TMX and Xtol

[Chuck_P]

I've heard so many things about Xtol that I ordered some to try. I did my speed test and came up with the following curve. The curve itself is very similar to my D-76 1:1 & TMX curve, very linear from the speed point to the Zone VIII calibration density target of 1.3 and beyond to a Zone X luminance. And just as with D-76, the measured speed is the full box speed of 100. The development time for the speed test was 9:00 (the time recommended for tray development, but I use a Combi-Plan tank and agitate by inversion at 4/10/1, 4 inversions in 10 sec every min) and I think I can safely use that also for the "N" development time since the curve reached Zone VIII at a satisfactory density of 1.35, although I will probably reduce the time to 8:30 to lower the curve a bit.

My hope is that Xtol will will out perform D-76 1:1 in acutance. That would be justification enough for me to pay the higher price for Xtol. However, one zone exposure increases from Zone I to VIII with my process with both these developers will produce practically the same density increase.

I'll soon enough make a negative and compare acutance between the two. I'll not bother with determining any plus or minus times until I make a few negatives and see if it is worth using the few sheets of film to do it.

 

[brucemuir]

Interesting.

When we did TMX tests back in school nearly 2/3 of my class got ISO 64 and this was with mostly D76 or a D76 clone from sprint. Some got iso 80.

I've never been happy w/ TMX rated at 100 in d 76 but I like shadow detail.

 

[Chuck_P]

Interesting.

When we did TMX tests back in school nearly 2/3 of my class got ISO 64 and this was with mostly D76 or a D76 clone from sprint. Some got iso 80.

I've never been happy w/ TMX rated at 100 in d 76 but I like shadow detail.

When I first did my test with d-76 1:1 I fully expected the speed to be an EI lower than the ISO, but it did not turn out that way. The literature for Xtol says and by listening to other testimonials, full emulsion speed is a major attribute.

 

[Chuck_P]

I finally found the time to finish testing TMX and XTOL and wanted to post the results---perhaps some may find it useful or interesting compared to their own results. The curves have obviously been adjusted on the log exposure scale to reflect the desired speed point. Only three of the curves needed an EI adjustment (+2,+1, and -1) and four of the curves needed interpolation of an estimated development time to achieve the upper density range target of 1.3 (those being: +2, N, -1, and -2). Those four curves missed their target very minimally with development times of 11:30, 9:00, 7:00, and 5:00 respectively, and so, those interpoloated curves and estimated development times are shown.

One could keep exposing and developing additional sheets to hone in on the 1.3D target, but it turns into a waste of film. Interpolated times have always proven, in my experience, to produce very workable negatives for the development compensation desired.

 

[ajuk]

I've struggled with this combo, I'm thinking the dev times for this on the Massive Dev chart are wrong, what dev times do you use for 400 and 800?

Edit just realised you're talking about the 100 version, but if you have any data on the 400 version I would like to know?

 

[Chuck_P]

I've struggled with this combo, I'm thinking the dev times for this on the Massive Dev chart are wrong, what dev times do you use for 400 and 800?

Edit just realised you're talking about the 100 version, but if you have any data on the 400 version I would like to know?

No data on 400, but I would be interested in knowing what your struggles with it and XTOL are.

 

[2F/2F]

Thanks for sharing your results. Either one of these is a great combo. You might see the technical difference only in larger print sizes.

While you are doing comparisons, I'd try T-Max developer too, at 75 F, as it was intended to be used. IMO, that is the thing that really gives T-Max its intended character. It is a little more grainy and biting in contrast, but sharp as all get out, with great midtone separation and punch in the low-toned details and textures. Get good at burning, and this will give the greatest highlight separation of the three developers, IMO.

 

[Neanderman]

Temperature?

 

[Chuck_P]

Temperature?

I'm sorry, temp is at 68 degrees.

The inversion agitation seqence was 4-10-1, which means 4 inversions in 10 seconds every 1 minute. Actually, it is with using multiple tanks---I turn off the lights 2 minutes before the end, then transfer the film quickly from the developer tank to a tank with the stop bath. I love the Combi-Plan tank, but dispise the long drain and fill times, that's my way of dealing with it. I then transfer from the stop tank to a tank with the fixer, put the lid on, turn on the lights, finish in room light.

