Perceptol 1:3 vs Xtol 1:3 for Tmax 100

Does anyone have any knowledge of these two combinations in terms of grain and apparent sharpness?

I'm specifically wondering if Xtol, being a newer product, might be better. I use Xtol a lot, so it would be convenient if it turned out that Xtol 1:3 delivered at least as well as Perceptol 1:3.

Xtol has the added benefit of greater capacity (only needs 100ml of stock per 80 sq in of film) and might permit a slightly higher EI. Of course, Perceptol has the benefit of having only a single developing agent, permitting higher temperatures to shorten developing times, but I don't anticipate doing that anyway.

As a point of reference, I'm trying to get the benefits (sharpness and highlight compensation) that Barry Thornton talks about in Edge of Darkness (page 90) with Xtol 1:3 instead of Perceptol 1:3. Does that sound plausible?

I'm curious for a comparison myself..

I've used both of these developers in the 1+3 dilution in the past, mainly with 35mm Fuji Acros and liked the results from either. It's been a while, so I don't remember the specifics other than I really liked the brightness capture range (printable) of the Xtol 1+3 for night shots. With enough exposure for the "shadows" the bright street lights, etc. remained within printable range (without resorting to drastic burning-in measures). If I recall correctly, the grain wasn't the finest I'd seen, but I wasn't expecting it to be - it was perfectly acceptable to me.

I stopped using Perceptol when it disappeared from my dealers shelf during the desperate days at Ilford a bunch of years ago. I switched to Xtol for my dilute developer, despite the 5 litre packages and didn't switch back when Perceptol finally reappeared with a VERY HEFTY price increase. I didn't like it that much better.

Xtol, when stored in full, brown glass bottles without an air space under the cap and sealed with Saran wrap under the cap keeps for a very long time. (two years in my experience - I ran out before it got older. I specifically tested and compared. I always mix Xtol with distilled water, both stock and working solution. Cheap insurance.)

I would expect TMX would exhibit similar characteristics.

Thanks for the replies and thanks for your detailed analysis, Michael.

I always have Xtol on hand and I have some Perceptol on the way, so I will give them both a try. The idea of shooting Tmax 100 at ei 50, doesn't appeal to me given my used of filters and my unsteady hand. I'm hoping that Xtol's increased grain will be swamped out by its other benefits. Tmax seems to be so fine grained that the edges don't seem as sharp as I get with slightly courser fine-grained film (like Pan F+). But then, I've never done a side-by-side comparison using a strip of identically exposed frames, so my opinion may be nothing more than gut feel.

What really impressed me about Tmax 100 is the exceptional look I was seeing in studio work I was doing with models. I was making 16x20s that were incredible. But, then when I went out and took a bunch of pictures of railroad cars, I was unhappy about the soft edges. I'm not even sure "soft" is the right word. The detail is excellent, but it doesn't have the apparent knife edge sharpness that I like with hard subject matter like machinery.

Maybe I'm trying to have my cake and eat it, too, but I think it's probably worth an experiment or two to see what the differences are between the two. I'm pretty impressed with Tmax 100, but I can also see how I might occasionally have problems with shadow dropout or blocked highlights especially since I'm not meticulous in metering my subject matter when shooting 35mm. For larger formats, I think I might be more inclined to stick with traditional films like Pan F, FP4, etc. Even with 35mm I occasionally pick films that give me an enhanced graininess. Sometimes "grain is good", as they say.

I have never tried Xtol 1:3, so I'm looking forward to giving that a try.

By the way, I found a couple links to old developing charts that show the 1:2 and 1:3 developing times, but if anyone has a PDF of the old Kodak Xtol data sheet (in English) that include the 1:2 and 1:3 times, I would love to get a copy of it.

I just bought 100 feet of Tmax, so I'll be sticking with that as my fine grain film of choice for a while. It was a tough choice to decide between Delta 100 and Tmax 100. The Tmax suddenly got much pricier ($66) compared to Delta ($48) and I really do like the look of Delta, but my main criteria was grain, so other factors took a back seat to that. If grain wasn't the main factor, I would almost certainly have picked a different film. And, of course, Tmax 100 won't be the only film I shoot, so it's not like I'm locked into it for everything I do. I have not shot much FP4. I should give it a try again.

Dave, 11 years later, did you ever compare XTOL 1+3 to Perceptol 1+3 with TMAX 100? If so, what were your findings? Thanks in advance.

Sal Santamaura said:

Dave, 11 years later, did you ever compare XTOL 1+3 to Perceptol 1+3 with TMAX 100? If so, what were your findings? Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

Hi, Sal.

I am sorry to say that I never pursued the comparison between the 1+3 dilutions of Xtol and and Perceptol. I can see from my records that I had purchased the Perceptol in May 2011 and mixed it up, but I don't have any record of developing any films in either developer at the 1+3 dilutions. I'm guessing I was sidetracked by a photo expedition to San Francisco that year which would have generated a mountain of darkroom work and then never got back to that project.

I’ll add a building block to partially answer this old question. For a short time I used XTOL at 1:3 dilutions with both small and MF FP-4 and Tri-X. Without reviewing 18 year old negs I sometimes had thin negs and mid tones sagged a bit. The sharpness and grain increased but in comparison to well processed Rodinal negs I’m not prepared to comment.

I likely abandoned the dilution as I prefer rich mid-tones and MF in any general purpose developer has plenty of sharpness at my print sizes.

Addressing thin negs.

1. Follow the Film Developing Cookbook recommendations by using a generous amount of stock solution. Too little stock in high dilutions is asking for underdeveloped negatives.

2. Kodak‘s original processing times for 1:3 and 1:2 are on the net If you look. I believe a German site selling paper/photo chems had a legacy English copy on line. I'm away from my archive or would their legacy bulletin. See links below for info.

3. Use distilled water to mix the developer. This advice is in an abundance of caution and eliminates a variable giving the user/experimenter ease of mind.

You may ask why Kodak removed their researched times for higher than 1:1 dilution. It was due to user inconstancy which ties into stock volume and water quality.