Very cool, I can see myself trying it out but, I just recently read that going to a higher dilution of say 1:3 will increase apparent sharpness but at the expense of larger grain. I'm ok with that because I mostly print 5x7 with some 8x10. I feel the last print I made (just last night) doesn't reflect that sharpness I see in my negative under a loupe. It could be because of old paper I'm using maybe...but I thought I'd try out the higher dilution "just to see".
Tri-X and Xtol
-
A
- Thread starter ColColt
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Mamiya Pro II 120 Film Back for my RZ67 Pro II & Electronic Grip
- Started by Christopherjs
-
For Sale Minolta M-Rokkor 90mm f4 for Leica M
- Started by Oldwino
-
For Sale Nikon F801s body
- Started by Oldwino
-
For Sale Seneca 5 x 7 - Chicago View Variation 4
- Started by sharpnikkor
-
For Sale Mamiya RB67 Pro S and Two Lenses
- Started by sharpnikkor
Forum statistics
Very cool, I can see myself trying it out but, I just recently read that going to a higher dilution of say 1:3 will increase apparent sharpness but at the expense of larger grain. I'm ok with that because I mostly print 5x7 with some 8x10. I feel the last print I made (just last night) doesn't reflect that sharpness I see in my negative under a loupe. It could be because of old paper I'm using maybe...but I thought I'd try out the higher dilution "just to see".
I've been using 1:1 and to my very unprofessional eye, the negatives look great but as I mentioned above I feel it didn't print as well as I thought it would. Its probably due to my poor printing skills though....
Instead of pouring off 100ml, pour 70ml of stock solution into the replenished XTOL container and then returned the tankful of XTOL into the container until it is filled to the top, then dump the remainder of the developer.
No, do not try different dilutions. Keep it simple.
Please feel free to ask questions.
But I gotta try a different dilution, or I'll forever be wondering...what if ???
(Sorry ColColt, didn't mean to hijack your thread with the replenishment talk)
(Sorry ColColt, didn't mean to hijack your thread with the replenishment talk)
But I gotta try a different dilution, or I'll forever be wondering...what if ???
(Sorry ColColt, didn't mean to hijack your thread with the replenishment talk)
Replenished XTOL is so much better than all the rest so there is no need to bother.
Wonderfully. Xtol works very well with all films.
Attachments
One more question about replenishment - using the developer at ambient temperature, is there a constant I use to adjust the development time plus or minus depending if its over or under 20c ?
Use whatever you use for stock or diluted developers. It's no different.
MattKing
Moderator
To adjust the development time with regard to temperature changes, I use the Development dial in one of my many Kodak Darkroom dataguides: http://www.amazon.com/Black-White-Darkroom-Dataguide-Publication/dp/0879856025
There are many editions, and they will all work.
The Kodak datasheet for Xtol - J109 - gives suggested times for different temperatures and films (see pages 6 and 7). Use the Full strength developer suggestions for your starting point. You can interpolate between the temperatures listed: http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/j109.pdf
I will add that if you start from full strength stock solution, in a 1 liter working volume, it will take roughly six rolls through it to fully season the developer. The first roll should be developed according to full strength developing time, and with each subsequent roll the developer will get progressively less active, giving longer developing time for the same final negative contrast.
When I started my working volume, after those first six rolls I did not replenish. It wasn't until after the sixth roll that I started replenishing 80ml/roll.
To make it easy, if you have six rolls of old scrap film you were not going to use, expose that film to daylight and run them through the developer. Since they will be blank rolls you don't have to worry about compensating developing time as they are just scraps anyway. After the developer is seasoned, your developing times will be similar to 1+1 dilution times. But of course, as always, you need to adjust developing time to suit your needs, and how you like to pirnt.
Better results. When developer is that inexpensive, tinkering has more to do with the end results than pennies / roll.
I saw the following when I used replenished Xtol:
1. Sharper negatives
2. Finer grain
3. Different tonality that I thought suited my tastes better
The limitation is that you lose about 1/2 stop film speed. Nothing comes free, there is always a compromise.
But honestly, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter much.
MattKing
Moderator
Because replenishing is so simple and easy with Xtol (the developer is its own replenisher) and the resulting room temperature workflow is so nice!
Remember as well that once you have it seasoned, you never have to do that again. Just buy a new 5 litre package when your replenisher runs low, and keep on using the same working solution.
