TMX and Xtol

[Chuck_P]

If I used T-Max as more of a general purpose film, I would probably use my standard HC-110 with it.

I quite like what I have seen so far with 4x5 TMX and HC-110 diluted 1:63.

 

[Harry Lime]

After a hiatus of several years I mixed up a batch of XTOL this week and developed 10 rolls of TMY-2 400.

Several years ago I had a rough time with XTOL, due to operator error, and I stopped using it. Instead I went with DD-X, then Barry Thornton's 2-bath and Diafine for push processing. I recently moved to a new city and am still organizing raw chemicals, so in the meanwhile it's good old D76 or XTOL.

Anyhow, I had totally forgotten just how good XTOL is, especially for push processing. It really is an outstanding developer and I plan on using it more often in the future. The negs look great. Nice grain, nice open shadows, great tonality.

 

[palec]

After a hiatus of several years I mixed up a batch of XTOL this week and developed 10 rolls of TMY-2 400.

I find Xtol to be be great match for TMY2 film, but with 400TX in 35mm I don't like it so much. It's like the solvent action works great on rounding sharp TMY2 crystals, making them pleasing on prints, while for 400TX the grain structure becomes undefined (and I have tried dillutions from stock to 1+3, replenishing as well). In larger formats this is probably not an issue, but in 35mm the enlarged grain appearance is important to me.

 

[Harry Lime]

palec: Years ago when I used XTOL it was with Tri-X and I wasn't exactly thrilled with the results either. I think I was running it full strength and 1:1. I can't exactly put my finger on what I didn't like, but it is a developer with a very 'modern' look. Maybe I was just so accustomed to looking at Tri-X in D76 for so many years... I felt that Tri-X in DD-X was nicer. I got some very 'pearly' looking negs out of that combo. But this was with the previous incarnation of Tri-X. I would have to run a few rolls of the new version to see if things have changed.