What's so great about XTOL?

T Hoskinson · Nov 24, 2008

Philippe Grunchec said:
I like Xtol, but I don't like powder developers (especially those with "sudden death"). Is there a liquid equivalent?

Yes, there is the Organic Solution version of Instant Mytol:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Works great!

You do need to mix the stock solution yourself - but that's no big deal.

T Hoskinson · Nov 24, 2008

Also: There's Patrick Gainer's PC-Glycol and PC-TEA (I have jugs of both of these developers in my darkroom).

See this article by Jordan: http://www.photosensitive.ca/wp/easy-film-developers

steelydam · Nov 24, 2008

Just one timely but purely anecdotal data point about XTOL lifespan: tonight I developed a few rolls of Tri-X and the new TMAX 400 in XTOL that is exactly 6 months old from time of mixing. I have had it stored in a completely full plastic container and the results with both films were just as good as when I first mixed it. I put the remainder in a smaller plastic container again filled to the top and plan to press on using it until I get a bad roll with it (if that ever happens) or it runs out.

This has been my first time using XTOL after being a D-76 guy for the past 19 years. Thanks to a bunch of people on APUG raving about it several months ago, I gave it a try and am very happy with it. To my amateur eye, with Tri-X it gives the same look albeit with less grain. With the new TMAX and Plus-X I have gotten great negs with it as well. I'm going to keep using it.

Nicholas Lindan · Nov 25, 2008

clayne said:
XTOL doesn't really have any serious sudden death issues

Agreed. In my experience it doesn't fail any more than any other developer. And most likely it doesn't fail suddenly -- one only notices it suddenly.

My problem with Xtol is that one doesn't find out it has failed until too late. Other developers start to turn brown and smelly when they go off and so I know ahead of time not to use them. Xtol stays as clear as the day it was born. The only solution is to do a timed snip test before every use. I'm sure Kodak could dream up some way to get it to change color when it has gone off, but they don't want to bother - and considering the ROI, neither would I.

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 25, 2008

A way to work around the sudden death is - if you use enough of it, use it diluted 1+3 and discard at the end of the development cycle. I've done this, and it's how I like Xtol best. To me, my prints appeared sharper when used this way, and the highlights looked more pleasing.

I used the 5l kit this way (two kits actually), stored the concentrate in 1l airtight capped bottles. It took me 3 months to go through, but I had no problems with it dying on me.

- Thomas

Ian Grant · Nov 25, 2008

The sudden death syndrome was a packaging problem which was only found with the small 1 litre sizes, the problem was discovered & solved a long time ago. I use Xtol on a replenishment basis and it certainly lasts well over a year, and so far over 18 months. I've yet to have a batch fail on me and I've been using it since it's release in the UK for all my commercial work.

Ian

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 25, 2008

Very interesting, Ian. The pro lab I used to work for six years ago used Xtol precisely the way you do. Test strips three times a day. Xtol in a seasoned tank. Very nice negatives that were good both for digital and analog reproductions.

The Xtol 'sudden death' hype is very overrated. Like you say, it's been resolved a long time ago and should not be a factor in your decision whether to use Xtol or not. Just forget about it, move on, and use it if you like it.

- Thomas

Ian Grant · Nov 25, 2008

Yes very nice negs Thomas, I've used replenishment since I was at school with Promicrol, Microphen & ID-68, ID-11, Adox Borax MQ, then Xtol, in Deep Tanks commercially and in 5 or 2.5 litre storage bottles. There is something about a well seasoned replenishable developer, they tend to give a quality not obtainable with fresh or even diluted dev. But then that was what D76/ID-11 was designed for, continuous use in processing machines

Xtol behaves in the same way.

Ian

removed account4 · Nov 25, 2008

i used xtol when it first came out years ago.
it wa OK i won't say it was great.

there's no such thing as a magic bullet...

don't forget to have fun ...

john

Tom Kershaw · Nov 25, 2008

I've yet to have a batch fail on me and I've been using it since it's release in the UK for all my commercial work.

Ian,

I noticed in this thread or another your mention of using XTOL for commercial work and Pyrocat-HD for personal work. What is your particular reasoning behind this decision?

Tom

Tom.