It is really good for people who shoot large format, because they can stop being concerned with wasting developer capacity because of how big their developing tanks are.
In Kodak´s Xtol-manual ( page 8 ) there is a list of developing times for full strength, 1+1 and seasoned developer in rotary tube processing. From these figures you can make an aproximate calculation of the time required in a small tank. This will of course not be any exact figures as the level of seasoning will differ between all of us using this method, but it can be a fairly good guide. Some of the figures for non-Kodak films makes you wonder a bit, but give it a try. Thoma´s recomendation of about the same time with seasoned as with 1+1 seems to be close to Kodak´s times in most cases.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf
Karl-Gustaf
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf
Karl-Gustaf
Well, the jury's in. Yesterday evening I developed a roll of Tri-X at ASA 250, my usual speed, in Xtol 1:1 and while good looking negatives, they weren't as good scanned as Tri-X in HC-110 Dil H or Double X in ID-11. I got a better tonal range, sharpness and less grain with those than with Xtol comparing five of the same photos shot with each. It wasn't bad, just not as good to my eye.
Developing time/temp was 6 minutes at 75 degrees. I guess I'm not having the similar results as others with this developer.
Developing time/temp was 6 minutes at 75 degrees. I guess I'm not having the similar results as others with this developer.
Last edited:
Just did a quick search and found that B&H in NY does 5 litres. Is this unique to B&H?. Well I have found you 5 litres which is much less than 5 gallons at least. I have kept 5L successfully for over two years Use it at stock in say a Paterson tank and that's only just over 16 135 film in two years. Do you use much less than 16 films in 2 years?
Anyway I hope this helps and I feel I can say that the special U.K./U.S. relationship that we speak of with misty eyes is not dead
pentaxuser
Are you or anyone else saying that 5 liters of anything is a smaller quantity than 5 gallons. (I think not, though possibly, if you are talking "Imperial gallons")? Is an Imperial (i may be misspelling imperial here) gallon the same quantity as a liter (1000 ml.)? To our Canadian members do they still sell gasoline in Canada in Imperial gallons as they have done in the past? I am just asking for information though if the answers ansl make a point, so be it......Regards!
MattKing
Moderator
5 litres is just a little bit more (~ 5%) than 5 US quarts (a US quart is 0.946 litres) - i.e. just slightly larger than 1.25 US gallons.
5 litres is also just a little bit larger (~4.5%) than an Imperial Gallon.
An Imperial gallon is equal to 160 Imperial fluid ounces which is equal to four Imperial quarts. An Imperial quart is 40 Imperial ounces. An Imperial pint is 20 Imperial fluid ounces, and the perfect size for a nice, cool (not cold) glass of beer.
The Imperial fluid ounce is slightly smaller than the US fluid ounce - about 96% of the size of the US version.
The US versions are actually older than the Imperial ones - the UK changed while the US kept the measures that were around in the late 1700s. There are a lot of other complicating factors as well.
Officially, we in Canada are metric - there are very few remnants of Imperial measures here now. Gas has been sold by the litre for decades now. And when things are expressed in fluid ounces or any other non-metric measures, the expression is usually in the US version of those measures, due to the prevalence of US products and marketing here.
I live really close to Point Roberts, Washington, which is a tiny US community that you can only get to by water, helicopter or through Canada. Allmost all of the people who live, visit or shop there are Canadian, so it is one of only a couple of US communities where gas is sold by the litre.
My experience is that you would be much happier with replenished XTOL than with XTOL 1:1.
Actually, it shouldn't be that different at all between 1:1 and replenished, not game changing different anyway.
Kodak themselves claim Xtol is a lot sharper than HC-110 and also exhibits finer grain, so something is not right.
I've looked over some negatives and decided to do a little testing, one of those things that can drive you nuts. I looked at the scan from an Xtol developed Tri-X and one from 5222 developed in ID-11 and the latter has more sharpness, better tone and just looks better on average. I looked at five different ones of the same scenes to compare under the same lighting conditions and to my eyes the 5222 looked better-so did Tri-X with HC-110. It's not that Xtol is that bad. On the contrary, it's rather good but just doesn't look as good as the others.
Broke down, it's probably a toss of the coin. They all do well but some look a bit better. I'll continue on with Xtol and see how things go next time.
Broke down, it's probably a toss of the coin. They all do well but some look a bit better. I'll continue on with Xtol and see how things go next time.
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |