Share your replenished Xtol development times

[Bormental]

I see more people are getting on the bandwagon with Xtol-R. Let's create a thread with community development times, to be a poor man's MDC, as Xtol-R times are generally not published anywhere. I was only able to find Adrian's but he's on JOBO **and** 24C, too removed from my situation.

I propose the following format I'm using below:

Patterson Tank
Constant agitation first 30 seconds, then one inversion per minute at 21C temperature.

• Delta 100 EI100 12:00
• Delta 400 EI400 12:00
• Foma 100 EI100 8:00
• Foma 200 EI160 11:00
• Foma 400 EI200 17:00
• HP5+ 400 EI400 14:00

Notes: I am very happy with my Delta times and results. I shoot a lot of Delta films (100% of my 35mm format shooting is Delta) and these times have been honed over many rolls.

With medium format, I have switched to Fomapan and HP5+ only after Covid, due to disappearance of my primary 120 film, so I am still tweaking these. My times for Foma 100/200 have been gradually shrinking to deal with excessive contrast, while HP5+ and Foma 400 have been growing, as I've been on the thin side with these two.

Post your times!

 

[Donald Qualls]

So far, I've used the Stock times from the massive Dev Chart. .EDU Ultra (Fomapan) 400, box speed, 7:00 at 20C, etc. So far I've only used about a liter of replenishment, and I don't see any difference from fresh stock results. Given you shoot the same film at twice the exposure (EI 200) and give more than twice the development (17 minutes), you must like bulletproof negatives!

.EDU Ultra (Fomapan) 400, EI 400, Xtol replenished stock 7:00 at 20C (actual 7:30 at 19C), Super Ikonta B 532/16, 80mm f/2.9 Tessar

 

[Bormental]

I don't know what to say. With Foma 400 I have been getting extremely thin negatives and gradually increasing my time. Here're some samples at EI200 17:00

https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/foma/kona-atm.jpg
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/foma/pier-walk.jpg
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/foma/trio.jpg
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/foma/under-the-highway.jpg

If I shoot at box speed, I get no shadows:
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/foma/break.jpg
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/foma/old-truck-2.jpg

This one is EI320:
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/foma/office-view.jpg

 

[Donald Qualls]

Can't reply in detail now -- time to get ready to leave the house for work (an hour drive for a 7AM start time). I'll come back with some examples from my files later.

I think it's a matter of potentially different metering technique, different standards for shadow detail (what shadows actually contain important information?), and very likely better/newer scanning equipment (newer scanners usually do a better job with dense B&W negatives).

 

[MattKing]

If I shoot at box speed, I get no shadows:
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/foma/break.jpg
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/foma/old-truck-2.jpg

I think this may say as much about your metering and display/display rendition preferences as it does about the speed of the film.
When I look at those examples, I see shadows displayed the way I would choose to display them, given how the mid-tones and highlights are rendered.
And I expect that if one were to seek to get both detail in those shadows and detail in the highlights, one would have to either contract the range through development change or apply a bunch of darkroom or post-processing changes to the result.

 

[Bormental]

@MattKing You are right, I could have exposed for the shadows more but the highlights would be gone, there's clearly too much contrast to handle. And speaking of display preferences, I cannot stand this overly contrasty look, but couldn't do anything in post (huge parts of negatives are just 100% clear with no detail) so those images came out of my trash folder.

But look at under the highway image made in similar light at EI200, this one is a similar high-DR scene with sun-lit white concrete on the foreground with near complete darkness deeper in. EI200 made a huge difference here.

[EDIT] Here's another interesting shot. This one was a lot easier to meter, and it was done at box speed and developed for 14 minutes. Yet the entire neg came out quite thin and you can see that brightening it in post-processing added to the grainy appearance. I am utterly shocked that Donald is getting usable results at box speed with stock times. Even Foma400 datasheet doesn't show ISO 400 speed with any developer. IIRC only Microphen gets to 320.

P.S. Also surprised by the lack of participation, show me your times, people!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, I guess it's a good thing I've never looked at that detailed datasheet -- I've been shooting Foma 400 at 400 since 2005, developing it myself, in HC-110, D-23 replenished, and Parodinal and recently in Xtol replenished.

It might be instructional (if I kept that level of records) to examine the actual exposure given (f stop and speed) -- it might well be that I'm exposing (at box speed) roundly the same way you are (at one stop slower) due to differences in metering. It might also be that my agitation differs from yours enough to account for a 2:1 difference in development time (seems unlikely, but not impossible).

 

[Bormental]

What's crazy is that despite years and years of Xtol-R threads, the only two people here who're actually using the stuff today is me and Donald, and we both just got started. What is going on?

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I found that the 1:1 times are a perfectly good starting point. For Jobo I use a prewet now, so no time mod.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Matt uses it so that makes three... I think there are a few more people using Xtol-R.
As for me, I stopped using Xtol about 20 years ago, when I switched over to Pyrocat-HD. I always used Xtol as a one shot developer, 1+1, or 1+3. If I were using it today, I would definitely try replenishing. Maybe when I've run out of my chemicals for making Pyrocat, I'll go back to Xtol...

