• 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

My First Impression of Xtol

Mainecoonmaniac

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
6,295
Format
Multi Format
I shot and souped a roll of Arista EDU 400 in Xtol. I've never used the developer before, but my first impression is amazement of the shadow detail of the negs I get. I haven't printed any of the negs, but only scanned them and posted it on Flickr.

Here's the link:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mainecoonmaniac/5210587072/

I'm using the developer stock and replenished. Thanks APUGers for turning me on the Xtol! I'll still use HC-110 and PMK Pyro as part of my arsenal of film developers.
 
Yes indeed. What did you rate your film? I am planning some tests in the coming weeks. I usually use HC-110 and rate at 200-250. wondering if i can get more with Xtol.
 
With Xtol..

with Xtol, I rated Arista EDU Ultra film at ASA 400. This is just a test roll. I souped the film for 7 minutes in stock solution. Constant agitation for the first minute and 10 seconds for every minute there after. I figured that the best way to test the film is under bright sun with deep shadows. I still think the ultimate test of the negs is actually printing them in the darkroom. I hope I could get good results with grade 2 with MG paper.
 
Now that is what I'm talking about! I use box speed on all black & white films with XTOL.

Steve
 
HC-110 is not the best

Ian Grant said:
That was my experience as well, HC110 is not the best of developers IME and that's borne out by Kodak's own reference chart when it comes to grain, speed & sharpness.

Ian
Click to expand...

Hi Ian,
HC-110 is not the best, but I've been using it for over 25 years and I'm familiar with it. I took a hiatus from photography for a while and never heard of Xtol until I heard about it through APUG. If Xtol looks just as good as HC-110, I'll ditch HC-110 completely. So far, I'm very impressed. Again, my final test is printing my Xtol souped negs in the darkroom.
 

I don't think you'll be disappointed

Ian
 
I have found the grain comparable with or slightly better than DDX. In fact once I use up my Perceptol I may not even bother with that again. At a fraction of the cost of either DDX or Perceptol, I have now switched and can't see me going back. I have yet to test it with high speed film such as Neopan 1600 and D3200 but have every reason to believe it will be fine up to 1600 with either.

pentaxuser
 
Tom Stanworth said:
Xtol will give you a good bit more speed than HC110, yes. I'd say about 1/2 to 2/3 stops.
Click to expand...

No magic involved here; read Mason "Photographic Processing Chemistry." Xtol is a low pH, high sulfite, phenidone (Dimezone-S) based developer. The low pH requires a longer time to reach a usable gamma of 0.6 to 0.8. This longer contact with the developer produces a speed closer to the maximum speed for the film. Raise the pH of Xtol above 10 and the speed increase is lost. A speed increase of 1/3 to 2/3 stop is what one would expect from this type of developer.

Where Xtol is different from other speed increasing developers such as Microphen or Microfine is that ascorbic acid has less propensity toward infectious development than hydroquinone. Even at the sulfite level of Xtol this allows it to produce finer detail.
 
Xtol is fabulous, that sums up my experience with this developer. I used it 1:1 for apx100 in 120 format rated 125. Developed with minimal agitation in a steel tank, but longer than recommended, to get more contrasty negatives. One was enlarged 17x (30x40) to grade 1 Emaks RC paper and the grain was definitely visible, but extremely fine and smooth. The amount of detail was impressive.
 
It's interesting that we seem to have such a diverse range of results from XTOL where as I don't hear such from D-76 users. There are some folks here (whom I consider experts....) who has to use timing so far off published figures to get acceptable results. To me, XTOL seems "touchy" in terms of temperature, agitation, and timing where as D-76 is very forgiving.
 
The reason that timing is off from the published results could be that not everyone develop negatives for the same output.
Some will develop for Scanning, others for Silver Gelatin, others for Silver Chloride and then some for other alternative processes. All require some tweaking in processing for a negative to work perfectly well.
 
How does the Xtol keep in the 5L packets?

I bought 2 awhile back because I love shadow detail but would appreciate box speed.

I'm still working through 7-8 one gallon packets of D76 and fear it may be awhile before I can crack the Xtol because I need to use the D76 first because it's much older.
 

The variation is from the fact the XTOL can be used three ways:

  1. Stock solution
  2. Stock solution replenished with stock solution
  3. Diluted and used as a one-shot developer
I use #2 which gave even better results that #1. I have never used #3.

Steve
 
I've been told..


Hi Steve,

I've been told as the developer gets seasoned through replenishment, you have to shoot your film at a slower speed due to byproducts from development. I'm wondering option 2 might have better results, but you have to compensate with a lower ASA?

Don
 

Don,

I just shoot the box speed. Some claim that XTOL raises the film speed. I have had such great results with 35mm, 120 and 4x5 all at box speed, that I have not even considered thinking about scheduling a meeting to discuss researching setting up a study group to investigate looking at the feasibility of scheduling a meeting to discuss discussing changing the film speed.

Steve
 

Make "The photographer's need for speed" a new thread
 
Mainecoonmaniac said:
Make "The photographer's need for speed" a new thread
Click to expand...

I agree. I never considered the effect on speed a reason important enough. I just responded to a direct question.

Steve
 
I've never noticed a speed loss with replenished Xtol, it might show up testing with a densitometer but in practice it's small and anyway that's compared to FS or dilute Xtol and not developers like D76 etc where it's an slight increase.

Ian
 
T-Max 400 loses about 2/3 stops with undiluted Xtol.
With 1:1 dillution you'll get full 400 ASA.
 
I use Xtol 1:1 in the Winter months. Why? Because the developer is in my cold basement and I can add warm water to bring it immediately up to temp. In the Summer I'm more likely to use it stock. I can't tell the difference personally.
 
Well I have run a few unscientific tests the past few days on a few different films (tri-X, Across and Delta 3200) I typically rate them @ 1/2 ISO with HC-110, d-76 and depending if i was outside mostly I would develop for 10% less of mfg recommended times. I ran a roll of each the other night with some inside still life and rated half of each rolls at 1/2 and then full ISO, and I have to say I definitely got a speed increase from what I was used to. In almost every case the 1/2 iso was over exposed(at least the way i meter) I would say that perhaps when I shoot outside with bright weather I will most likely rate tri-x @320, acros @80 and pull the development 10-15% to keep the shadows in check. But in summation with the 1:1 dilution I am clearly seeing a speed bump and I could not be happier at the moment.
 
Every time I read a thread about Xtol it makes me want to try this developer out. What I don't understand though is how it makes the films "true" ISO box speed. I use Rodinal for most of my slow and medium speed films and HC-110 for Tri-X. As I understand it, if one wants more shadow detail, then open up a stop and cut the development back a bit. The old "expose for the shadows develop for the highlights" rule of thumb. So by reading this if I were to shoot at box speed 36 identical shots of a scene with shadow area and cut the film in half and develop one half in Rodinal and the other half in Xtol, I'd get better shadow detail with Xtol? How is that possible? Like many photographers, I tend to rate my film at half the box speed to ensure enough shadow detail. I'm using a incident meter by the way. So how will giving the film less exposure still pull out more shadow detail based on the type of developer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register