Why is XTOL so good

[John Wiegerink]

Seriously, vacuum filtration through a thick fiberglass filter would take a couple of minutes. Nalgene makes a little water aspirator that pulls a pretty hard vacuum.

Most of the junk in my Xtol stock is easily filtered out by putting a paper coffee filter semi-tight across my funnel(held by a rubber band) and then setting a plastic and gold coffee filter on that. Doesn't take long and I don't have to do that often anyway. JohnW

 

[Adrian Bacon]

This video really isn't a fair comparison. Tmax 3200 will have large grain as it is a high speed film, and you are essentially pushing a 1250 speed film to get there. Rodinal is more suited to lower speed films and medium format where you would not notice significant grain at normal enlargement. I'd like to see him compare tonality of the two different developers with a lower speed film such tmax in 6x6.

It’ll actually be even more dramatic of a difference. Tmax 100 in medium format and XTOL is shockingingly good. Pretty much the definition of grainless. The same goes for TMax 400, just incredible. Start replenishing your xtol instead of using it one shot and it gets even better. Tmax films and xtol seem to be made for each other.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

You are lucky LOL. Mine didn't go bad, it just didn't do what I wanted. There was no vroom .. oh well
.. it was still fun to watch the orange go clear when mixed ! Its almost worth buying ( low contrast negatives and all ) just to mix Part A and Part B together

I’ve never experienced flat negatives and I soup *alot* of film in xtol. That being said, some films most definitely are less responsive to xtol (delta 3200, JCH street pan) compaired to other films (fomapan 100, 200, 400), but given enough developing time and agitation, you’ll get the contrast. Kodak’s times in their xtol tech sheet are starting points and generally produce contrast in the mid 0.50s range. If that is too low for you, add time and agitation.

I’d also want to ask how you’re developing in terms of agitation and frequency of agitation. If your agitating enough, you can build pretty good contrast.

 

[removed account4]

I’ve never experienced flat negatives and I soup *alot* of film in xtol. That being said, some films most definitely are less responsive to xtol (delta 3200, JCH street pan) compaired to other films (fomapan 100, 200, 400), but given enough developing time and agitation, you’ll get the contrast. Kodak’s times in their xtol tech sheet are starting points and generally produce contrast in the mid 0.50s range. If that is too low for you, add time and agitation.

I’d also want to ask how you’re developing in terms of agitation and frequency of agitation. If your agitating enough, you can build pretty good contrast.

Hi Adrian
Its been a long time since I worked with Xtol but the films I used were the Tmx and Tri x ( Tmx/Tmy both in 35mm and 4x5 flavors and 4x5 + 5x7 TriX sheets ). The last times I used it were probably 2002-3? and before that it was between IDK 1997-1999? i used the Tech sheets as a starting point as you suggest, I don't have a densitometer.

I bracketed film when I shot it ( sometimes whith 35mm I over exposed 3 stops, sheets, well I just did 1 as the meter reads and the 2nd 1 stop over ). When I processed the film I agitated 1 full min then 10 seconds ever minute after that. Dilutions I used were straight stock and in the beginning 1:1 and 1:2. I never really agitated more than at most 15 seconds / minute except for when I processed sheets in a tray. With sheet film I shuffled in an open tray or I used hangers in a tank. Times, I would add 30% and then 60% and then even 100% extra development ... it just seemed that every other developer I ever used would have given me density and contrast when I over developed or over exposed my films. IDK who knows, maybe when I run out of coffee / caffenol i"ll add my "splash" of dektol or ansco 130 to xtol and see what happens, that's what I did to increase my contrast and density with the coffee stuff ...and I haven't looked back...

 

[removedacct1]

It’ll actually be even more dramatic of a difference. Tmax 100 in medium format and XTOL is shockingingly good. Pretty much the definition of grainless. The same goes for TMax 400, just incredible. Tmax films and xtol seem to be made for each other.

This is my impression as well - a remarkably good combo.

Some folks have found Xtol to deliver "flat" results, and I have to wonder if this is a matter of taste: some prefer hard, contrasty negs while others prefer softer, more restrained negatives. Xtol 0 in my experience - has the ability to produce a very "full" negative that preserves a very broad range of values, and part of that result is the fact that - again, in MY experience - Xtol restrains highlight information development, preventing hot highlight details from soaring off into excessive densities. The property that makes it a useful developer for some, is a negative trait for others, it would seem. Pick what works for you, of course.

 

[foc]

I always found the Ilford v Kodak sheet from Ilford strange that they suggest Ilfosol 3 is their equivalent to Xtol.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ILFORD-PHOTO-to-Kodak-equivalents.pdf

 

[mshchem]

Seems like I get 90% of my 120 film from Kodak and 90% of my sheet film from Ilford. And it's not just price. I adore TMY2 in 120, FP4 and HP5 in sheets. I do shoot 4x5 TMY, but for 5x7 on up Ilford. Not that my business has a significant effect on their bottom line . I am going to buy a box of Arista 100 5x7, if Foma film is as nice as their paper I will be pleased.

XTOL works for everything

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Kodak has supplied this easy to understand graphic of the traits for their major developers. It should end most of the subjectivity here.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AmOl9vH70YvYlZhXkgBK3js45GMNEg

I'm only an amateur photochemist for the last 35? years. I hate to admit how many hours I must have spent on this hobby. Some would say, wasted. Regardless, and regardless of the fact that I continually learn, here is my two cents:

The performance traits - including the history of sudden death - is all about the ascorbate. Just as the whole industry moved from glycin, amidol, and the pyro's as mainstains many years ago to metol/phenidone/hydroquinone developers, ascorbates are the new frontier. Not really so new, but The Next Big Thing.

Besides appearing to have the superadditivity of hydroquinone, it has the unique trait in that the developer byproducts inhibit further development. At the micro level, that means edge effects, sharpness.

I can't speak to any effects on grain.

I've made an ascorbate based divided developer that is stunning on TMY. I'm picking that line up again now and hope to have the same results with other films. And fine tune the chemistry.

There are smarter people than me out there, if any have other ideas, have at it.

According to that linked chart, Microdol X suits my photography perfeclty! I've been using Xtol and maybe now is the time to mix a batch of Microdol X. What are the downsides of Microdol?

 

[MattKing]

What are the downsides of Microdol?

Speed loss and reduction in accutance.
But the results are smooth.

 

[NB23]

Results are smooooooth.
Tmax100 prints as digital as digital can be

 

[Sirius Glass]

Results are smooooooth.
Tmax100 prints as digital as digital can be

Which is a look that I do not care for. I like traditional grain films in replenished XTOL.

 

[NB23]

Which is a look that I do not care for. I like traditional grain films in replenished XTOL.

Me neither. But that’s microdol...

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Which is a look that I do not care for. I like traditional grain films in replenished XTOL.

I'm like you, I don't like the look tabular grain film. The grain has no character to me.

 

[trendland]

According to that linked chart, Microdol X suits my photography perfeclty! I've been using Xtol and maybe now is the time to mix a batch of Microdol X. What are the downsides of Microdol?

Don't let you tell fairy tales by the folks - John! There are no downsides from Microdol !
There is metol - what is from environment issue more and more a taboo! But it is just to your films
- you should not drink or pour the flowers in neighbours garden with it!
And John : are you able to use a tripod? Then you have no problem with ISO 25 films and this stand also for minus 1 stop using microdol Formulars! The flad negatives are no problem for darkroom users after just 3 weeks of experience in darkroom!
But the main advantage beside charactrristics of mircrodol derivates is the simpliest formulation from raw chemicals! Friends if you all are able to open a 5liter canister then you are also able
to mix D23, microdol x, perceptol formulations within 3 minutes - right?
(the developers stock should stand oder night before using) but it is also OK to usw it in the run
(but not after 3 minutes)!

Where is the downside!

with regards

 

[MattKing]

TMY2 in replenished X-Tol:

Really nice, well defined, crisp but subtle grain.
Very different than the type of grain that I used to get from Microdol-X and Plus-X.

 

[NB23]

TMY2 in replenished X-Tol:
View attachment 220215

Really nice, well defined, crisp but subtle grain.
Very different than the type of grain that I used to get from Microdol-X and Plus-X.

Jeezakrice, now that’s a flat negative.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You have got to be kidding! Very nice.

PE

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I've gone back to D76 recently. It may not be as modern, but I like the look of the grain quite a bit.

 

[mshchem]

TMY2 in replenished X-Tol:
View attachment 220215

Really nice, well defined, crisp but subtle grain.
Very different than the type of grain that I used to get from Microdol-X and Plus-X.

Very nice, my favorite film/developer. 6x6 120? So silky smooth.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

TMY2 in replenished X-Tol:
View attachment 220215

Really nice, well defined, crisp but subtle grain.
Very different than the type of grain that I used to get from Microdol-X and Plus-X.

Stunning. No other adequate description.
Thank you.

 

[MattKing]

6x6 120?

Actually, 6x4.5. My Mamiya 645 Pro and the rarely used (with this format, by me) waist level finder. The 55mm lens, if I recall correctly.
It was at my community's annual collector car and quilt show. Being restricted mostly to landscape format isn't as much of a problem with car shows.

 

[mshchem]

Actually, 6x4.5. My Mamiya 645 Pro and the rarely used (with this format, by me) waist level finder. The 55mm lens, if I recall correctly.
It was at my community's annual collector car and quilt show. Being restricted mostly to landscape format isn't as much of a problem with car shows.

I still have my first, bought new, Bronica ETRSi, I bought it from B&H came with the bonus non metered prism. I took that camera everywhere. 645 with TMY and XTOL . Great format.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

This is my impression as well - a remarkably good combo.

Some folks have found Xtol to deliver "flat" results, and I have to wonder if this is a matter of taste: some prefer hard, contrasty negs while others prefer softer, more restrained negatives. Xtol 0 in my experience - has the ability to produce a very "full" negative that preserves a very broad range of values, and part of that result is the fact that - again, in MY experience - Xtol restrains highlight information development, preventing hot highlight details from soaring off into excessive densities. The property that makes it a useful developer for some, is a negative trait for others, it would seem. Pick what works for you, of course.

The highlight restraint might be how much (or little) agitation or how much (or little) developer you have or a combination of either. I do constant agitation and always put the maximum volume of replenished developer I can fit in the tank and have never had a problem with building density. The more time in the tank means more density.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Actually, 6x4.5. My Mamiya 645 Pro and the rarely used (with this format, by me) waist level finder. The 55mm lens, if I recall correctly.
It was at my community's annual collector car and quilt show. Being restricted mostly to landscape format isn't as much of a problem with car shows.

Very nice picture! I love shooting TMY 120 in my Fujica GW 6x9. Really sharp 90mm lens. A nice big negative at 56x84mm. Makes it hard to justify pulling out the 4x5 for all but the most special captures. Way more portable too.

 

[removed account4]

The more time in the tank means more density.

I truly wish i had that problem, Xtol is cheap and easy to use, and fun to mix.
(and it softens your hands as you do the dishes)