Liking XTOL

Joel_L · Jan 31, 2014

Hi,

I just finished putting a new focusing screen in an old X-700 I have and decided to go try it out. I also recently switched from using HC-110 for everything ( Mostly FP4+ and Delta 400 ) and switched to XTOL. So far I'm really liking the XTOL. I have not played with adjusting the time to optimize development and have just been using the Kodak times for rotary tube and 1:1. It seems to me the published time is working well. I've attached a couple of pictures ( FP4+ ) from today and would like to hear any thoughts on if I could benefit from tweaking the time. Please excuse the dust in my scans.

Joel

JW PHOTO · Jan 31, 2014

Joel, For that scene I'd say your darn close to hitting the nail on the head. If not dead on. Your shadow look fine and you retained nice texture in the snow also. I assume it was an overcast day? John

Joel_L · Jan 31, 2014

It was an overcast day, not too bright out. I have been pleased with the XTOL/FP4+ combination.

Thanks

Joel

JW PHOTO said:
Joel, For that scene I'd say your darn close to hitting the nail on the head. If not dead on. Your shadow look fine and you retained nice texture in the snow also. I assume it was an overcast day? John

Mainecoonmaniac · Jan 31, 2014

HC-110 is a very different than XTOL. I use both. XTOL has better shadow detail with box speeds. I use both replenished.

Terry Christian · Feb 1, 2014

XTOL is indeed a fantastic, if smelly (in my opinion anyway) developer. Looks like you're doing great with it! I've used it replenished as Mainecoonmaniac has and it's a winner.

Gerald C Koch · Feb 1, 2014

Remember to test it before developing a important roll of film.

Neil Souch · Feb 1, 2014

I have used XTOL since it was launched and love it. Your images look fine to me and I would leave it like that for a while and see how you get on. Make changes later with times and dilutions only if you feel they are needed.

Neil.

Bruce Osgood · Feb 1, 2014

I've settled on Xtol as my developer for Delta 100. I think it is a sharper (greater accuance), not contrastier, developer than I found with D-76 and others.

Neal · Feb 2, 2014

Dear Joel,

I've never had a problem using the times from the Xtol data sheet. I've used Xtol almost exclusively for 10-12 years now without a hiccup.

Neal Wydra

Joel_L · Feb 3, 2014

Hi,

Thanks for all the feedback. I will be using XTOL as is for a while. I just did a 120 roll of FP4+, still happy with the results. I think I'll just stick with 1:1 for now and published times adjusted for temperature.

Joel

Hal Reiser · Feb 3, 2014

I switched to TMY-2 120 and Xtol replenished four years ago. A little testing based on the published times got me to where I wanted to be and now in many instances cannot tell it apart from all the Verichrome Pan I shot developed the same way. It's great stuff.

Sirius Glass · Feb 3, 2014

Replenished XTOL has been my developer of choice for many years.

L Gebhardt · Feb 3, 2014

The XTOL datasheets seem to be more thorough than any others, and the times seem to be very good for all the combinations I have tested. I don't usually find I need to vary much from the published times. And I love that they give times for multiple temperatures in many combinations. The fact that I can look up a good starting point for most films in replenished developer using rotary tubes and sheet film at 75F is great. Besides the great results this sort of trustworthy documentation is invaluable. Like the idea of the massive development chart, but with times that actaully work (yes, I've had mixed results with the massive development chart).

Mainecoonmaniac · Feb 4, 2014

One thing I noticed with XTOL is I have to process it at least 20% more than Dev Chart. I print with a diffusion enlarger. Even then, I have to print with a grade 3 filter.

Liking XTOL

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency