• 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

Tmax400 processed in XTOL and D-76

tkamiya

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
4,284
Location
Central Flor
Format
Multi Format
I'm almost afraid to ask this, but here goes....

I've been using Tmax400 with XTOL 1:1 for little more than a year now. Just few days ago, since I was all out of XTOL and didn't want to mix a new batch of 5 liters, I used D-76 that I had on hand. Full strength.

The result was.... compared to other films developed with XTOL, the one with D-76 seem to have smoother and "gentler" feel to it. Grey had this smooth gradation that I don't usually see with XTOL. Often, my results from XTOL seems to be little "jumpy" and "harsh". It's not the sharpness or contrast. They seem to be about the same. (of course, this is not a scientific test) It's really hard to explain in logical terms. "Gentle and smooth" is the best way I can describe it.

Can someone put this in somewhat of a prospective? What am I seeing? What causes this difference?
 
There are a lot of variables, if you just browse about xtol vs something else you will notice all the religious wars between the followers of each dev. I usually suggest to spare 2 rolls of film and run some tests like such as described in here http://www.amazon.com/Zone-System-35MM-Photographers-Exposure/dp/0240802039, you can get this book in a library. If you then go and scan your negs and digitally print them, that would be it and you have to see which dev/exposure combo gives you better results. If you are printing it in a traditional way, there is more ways to change the outcome and you could run a few more tests to see which paper grade and manufacturer suits you better.

The bottom line is you will need to spend some time on one dev/film combo, carefully taking notes, making sure proper temps, dilution, clean tanks and consistent agitation happens to see what you have, and only then try to switch developer, they both good for the high speed film.
 
Steve,

I am familiar with that chart, actually.... What I take away from it is that between D76 and XTOL, the only real difference is grain. XTOL is better in achieving smaller grain and D76 slightly worse. Everything else looks about the same to me. Do you think that's the only difference though? The difference in result was rather profound....
 
You can also achieve different results depending on dilution and agitation techniques. So maybe the smoothness you get in D-76 is available in X-tol as well?
 
I suspect that you think that the D76 looks better simply because it looks different than you are used to. I think you would think Xtol looks better if you were switching the other direction.

Differences between developers are small. But if you spend a long time using a certain developer, and then suddenly change to a different developer, you will probably notice some kind of change in the "look". But the ONLY reason you can detect this is because you have spent hours staring at the results of the other developer.

If you think the new "look" is good and switch developers, chances are about even if you spent a few months with that developer and switched back, you would think your old developer looks better. It's just psychology. You can oscillate between developers forever. I used to do this because I would always use a different developer and be like "whoa, that looks so good" and switch, but then I realized prints I made a year or more ago, I can no longer remember what developer I used or why I thought it was good...I only see the image and not the silver. Now I just use the developer that I think is cheap, convenient and consistent.
 
LG,
Yes, just about... very similar contrast range and density.... It's not a scientific test so it's hard to say how close though.

Wiggywag (that's a really funny handle...)
I've been playing around with XTOL for over a year changing all kinds of variables. I have gotten it to the point where I think it's good and acceptable, but not to "wow" point.

BetterSense
You have a point there.... except, it's not just different, it's better. It's better in a sense I reached the target I was trying to achieve with XTOL using D-76. It's almost like there is a fundamental difference in the image itself.

Obviously, my next step is a comparison testing.... shoot a same scene, cut the negatives and process it in both. It's very interesting and encouraging....
 
have you tried to dilute your xtol down to 1:3 or 1:2 and see if you like
the results better ? often times if you use a replenished system of developer
it takes the "edge-off " you might consider replenishing your xtol as well.
a lot of developers can be used in a replenished system, and they sometimes
work much better than as a single shot developer.
 
John,

I've heard of that... and I'll have to try it. Is there any fundamental difference in the way XTOL and D76 work? I've always used developers as one shot for ease of time maintenance.
 
Actually, the biggest difference between XTOL and D-76 is the film speed they produce.

If you shot the rolls in D-76 and XTOL at the same EI then XTOL will give you the equivalent of ~2/3s of a stop more exposure in most lighting conditions. 2/3s of a stop can make a very big difference in T-grain films like TMY.

I also think that it is unlikely that you managed to develop the XTOL and D-76 rolls to the same Contrast Index on your first attempt with D-76.
 
aldevo said:
Actually, the biggest difference between XTOL and D-76 is the film speed they produce.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

1. The films need to be processed to an identical contrast index in order to make this comparison. If you can manage that (should take you about two rolls of calibrating your process), you will find that tonal gradations are rendered equally nice from both developers.
2. You will find that Xtol gives slightly finer grain.
3. You will find that Xtol gives 1/2 stop more film speed (shadow detail).
4. You may find that Xtol behaves slightly better with lighting that is in direct sun or high contrast, where the highlights are sometimes very intense.
5. You may find that D76 behaves slightly better with flat lighting, where you have to increase the contrast.

