images39]

Best to check directly with any lab that references using X-Tol, given that it may not still be available.
There are attempts by competitors to supply similar replacements, but I don't know whether the commercial labs are likely to take up those - particularly in North America.

Thanks for the heads up about this. I'll check with Northeast and CRC to confirm whether they are still using XTOL. Both sound like good prospects.

Dale

 

[runswithsizzers]

As recently as 2020, Adrian Bacon / Simple Photography Services in Petaluma California was using Xtol. I don't see any mention of it on his <website> so you would want to verify if he is still using it.

 

[Steven Lee]

@runswithsizzers Simple Photo Lab uses Ilfotec DD.

 

[npl]

Just saying that it can be pretty quick to developed 3 or even more rolls at once. Big Patterson tank, Xtol stock (7.5min for delta 400), stop bath (0.5min), rapid fixer (3min), ilford wash (3min ?), final wash with washing agent (1min), done.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm an optimist. XTOL as we knew it, will return. I certainly hope so...

 

[John Wiegerink]

It's sad to see things like this happen, but as long as there are alternatives it helps ease the pain. I've used two batches of Xtol-R over a long period and when the last batch went south I tried to get more and couldn't. I then tried The Adox version and liked it. I had to cut my times just a hair, but it works just as good and seems to last so far. Maybe more labs will be doing the same thing? It really is hard to beat Xtol for an all-around developer.

 

[npl]

Problem with OP's problem is that a lab may use XTOL right now, but may switch to something else very soon when their stocks are gone. Xtol was sold in 50L package (according to the datasheet anyway) but I'm not aware of theses volume for Adox XT-3. Fomadon Excel is supposed to be available in 30L packages but it is ?
Point is, a lab running a big volume of Xtol may chose to not go with one of the replacement and switch to a different developer entirely within this year or the next.

 

[Steven Lee]

What I find interesting is that US-based labs are not switching to LegacyPro Ascorbic Acid developer. It is supposed to be an Xtol clone. It is made in the US. Whoever is behind it, they are missing out on a large (by today's standards) opportunity for B&W chemistry: selling to labs!

That's a mystery to me. Either the LegacyPro version is not capable to perpetually replenish itself like Xtol can, or the team behind it is just not competent in terms of GTM.