not as good as rodinal.
(just to get the fur flying!)
+1 Kodak has listed XTOL as having slightly superior properties to other Kodak formulas. I've used tonnes of XTOL . One shot 1:1 in small tanks, replenished in large tanks, straight and 1:1 on Jobo machines.Do relatively small environmental footprint and ability to act as its own replenisher count?
How about offering an excellent balance of speed, low grain and sharpness?
How about suitability for both large volume and low volume applications?
maybe it has something to do with the 100+ years of experience of the people who came up with it?From a technical/mechanistic perspective, what is it about XTOL that gives it such a favorable overall profile as a developer, such as combination of low grain, sharpness, and high speed? Is it the use of ascorbate, or is it the use of a phenidone derivative, or does it have something to do with pH or sulfite concentration? What about other factors? Or is it just some magic balance of factors that makes it so good?
I don't particularly like xtol. Other developers may not be as sharp, but have better tonality and nicer grain. Rodinal is super cheap and never dissapoints. Pyrocat has good characteristics in highlights. Similar to xtol with better tonal quality is D76.
I don't particularly like xtol. Other developers may not be as sharp, but have better tonality and nicer grain. Rodinal is super cheap and never dissapoints. Pyrocat has good characteristics in highlights. Similar to xtol with better tonal quality is D76.
paulbarden: thanks for the link !I have found the results discussed in this video to be very similar to my own experience as well, with a variety of films.
Good video. Interesting that the difference really shows up with high speeds and higher magnification.I have found the results discussed in this video to be very similar to my own experience as well, with a variety of films.
I have found the results discussed in this video to be very similar to my own experience as well, with a variety of films.
IDK JimI really wonder how fair a test this is. We all know that 3200 is a grainy film and that Rodinal will bring out all that grain. Would the author of the video feel the same if he compared Rodinal & XTol with APX25 or Pan-F? I have trouble finding the grain with my grain enlarger when printing APX 25 negs souped in Rodinal.
IDK 1kgcoffeeNot only that jim, but it seems like the rodinal shot was overdeveloped in comparison to xtol?
Wow, I really can't say. It could be. However, I once shot a few frames of 3200 in 35mm and souped in Rodinal just for fun. I have to admit that it was ugly, and I'm a Rodinal user, but not for everything. Rodinal just isn't made for films like 3200. It's good for what it does, slow & medium speed films, although MF Tri-X looks good even in a 16x20. Yes, a bit grainy, but the tones are nice. One of the things I love about Rodinal is that I can dilute almost any way I want. I really love 1+100. Yes, dev times can get into the 20 min. range, but snow scenes and other highlights come out rather well.Not only that jim, but it seems like the rodinal shot was overdeveloped in comparison to xtol?
The performance traits - including the history of sudden death - is all about the ascorbate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?