 

[Chuck_P]

I think it is interesting to compare TMX with all three developers that I have tested with. XTOL and D-76, both 1:1, are quite similar in the film's response to them. HC-110 at a dilution of 1:63, although having a longer toe and giving 2/3 stop less speed, also provides a greater separation in the mid-tones up to the highlight detail from about Zone V to Zone VIII as indicated by a greater slope of that line between V and VIII as compared to XTOL and D-76.

 

[Chuck_P]

Thanks for sharing your results. Either one of these is a great combo. You might see the technical difference only in larger print sizes.

While you are doing comparisons, I'd try T-Max developer too, at 75 F, as it was intended to be used. IMO, that is the thing that really gives T-Max its intended character. It is a little more grainy and biting in contrast, but sharp as all get out, with great midtone separation and punch in the low-toned details and textures. Get good at burning, and this will give the greatest highlight separation of the three developers, IMO.

I think it would not be a bad idea at some point because in the summer time, keeping my water bath at 68 degrees is problematic---75 degrees would be much easier to maintain. I don't wish to re-test with the other developers at a higher temperature. I think that with conventional emulsions, maintaining a steady temperature, although much desirable, is not as crucial. But with T-grain film, it can be quite problematic to let the temp stray during development.

 

[2F/2F]

I think it is interesting to compare TMX with all three developers that I have tested with. XTOL and D-76, both 1:1, are quite similar in the film's response to them. HC-110 at a dilution of 1:63, although having a longer toe and giving 2/3 stop less speed, also provides a greater separation in the mid-tones up to the highlight detail from about Zone V to Zone VIII as indicated by a greater slope of that line between V and VIII as compared to XTOL and D-76.

That's a large part of why I like HC-110 so much. But I am surprised it dropped 2/3 of a stop in the low end. That seems like a lot, based on what I have seen at 1:63.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Hotter yet

, I'd try T-Max developer too, at 75 F, as it was intended to be used. IMO, that is the thing that really gives T-Max its intended character.


I remember reading, I believe in "Darkroom Techniques", many years ago about developing T-Max films at high temps. In the article they were developing it at temps in the 100 degree range with some very good results. I can't remember what developer was used, but it might have been Rodinal or maybe it was T-max dev? There didn't seem to be any negative affects to doing it, but I never tried it.
JohnW

 

[dfoo]

I develop T-max 400 with XTOL 1+2 at 68 for 12 minutes rotary processing. I expose the film at EI 200. I get excellent results with that combination.

 

[ajuk]

No data on 400, but I would be interested in knowing what your struggles with it and XTOL are.

I follow the times on the MDC and get thin negs, Xtol seems to work well with everything else, I thought about increasing development time, but nobody else seems to think the MDC times are wrong.

 

[2F/2F]

I follow the times on the MDC and get thin negs, Xtol seems to work well with everything else, I thought about increasing development time, but nobody else seems to think the MDC times are wrong.

Are you judging them as thin based on the negs, or based on a normal print? T-grained films look about a stop thinner than a conventionally-grained film on a lightbox.

If your negs are truly "thin" across the board, then it is an exposure problem. If they are just flat, but have proper amounts of detail and texture in the low tones, it is likely a development problem.

In any case, don't try to make any judgments based on an in camera meter's suggestion for the entire composition. Most compositions will cause most in-camera meters to suggest an exposure that is either over or under, and very rarely do they give you one that is right on. At least use a grey card if you use you in camera meter. Make sure to open up a half stop from the grey card's suggested exposure; that's the part that most do not teach when instructing students on grey card use.

 

[Chuck_P]

That's a large part of why I like HC-110 so much. But I am surprised it dropped 2/3 of a stop in the low end. That seems like a lot, based on what I have seen at 1:63.

Yes, I definitely like the mid-tone and highlight separation of HC-110 compared to D-76 1:1. I don't find the loss in speed that problematic, however.

 

[2F/2F]

If the midtones are properly exposed, but the low tones are dropped a bit, I have a hard time really calling it a loss of speed. I just call it a contrasty developer. Again, that is one of the things I like about HC-110.

 

[Chuck_P]

If the midtones are properly exposed, but the low tones are dropped a bit, I have a hard time really calling it a loss of speed. I just call it a contrasty developer.

I know what you mean. I'm only referring to the speed test and the subsequent curve that indicates the loss of speed. Based on a speed point target of 0.1 at Zone I, the curve, before adjusting on the log exposure scale, reached a 0.1 density at Zone I 2/3.

So, by shifting each data point of the test sheet (the bottom line) .2 log exposure units, or 2/3 of a stop, back to Zone I on the log E scale and re-plotting the curve (the top line), that is equivalent to a 2/3 stop loss of log exposure, or film speed, off the manufacturer's ISO----given my process, of course. Who knows, someone else's testing may not show such a loss of speed, but I guess that is why we test.

 

[2F/2F]

I do know how to do the threshold above FB+F test,and I understand why it is used as a standard. It is the way to go for extremely precise tonal manipulation. The thing I don't like about it, though, is that when you do that, change your EI to match, and then change your development to bring the other end down to prevent excessive density, you end up sort of forcing every film/developer combo into the same basic mold. It kind of genericizes (new word, BTW) films and developers to a certain degree. I like to have a different film/dev combo look like an obviously different combo. It is the main reason I pick one film over another for a certain subject. For instance, I like to know when I am out shooting that I can just use D-76 if I want more in the shadows, softer tonal transitions, and softer transitions in the high tones, or HC-110 if I want less in the shadows, and more bite throughout the rest of the tonal range. I use an EI such that when a standard print is made, the midtones and the rough amount of contrast land where I want them, and the character of the developer and how it is used determines how the tonal "fall" of the other tones looks. I think of it as manipulating a seesaw (around the midtones) instead of flying a kite (from the low tones).

 

[Chuck_P]

We all certainly have our different takes on it, and I can't say that I agree at all with the reference to generic film development. I'm a ZS practitioner and that is just simply how a high degree of control is obtained in exposure and development, as I'm sure your're aware. We can only control two points on the curve---the exposure threshhold or the lower limit of the specified density range and the "normal" development calibration density, the upper limit of the density range. What occurs on the negative in between those two points is still part of the creative process by way of choice of developer, dilution, agitation, etc. So, I certainly don't view it as a genericizing of the process, it's just control over the process, pure and simple, with a high degree of predictability and repeatability. Producing the best negative possible for the printing phase is simply, to me, what all this buisiness is about.

 

[2F/2F]

It is two different approaches to doing the same basic thing: tonal manipulation. What differs is the parts of the tonal scale that each of us gives preference. I prefer to have the placement of midtones be the most precise.

But the Zone System certainly bends every film to match predetermined parameters within a certain range. That is the entire purpose of the initial testing. It makes every film have its threshold of density above FB+F at the same point, and have it's threshold of highlight detail at the same point. That is all I meant by my use of the word generic. I didn't mean to attach a connotation to the term.

FWIW, I do use the Zone System, though much less than I used to, and I am certainly not arguing that anyone should not do so. I use it for more technical pix now. For instance, I will use it for copying something. I also use it for pix in which I want to extremely, and precisely, manipulate things – for achieving highly abnormal tonal relationships, in other words. Some examples would be high key or low key pix, or high contrast or low contrast pix.

 

[Chuck_P]

I guess back to my own OP----

Considering that TMX has quite similar responses to D-76 1:1 and XTOL 1:1 (with my results), I wander if there others that have similar results with these combinations, and I wander why they may have made the permanent switch away from D-76 and to XTOL? What is the appeal? From a contrast and speed perspective, they're almost one in the same as far as my results.

 

[Tim Gray]

I've not made a careful comparison like you have of contrast and speed between D76 and XTOL. However, I switched to XTOL mainly because you can mix it up at room temperature.

 

[2F/2F]

I should start my comments about your question by saying first that TMX is not a standard film for me. I use FP4 and sometimes Plus-X for medium speed films 90% of the time. However, when I want a certain look, nothing but T-Max will give it! And I found just by trying things out that T-Max developer and T-Max film really come together to provide a special and unique look. When I want something sharp as nails, detailed, biting, contrasty, crisp, nothing delivers it like TMX in T-max developer at 75 F. YMMV, but that is the stuff for me.

In short, for me, TMX is a special purpose film, so I try to maximize its unique qualities when I use it. If I used T-Max as more of a general purpose film, I would probably use my standard HC-110 with it. As for why HC-110...I used to use D-76 for everything. When I tried X-Tol, like you did, I found it to be similar, but more of a pain due to the two pouches and the 5 L (as opposed to one gallon) batches, so I did not switch. The slight grain and sharpness benefits from X-Tol do not really matter to me most of the time. If I want to get rid of grain and have a super sharp picture, I just use larger film. When I experimented with HC-110, I loved it, and switched from D-76. It has a little more character than D-76, and is easier to keep consistent IMO.