 

[MattKing]

Okay, you guilted me.
I went through all the effort of unpacking the tote that I use to store my film developing paraphernalia between film development sessions just to answer this question!
I use the following Development numbers on the Developing Dial in my 1970 vintage Kodak Darkroom Dataguide for replenished X-Tol:
Plus-X: 37.5
T-Max 100: 38.5
TMY-2: 38.5
Does that help?
(FYI, 38.5 means 9 minutes @ 20C)
I use a diffusion enlarger and generally use incident metering and either box speed or close to it.

 

[Bormental]

Okay, you guilted me.

I did, I totally did Thanks for the data!

I went through all the effort of unpacking the tote that I use to store my film developing paraphernalia between film development sessions just to answer this question!

Ok, now you're guilting me! What can I do for you?

(FYI, 38.5 means 9 minutes @ 20C)

Where can I read more about this notation?

 

[MattKing]

The Kodak Darkroom Dataguide - an indispensable reference for decades.
It came in both Black and White and Colour versions.
My earliest is the 1970 version.
The Developing Dial is the most convenient tool for dealing with variation of development temperature.
One of the biggest advantage of using developers in a replenishment regime is that you are able to always develop at ambient temperatures. An easy and convenient method of adjusting development times with changes in temperatures greatly facilitates that.
The Dataguide is chock full of interesting info. While a lot of it isn't as relevant as it once was, due to the greatly reduced variety of available Kodak Darkroom products, it still is interesting and informative.
Although the earlier versions, with all the Kodak enlarging paper samples, does make me sad some times.
Here is the last printed version: https://www.amazon.ca/KODAK-Black-White-Darkroom-Dataguide/dp/0879858141
This one is closer to the one I use most - because it is in the film developing bin: https://www.amazon.ca/Kodak-Darkroo...2XJ0CEETEH7&psc=1&refRID=FDB02ZTP52XJ0CEETEH7
I have a few more.
Here is a flickr image from the Development Dial from someone else's Dataguide - I would guess about a mid-1980s version: https://www.flickr.com/photos/obnoid/8690521005/

 

[Bormental]

That's neat. I now finally understand your "room temperature" point.

 

[Huub]

For most films in 35mm and 120 I use the times on the latest Kodak data sheet on XTOL

For TMX and HP5+ in 4x5 I did some testing myself, using my RH-Design stop clock and a stepwedge. TMX is used as 80 iso, HP5+ as 250 iso, metering is done with a Gossen Spotmaster and the zone options it provides. I print on an Omega D2 condensor enlarger, so times seem pretty short. I found that printing my negatives is often doen with grade 2, sometimes needing half a grade less or more to get the grade and tonescales i like. Temperatures are at 20 c.

TMX:
N-2: 6 min
N-1: 7.5 min
N: 9 min
N+1: 11.5 min

HP5+:
N-2: 6 min
N-1: 8 min
N: 10 min
N+1: 13 min

 

[Bormental]

@Huub are these replenished Xtol times? Asking because Kodak data sheet does not list the time for replenished + small tank

 

[Huub]

Yes, these are XTOL-replenished times.

And i find the times for a large tanks a pretty good starting point for my own set up, but your experience may differ of course.

 

[PFGS]

What's crazy is that despite years and years of Xtol-R threads, the only two people here who're actually using the stuff today is me and Donald, and we both just got started. What is going on?

I'm also just started & 100% based on your previous recommendations, sorry - should have something to contribute in a few more weeks.

 

[Bormental]

HP5+:
N-2: 6 min
N-1: 8 min
N: 10 min
N+1: 13 min

Hm.. this, and Donald's times, make me believe I'm overcooking my negs slightly, interesting... thanks!

 

[osella]

Haven’t used my Xtol-R in a while, as I’ve been experimenting with PC-TEA. Having said that my times are:

These are for roughly 20-21C - I’ve stopped checking as the temp of my developer always seems to be in that range.

Delta 400: 12:00
Delta 3200: 12:00(EI3200) 18:00(EI6400)
Tmax 3200: 18:00(EI3200) only a few rolls, but results seemed ok
Acros 100ii: 10:30
Ferrania P30: 12:00(probably too long, slightly dense highlights)

I tend to like a negative for more contrast so I tend to develop for longer than the suggested times. I think I’m too used to my alt process negatives.

 

[Bormental]

@osella nice! our times for Delta 400 and Acros2 are nearly identical, this is very reassuring.

 

[osella]

@Bormental It is nice to see similar times. I think I started with the times for 1:1 but the negatives always seemed a little thin.

To add some data points I use a 2L replenished volume and typically follow the Kodak recommendation of 70ml per roll. If I have a period of less development I’ll replenish at a rate of 100ml.

 

[Bormental]

Speaking of replenishment, I am finding that it's its easy to under-replenish but hard to over-replenish. In other words, my negs started getting thinner at 70ml per roll rate rather quickly, but I saw no difference between replenishing at 85 to 120ml per roll, so I don't fret it anymore.

 

[MattKing]

What volume of working solution are you using, and how much film are you putting through it?

 

[Bormental]

I use half a gallon amber glass bottle and my throughput is 2-4 rolls per session, every other week. If I process 4 rolls and replenish with 280ml of fresh solution, two weeks later I'll see slightly thinner negs.