The statement you made after one film is premature. Try five or ten rolls. Print the negatives. Get negs from both developers to the same contrast index. Then compare.

- Thomas
 
Did you change your process? Did you develop to the same average CI? How did you determine that D-76 produced "this smooth gradation that I don't usually see with XTOL"? Light table? Print? If print, how much enlargement?

It's very difficult to compare apples-to-apples, to isolate everything so that the only difference is the developer. When I've tried (and who knows how good I was at it) I could find only small differences between HC-100H, D-76 1:1, and XTOL 1:3. When I asked Dick Dickerson and Silvia Zawadski (lead the team at Kodak that created XTOL) about this they generally agreed, saying I would likely need an enlargement of 15x or higher to see any tangible difference in prints.

I'm not saying that you aren't seeing what you clearly are seeing. What I'm saying is that it's likely something(s) more than just the developer change that's responsible for it.
 
I truly believe that if one would work hard enough to keep all the variables constant (if that even makes sense), the differences between XTOL and D76 would not be worth a 1 minute discussion. As Bruce stated correctly, there are most likely other factors at work and, again, the differences would be hard to discern on print or a scan. As always, if you feel one developer gives you what you're looking for, don't go crazy trying to extrapolate too much and just use what YOU feel is right.
 

I like to see a scale on this chart. Without it it's not of much use. A properly developed negative will be great in almost any developer. There is a lot more difference between films than there is between developers.

As already stated above, a true comparison requires two negs developed to the same contrast index. Also, personal taste and conditions vary. For example, I was never happy with Xtol but D76 works great for me. Then you find others who say just the opposite.

Don't get hung up on developers, just pick one and stick to it, but do a proper film test first.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ralph,

I'm strictly going by "personal taste." I have been playing with XTOL for more than a year and I got close but not perfect. I was excited because my "test" with D-76 gave me exactly what I was looking for. I was looking for some explanations on what I was seeing. As I said earlier, this wasn't a scientific test. I went more with how it looked to my senses than technical evaluations. I'm sure contrast wasn't dead on, but was close.

You said you, too, were never happy with XTOL but D76 works great. Would you care to elaborate for me? You also said, "properly developed negative will be great in almost any developer." I'm confident you do properly. I'm interested in what you saw that you didn't like, and what you saw you did like.

At this point, looking great in technical sense mean very little to me but looking great for my taste means a lot. I picked one when I started (XTOL) and I played with it in many different ways. (except I didn't do replenished system). I'm considering going to D76 and play with it for a while.

Also, are there fundamental difference in how XTOL work and D-76 work??
 
I would still like to see two prints of identical subject matter, from two negatives processed to the same contrast index, one in D76 and the other in Xtol.

Show me and I shall believe what you are saying. Until then, I stand firm that differences in results between the two will be hard to spot, film speed aside (but that will, of course, be adjusted for).

With that said, if you really like your results that much with D76 - use it! Whatever works for you is good. But I'm not convinced of your claim.
 
Thomas,
You and me both! I'm curious as to my result as well. As I said earlier, all I have done so far is unscientific. What I'll have to do is to blow a roll and have an identical shots on all of them. Cut them all up and process it in each to match exactly. That'll take some time. But, I shall do it, and find out what I'm seeing is really true. I have no need to convince you, but I do need to do this for my self. But I must say, I'm pleased with what I saw. This is an engineer in me speaking. I can't just leave it with "I like it"... I got to know!

Ralph,
Can you help me with one last question? Are there any fundamental difference between two developers? Do they work with film using different chemical principle? As part of my playing around with D76 will be a semi-scientific test as I said above. There got to be some difference.... enough difference to make producing/selling both worth-while for Kodak (and to users) I don't really believe in near-religious discussions but I do want to see some evidence myself!
 

tkamiya

I don't feel qualified to answer that question from a chemical point of view. As a medium and large-format user, printing no larger than 11x14 (ergo, not having to deal with large negative magnifications), a developer is a developer as long as it is properly tested with your favorite film. Having said that, there are differences in gradation depending on film/developer combination, and they may be sufficient to prefer one over the other.

Sorry for not being more specific. Do a proper film test with both developers. It will answer all your questions.
 
Thank you, Ralph. I'll play around and see what I'll find.
 
tkamiya said:
Thank you, Ralph. I'll play around and see what I'll find.
Click to expand...

Hi tkamiya!

Were you able to find out any more? I'm also wondering about switching to from Xtol to D-76.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register