Peter Markowski · Nov 25, 2008

I love Xtol, and was my prized developer of choice since it was released, it works wonderfully with Ilford HP5 which is my primary film. I have developed with D-76, Microdol-X, and Rodinal, and found Xtol suits my tastes perfectly. On some level I agree what you mean about muddy and flat but for me it is with Ilford Delta 400.

However, after some bad batches of the 1L bags (a late notice press release from Kodak, and two contracts down the drain) my confidence was shaken. That is all it takes for me to move on. I have since switched to Pyro PMK 1:2:100 with all my film. I shoot 35mm,120,4x5, and 5x7, with Ilford HP5, Detla 400, HP4, Adox 100, and Rollie 25. And have excellent responses, including scans, but having said that, I print first to FB paper (analogue photoshop) then scan. Good luck finding your combination!

cmo · Nov 26, 2008

Ian Grant said:
The sudden death syndrome was a packaging problem which was only found with the small 1 litre sizes, the problem was discovered & solved a long time ago. I use Xtol on a replenishment basis and it certainly lasts well over a year, and so far over 18 months. I've yet to have a batch fail on me and I've been using it since it's release in the UK for all my commercial work.

Ian

One note: all the hype about failure was in 1996 - that is TWELVE years ago and affected only:
- one-liter packages
- 1996 version of Tmax 100
- 1:3 dilution with old developer

The films, XTol, the package size and the datasheet are changed in the meanwhile...

xtolsniffer · Nov 26, 2008

It's a good one shop stop for me, develops everything I need to nice and easily, good range of charts for different EI's, different films and different temperatures and keeps for ages as stock in well-sealed bottles. I usually use it as stock three times and then ditch it. I used to use it as 1:1 as one-shot but that meant the 1 litre bottles were left half-full for a while (I don't process that much) and I was worried about it keeping. Seems to be very forgiving and always gives good results. I'm not saying there isn't anything better but it's a great general purpose developer.

Ian Grant · Nov 26, 2008

Tom Kershaw said:
Ian,
I noticed in this thread or another your mention of using XTOL for commercial work and Pyrocat-HD for personal work. What is your particular reasoning behind this decision?
Tom

Speed & economy of processing large numbers of films, and habit. Usually I'm processing 20-30 120 films I like the fact I have no solutions to make up, just replinishment.

Ian

Kirk Keyes · Nov 26, 2008

cmo said:
- 1996 version of Tmax 100

The failures had nothing to do with your film choice. The developer failed. That's it.

But that was a long time ago to hold a grudge on a product (the 1L package) that is no longer produced. I thing XTOL has the best combo of fine grain, speed, and accutance. And Kodak has numbers to prove it too. (See the article from last year in Photo Techniques for a discussion of this.)

wogster · Nov 26, 2008

Kirk Keyes said:
The failures had nothing to do with your film choice. The developer failed. That's it.

But that was a long time ago to hold a grudge on a product (the 1L package) that is no longer produced. I thing XTOL has the best combo of fine grain, speed, and accutance. And Kodak has numbers to prove it too. (See the article from last year in Photo Techniques for a discussion of this.)

I wonder something about this, it seems that Kodak is moving toward the same process as with their colour chemistries, huge packages of chemicals, which is fine for a high volume commercial shop, but not so good for low volume users such as myself. I can still get 1L packages of most Ilford developers. When you only do 20 rolls a year, then a 5 gallon or even a 5L package of chemistries leads to a lot of waste.....

removed account4 · Nov 26, 2008

wogster said:
I wonder something about this, it seems that Kodak is moving toward the same process as with their colour chemistries, huge packages of chemicals, which is fine for a high volume commercial shop, but not so good for low volume users such as myself. I can still get 1L packages of most Ilford developers. When you only do 20 rolls a year, then a 5 gallon or even a 5L package of chemistries leads to a lot of waste.....

there are ways to suck out air from bottles of developer.
i have a wine vacuum pump that does wonders for my
1/2 bottle of red wine i am sure it would work well with
a jug or 2 or 3 of developer.

Venchka · Nov 26, 2008

At $2/liter, it's not quite expensive. Shoot more film! Use it straight. Share with friends. 5 friends each get 1 liter for $2. Waste it. It will mean Kodak will continue to make it!

All of Kodak's consumer B&W chemicals come in 1 gallon (4 liters) or smaller. I have seen Microdol-X and I think D-76 in 1 quart size. Xtol is the only odd size. 1 liter larger. It soesn't seem like a big deal to me.

clayne · Nov 26, 2008

People come up with some of the most ridiculous reasons to not use a certain product.

5L is too much? We're not talking 25gallons of solution.

2L Air-evac bottle, 8 US$ at freestyle.

1L Air-evac bottle, 7 US$ at freestyle.

They also sell 5L non-collapsibles for 3 US$.

There's really no issue here. 2+2+1 = 5. You might be able to find them cheaper, but 25$ is easily payed for in a year by the cheap cost of XTOL itself. Not to mention the containers are generally useful. Alternatively one can come up with various combinations of hard and collapsible containers such that atleast 1 is always the active and the others are 100% filled storage.

Paul Verizzo · Nov 26, 2008

Movie developer D-96 has an ascorbate version. I certainly don't know why this is an alternative to the MQ formula, but here it is. I'm not sure why there are two places that sodium sulfite is included. Your mileage may vary. (I had reasons to visit the Technicolor labs in Hollywood years ago for business reasons. A mind blowing experience, thousands of feet per minute of developed film running overhead every which way to the QC folks. Silver recovery looked like a huge bank of lead acid batteries, humming away. Awesome.)

Kodak D-96A, movie ascorbate developer

Sodium Bromide .35g

Sodium Sulfite Any. 15g

Ascorbic Acid 2g

Metol 1.5g

Borax Pentahydrate 3.8g (or 5g of the decahydrate)

Sodium sulfite 60g (is this correct? Two SS?)

gainer · Nov 27, 2008

I think it's just because Metol dissolves easiest in weak sulfite. It's a general rule for developers like D-76 and D-23 to dissolve a small amount of sulfite before the Metol just to prevent oxidation and add the rest after the Metol has dissolved. It is usually described as a "pinch". In this case, the size of the pinch is specified.

wogster · Nov 27, 2008

clayne said:
People come up with some of the most ridiculous reasons to not use a certain product.

5L is too much? We're not talking 25gallons of solution.

2L Air-evac bottle, 8 US$ at freestyle.

1L Air-evac bottle, 7 US$ at freestyle.

They also sell 5L non-collapsibles for 3 US$.

There's really no issue here. 2+2+1 = 5. You might be able to find them cheaper, but 25$ is easily payed for in a year by the cheap cost of XTOL itself. Not to mention the containers are generally useful. Alternatively one can come up with various combinations of hard and collapsible containers such that atleast 1 is always the active and the others are 100% filled storage.

It really depends on how long the stuff will last in a full and tightly capped bottle, I know about the air evac bottles, I wonder if for one shot use one of those wine boxes with the plasticized aluminum liner bag would work especially for one shot use.

MikeSeb · Nov 27, 2008

I think my 20 250mL brown glass bottles cost me about $20 shipped; I divvy up my 5L of Xtol into them and use the lot within 6 months. Each bottle is good for about 2 rolls of 120 film, regardless of dilution. If I need to dilute I just refill the bottle with water the right number of times and dump into the Jobo's chem bottle. Very simple.

Never had a failure this way.

Having tried just about every developer out there, for me Xtol does the most things well. Second would be D-76 or D-76H, then maybe HC-110 or PC-TEA. (I've tried to love HC-110 because of its long shelf life, but I guess I just haven't figured it out yet. I've only found HC-110 really useful for contrast control with 100TMX or 125PX, at 1+50 or more.)

fschifano · Nov 27, 2008

Those air-evac bottles are next to useless. I bought a couple to try, and was heartily disappointed. They're difficult to handle when full, and don't seal all that well. Now I use 1L and smaller soda pop bottles scrounged, I'm not ashamed to admit, from the recycling bin , and have never been disappointed.

Ian Grant · Nov 27, 2008

fschifano said:
Those air-evac bottles are next to useless. I bought a couple to try, and was heartily disappointed. They're difficult to handle when full, and don't seal all that well. Now I use 1L and smaller soda pop bottles scrounged, I'm not ashamed to admit, from the recycling bin , and have never been disappointed.

I have to pretty much agree, I never found them that good, in fact I have a few for sale

Instead I recycle my Ilford & other manufacturers developer bottles, some must be at least 30 nyears old by now.

Ian

What's so great about XTOL?

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency