Processed TMZ3200 in D-76+XTOL 1+1 and look what happened...

[clayne]

Nothing happened. Everything turned out fine. Can't really tell the difference.

This was a screw around roll, as I don't normally use telephotos, not to mention shoot at EI3200 in the daytime - so I decided to combine D-76 and XTOL and see if it worked. Grain is a given, it's TMZ.










Canon EOS 1V + EF 135mm f/2L, Kodak TMAX 3200
125 ml Kodak D-76 + 125 ml Kodak XTOL + 250 ml tap water.
18.5min @ 20C, 30sec initial, 3/30sec.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Why did you do this?

 

[clayne]

Why did you do this?

To see if I could.

In all seriousness it was just out of curiosity if there would be any interesting interactions. It's been done with XTOL and Rodinal before, but these are different (although probably much more similar when it comes down to it).

TMZ was just what was in the camera I used for those shots (the night ones were taken previously).

 

[2F/2F]

Cool. I sometimes mix a dilute brew of Ilford HC and D-19 to do a stand and a push on Delta 1000. I have tried stand with HC alone and D-19 alone, and mixing them gives different results than either one alone. D-19 alone fogs the shadows a lot, doesn't compensate too much in the highlights, and mushes the grain in a stand. HC alone compensates quite a lot and makes everything wiry sharp, but doesn't add a ton of fog. The mix is a decent balance that has its own look. Compared to HC alone, the shadows are raised a little bit in value, the grain is a little smoother, and the highlights are brighter. Why? Who knows...but it looks nice to me. I guess it ends up being a Phenidone-Hydroquinone-Metol developer with some sodium carbonate and a decent amount of sulfite between the two. Black and white developer is black and white developer for the most part. As long as you are consistent, you can get repeatable results.

 

[Venchka]

Curious. I have developed one roll of p3200, the original version expired in 2000 or 2001, and I didn't get the grain you did. I didn't get much grain at all. I am actually disappointed. Exposed at E.I. 1600, Xtol 1:3, 19 minutes, continuous agitation. Relatively speaking, no grain.

 

[clayne]

Curious. I have developed one roll of p3200, the original version expired in 2000 or 2001, and I didn't get the grain you did. I didn't get much grain at all. I am actually disappointed. Exposed at E.I. 1600, Xtol 1:3, 19 minutes, continuous agitation. Relatively speaking, no grain.

Interesting. Every roll of TMZ i've shot, which is admittedly not enough, has had distinctive grain. The above experiment roll seems to have more of a D-76 feel to it, but not as much "diffuse" as i'd expect for D-76 - so maybe both developers were actually working together here?

Here are some earlier rolls, done normally with XTOL 1+1:


Nikon F3HP + Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AIS, Kodak T-MAX P3200, Kodak XTOL 1+1


Nikon F3HP + Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AIS, Kodak T-MAX P3200, Kodak XTOL 1+1


Nikon F3HP + Nikkor 35mm f/2.0 AIS, Kodak T-MAX P3200, Kodak XTOL 1+1


I guess the real question would be exactly what is going on when mixing two developers like this?

Quoted from the Unofficial XTOL Resource Page:
Part A:
Sodium sulfite
Sodium metaborate, tetrahydrate
Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid pentasodium salt
4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone
Part B:
Sodium sulfite
Sodium isoascorbate
Sodium metabisulfite

"Here the pyrazolidinone is one developing agent (a derivative of Phenidone); sodium isoascorbate is the other developing agent; and the others are activators and preservatives."

D-76 is pretty much metol, hydroquinone, sodium sulfite, and borax.

So the real question is if they're actually working together or one is overworking the other, etc.?

I did shoot another roll of the same day material on Ilford Pan F+ 50 and perhaps I might split the roll into XTOL 1+1 and XTOL+D-76 1+1. However the times aren't close - where as with TMZ the times were quite close. Actually it'd probably be better to shoot just a test roll of a few similar subjects on 400TX and split it into D-76, XTOL, and XTOL+D-76.

 

[clayne]

I was able to split a roll into 4 and develop in XTOL 1+1, D-76 1+1, D-76+XTOL 1+1, and D-76+XTOL 1+0 (straight). The only adjustments I made were to shift the black point slightly to bring base fog down, which by the way - and this is notable, was definitely higher with all frames that were processed in XTOL 1+1 and any combination of D-76+XTOL. In fact, D-76 1+1 had lower base fog compared to XTOL processed frames.

All shots were 135mm, f/4.0, 1/200sec. Agitation was continuous in the initial 30 sec and 3 per every 30 sec period. Unfortunately I don't have a tripod on-hand, so subtle softness differences might be apparent.

Some things were reaffirmed: XTOL appears to have more refined grain and sharpness and expose slightly more shadow detail than D-76. D-76 drops off sooner, and at least to my eyes, yields higher contrast (in a pleasant way). The combination of D-76 and XTOL produces something that feels in-between, and the undiluted combination of D-76 and XTOL looked to be similar to the diluted combination. Although the undiluted mix does appear "hotter" one caveat is that while the rest were developed at 19C, the undiluted mixture was developed at 24C (since I didn't chill my chemicals) - so for comparison sake it might just be on it's own.

Process info:
1. Fujifilm Neopan 1600@1600, 200 ml XTOL, 200 ml water. 8:00@19C.
2. Fujifilm Neopan 1600@1600, 200 ml D-76, 200 ml water: 9:30@19C.
3. Fujifilm Neopan 1600@1600, 100 ml D-76, 100 ml XTOL, 200 ml water: 9:00@19C.
4. Fujifilm Neopan 1600@1600, 200 ml D-76, 200 ml XTOL, 0 ml water: 5:00@24C.


Canon EOS 1V + EF 135mm f/2L, Fujifilm Neopan 1600, Kodak XTOL 1+1


Canon EOS 1V + EF 135mm f/2L, Fujifilm Neopan 1600, Kodak D-76 1+1


Canon EOS 1V + EF 135mm f/2L, Fujifilm Neopan 1600, Kodak D-76+XTOL 1+1


Canon EOS 1V + EF 135mm f/2L, Fujifilm Neopan 1600, Kodak D-76+XTOL 1+0

 

[clayne]

Some 100% crops:


Canon EOS 1V + EF 135mm f/2L, Fujifilm Neopan 1600, Kodak XTOL 1+1


Canon EOS 1V + EF 135mm f/2L, Fujifilm Neopan 1600, Kodak D-76 1+1


Canon EOS 1V + EF 135mm f/2L, Fujifilm Neopan 1600, Kodak D-76+XTOL 1+1


Canon EOS 1V + EF 135mm f/2L, Fujifilm Neopan 1600, Kodak D-76+XTOL 1+0


Canon EOS 1V + EF 135mm f/2L, Fujifilm Neopan 1600, Kodak XTOL 1+1


Canon EOS 1V + EF 135mm f/2L, Fujifilm Neopan 1600, Kodak D-76 1+1


Canon EOS 1V + EF 135mm f/2L, Fujifilm Neopan 1600, Kodak D-76+XTOL 1+1


Canon EOS 1V + EF 135mm f/2L, Fujifilm Neopan 1600, Kodak D-76+XTOL 1+0

Like I said before, it seems apparent to me that XTOL is technically a better developer than D-76 - but that doesn't mean I'll use XTOL 100% of the time as I like D-76 (especially with 400tx). It also seems very ambiguous to me if the blend is working as a blend or if one is outdoing the other. It does seem like the shadow detail in the D-76+XTOL is somewhere in between D-76 and XTOL (the "Professional" and "1600" writing on the 135 can) but other than that it seems like things are extremely similar in general. I don't normally find a need to break out the scientist suit and electronic microscope, but it's been interesting as an experiment and if anything does reaffirm some XTOL vs D-76 observations.

 

[gainer]

It seems that none of you have compared D-76 + XTOL to D-76 with a modicum of sodium ascorbate or isoascorbate added.

Another thing to consider is that sodium ascorbate acts more to regenerate the oxidized Metol or Phenidone than as a developing agent, while sulfite acts to remove the inhibiting power of oxidized Metol or Phenidone by converting it to a sulfonate. Ascorbate, then, is better at part of what sulfite does than is sulfite. That being the case, it seems that the sulfite in D-76 could be replaced by a small amount of sodium ascorbate and a tiny bit of sodium thiosulfate.

 

[clayne]

It seems that none of you have compared D-76 + XTOL to D-76 with a modicum of sodium ascorbate or isoascorbate added.

Another thing to consider is that sodium ascorbate acts more to regenerate the oxidized Metol or Phenidone than as a developing agent, while sulfite acts to remove the inhibiting power of oxidized Metol or Phenidone by converting it to a sulfonate. Ascorbate, then, is better at part of what sulfite does than is sulfite. That being the case, it seems that the sulfite in D-76 could be replaced by a small amount of sodium ascorbate and a tiny bit of sodium thiosulfate.

Gainer, yes, I did not try that (D-76 + ascorbate) - however I did put forth some of the other groundwork. Care to attempt the other side of the experiment for further contribution?