Tmax, Tri-X and XTOL

[david b]

Being a bit bored this afternoon, I took a fresh roll of 400TX and an expired roll of Tmax 400 (expired 6/2001) and took a walk to a local river that is usually dry. Here in NM lately, we've gotten some good rain so there was a little water flow.

Anyway, I shot both rolls at 1600 asa and then developed them in XTOL 1:1 for 12 @ 68. This is 120 film.

The Tmax looks amazing. I've never used Tmax before, I was very surprised. The negs are sharper and punchier than the 400TX Tri-X.

Tomorrow I will be able to make some contact sheets and maybe even a work print or two. I'll post some results tomorrow night.

Any thoughts or opinions on this?

 

[Deckled Edge]

Tomorrow I will be able to make some contact sheets and maybe even a work print or two. I'll post some results tomorrow night.

Saw your Santa Fe R. post. Looks good. I have been meaning to try Xtol for 11x14 sheet film, but see very little regarding Efke 100 in Xtol. Anyone with advice on this combo?

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

DE

I'm curious about Efke 100 in XTOL (or some similar Ascorbic Acid developer) myself. By all means give it a try and let us know.

I am currently developing Efke 100 and Efke 25 in Pyrocat-HD and am very happy with the results, but I like to know about potential alternatives.

 

[Jim Chinn]

I have found TMAX 400 and XTOL to be a good combination. It does a wonderful preserving highlight detail and seperation. I have not tried TMY in pyrocat HD but assume from other "new films" that it should exceed XTOL in high contrast situations.

 

[Deckled Edge]

My experience with Efke 100 and TOL now amounts to 4 sheets of 11x14 film. I used the XTOL at 1:1 at 68 F. Two sheets were developed (separately) at N and 2 (also separately) at N+1. I developed for 13 min. for N and 16 min. for N+1. My "densitometer" consists of printing the negatives on PMFA with a grade 2 filter, then using the 1 deg. spot meter on reflected light from the print.
Both "N" negatives fit my expectations for N development, while N+1 slightly exceeded both my standards and my expectations.
Grain was very slightly smaller using the 1:1 XTOL than HC110 B. on 4 identical negatives. Acutance was a little better with XTOL than HC110, but visible only with the 5X loupe. The contact prints were identical to inspection with the naked eye.
Additionally, the XTOL smells better than the HC110.
Downsides: Price--XTOL is more expensive. 5 liters is advertised to develop only 8 11x14 negatives [320 sq. in./qt at full strength. 1600 sq. in./5 qts.] at full strength or 16 at 1:1.
Ease: Mixing two solids is more difficult than 1 syrup.
Volume: Who owns a 5 liter container? I mixed XTOL at double strength for a stock solution, and then mixed 1:3 for a 1:1 solution.
Shelf life: 2 months for XTOL, 6 months for HC110.
Given the modest improvements in grain, acutance, and expansion versus the many downsides, I would not recommend XTOL for 8x10 or larger with Efke 100.
I will stick with HC110 for now.
Next comparison: HC110 vs Microdol X. Coming to an APUG forum near you!

 

[Vaak]

Hi,
I just bought some 135 rolls of Ilford hp5 and 5 litres of Xtol. Im going to try this combination now because i have been told that it seperates shadow details pretty good, at the same time as it makes finer grain than rodinol, which i normally use.
Does anyone have experience with this combination? Is the development times given by the producent good, and so on. I will ofcourse experiment, but good tips will be appreciated
Also, Ive read that mixed Xtol in bottle lasts for 12 months, but i see that Deckled Edge here says two, so thats a large difference..

-vaak