Why is XTOL so good

[warden]

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.

I agree that it's a matter of taste. I've been experimenting with controlling contrast in direct sunlight recently, and Xtol with TMax 400 is giving me what I'm after. I'm aiming for a similar tonality to Matthew Genitempo's recent work. I don't know anything about his process or whether he uses film or digital but I'm finding Xtol 1+1 and giving TMax extra exposure is working for me. Previously I was using Tri-X and Xtol stock and the resulting negatives were too contrasty for my taste.

 

[mshchem]

and it softens your hands as you do the dishes)

OK Madge!

https://clickamericana.com/eras/1960s/palmolive-ads-featuring-madge-the-manicurist

 

[trendland]

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.

Matt that is indeed a nice example - I remember a discussion of a pros. from shooting oldtimers
digital medium format 80Mp or in color 8x10 he decided to color with sheed film!

Here in concern of grain it is the old discussion about resolution/sharpness/visible grain vs. unvisible grain!
Some bring the issue of edge effects in addition to this points - that makes it more complicate!

Regarding your result / your motive - we may speak about C O N T R A S T!
Here you would have the need from all (from the film and from developer) = good handling of the tonal range + good sharpness from little acentuated grain (resolution) [microdol would gave a little smaler grain with the compromiss of smaller resolution here) and of course C O N T R A S T
microdol would give little flat contrasts (pulling principle) what one also may handle from grade of papers via enlarging in own darkroom (I doubt that comercial labs have still the knowlege AND experience in normal case for such work/prints today!!!!).
But at last you will not get these tonals with microdol I see!

with regards

PS : Every film with any kind of developer combination is allways the sum of many compromises!
PPS : But that's why you do not have to shoot sparrows with cannons - in other words :
The example you gave is in this case a "homidide argument" against microdol..,.

 

[MattKing]

Thread Revival Warning!
I've gone through some disruptions lately, including a major move. One of the consequences being that I just developed a test roll of film - the first roll I have developed in 11 months!
After doing a clip test, I shot and developed a roll of 35mm Plus-X in the X-Tol I have stored unused (except for scheduled replenishment for the first couple of months) for those 11 months, and fixed it in the partly used working strength Kodak Rapid Fixer (without hardener) that I have stored unused for the same time.
Success - the X-Tol appears to have survived unharmed!
I'm hoping that the old replenisher of same vintage will also continue to do its job.
I've scanned and uploaded two of the frames:

Socially Distanced Ducks

• MattKing
• Sep 8, 2020
• 2

I post this to celebrate finally getting my "Ducks in a Row".
After a whole bunch of...

EDIT: I Replaced the galery download but forgot until now that I needed to re-link

Parked Inside - Sept/Oct 2020 MSA - "Interior"

• MattKing
• Sep 9, 2020
• 7

The parking garage in the interior of our complex

:

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thread Revival Warning!
I've gone through some disruptions lately, including a major move. One of the consequences being that I just developed a test roll of film - the first roll I have developed in 11 months!
After doing a clip test, I shot and developed a roll of 35mm Plus-X in the X-Tol I have stored unused (except for scheduled replenishment for the first couple of months) for those 11 months, and fixed it in the partly used working strength Kodak Rapid Fixer (without hardener) that I have stored unused for the same time.
Success - the X-Tol appears to have survived unharmed!
I'm hoping that the old replenisher of same vintage will also continue to do its job.
I've scanned and uploaded two of the frames:

Socially Distanced Ducks

• MattKing
• Sep 8, 2020
• 2

I post this to celebrate finally getting my "Ducks in a Row".
After a whole bunch of...

View media item 63484

It seems that you like your ducks in a line.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I love Xtol. For me, HP5, and TMY-2 look fantastic in it at a 1+1 dilution.

 

[Donald Qualls]

My only significant question since mixing up my (2002 expired) pack of Xtol a few weeks ago is: why did I wait so long? Works great with Fomapan 100 and 400, and with ORWO DN21. Got a Pro-pack of Tri-X 120 on hand, all expectation it'll be perfect there, too. I replenish; I like the look of the stock solution and the low cost of running it in replenishment (as low as 14 cents a roll when you get into your second 5L -- assuming the price hasn't gone up). I can develop film for less with mix my own, but it'll take some testing to see if I can develop as well for less.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

My only significant question since mixing up my (2002 expired) pack of Xtol a few weeks ago is: why did I wait so long? Works great with Fomapan 100 and 400, and with ORWO DN21. Got a Pro-pack of Tri-X 120 on hand, all expectation it'll be perfect there, too. I replenish; I like the look of the stock solution and the low cost of running it in replenishment (as low as 14 cents a roll when you get into your second 5L -- assuming the price hasn't gone up). I can develop film for less with mix my own, but it'll take some testing to see if I can develop as well for less.

Eventually, I will go replenished Xtol a go. I've been using Xtol at 1+1... on and off, as I also use Pyrocat-HD... since it first appeared on the shelves.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I shoot Tmax 100 and Tmax 400. I know of two lab. One uses Xtol. The other uses Clayton F76+ developer similar to D76 Kodak. Where would you send your film if you too and why?

 

[PFGS]

My only significant question since mixing up my (2002 expired) pack of Xtol a few weeks ago is: why did I wait so long? Works great with Fomapan 100 and 400, and with ORWO DN21. Got a Pro-pack of Tri-X 120 on hand, all expectation it'll be perfect there, too. I replenish; I like the look of the stock solution and the low cost of running it in replenishment (as low as 14 cents a roll when you get into your second 5L -- assuming the price hasn't gone up). I can develop film for less with mix my own, but it'll take some testing to see if I can develop as well for less.

Can you recommend a starting time for the DN21 in replenished Xtol? Sorry if I missed one on the other thread.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I processed my (first and so far only) roll for 7:00 at 20C, standard agitation (continuous first minute, then five inversions every minute). My contrast looks a little "funny", but I'm not sure if that's a scanning problem -- haven't gotten to print the negatives yet.

I arrived at the time by looking at the D-96 time ORWO recommends, and the HC-110 B time Lomography recommends (for Babylon 13, same film), applying a correction to the D-96 time based on other films that had both D-96 and Xtol stock in the Massive Dev Chart and checking against the HC-110 B time (which should be the same as D-76 stock, which is generally very close to Xtol stock).

In other words, I made the best educated guess I could. Should be close enough for a first hack, since you've got a bulk roll too...

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I processed my (first and so far only) roll for 7:00 at 20C, standard agitation (continuous first minute, then five inversions every minute). My contrast looks a little "funny", but I'm not sure if that's a scanning problem -- haven't gotten to print the negatives yet.

I arrived at the time by looking at the D-96 time ORWO recommends, and the HC-110 B time Lomography recommends (for Babylon 13, same film), applying a correction to the D-96 time based on other films that had both D-96 and Xtol stock in the Massive Dev Chart and checking against the HC-110 B time (which should be the same as D-76 stock, which is generally very close to Xtol stock).

In other words, I made the best educated guess I could. Should be close enough for a first hack, since you've got a bulk roll too...

I used to use XTOL replenished and plan to use it again. I also use HC-110 replenished. The look of both developers are quite different. I've been using HC-110 for over 30 years and the look of film processed in XTOL does look "funny" . Can't put my finger on it. If you use the recommended amount of fresh developer to replenish, over time, it will drift and become a bit weaker. My last batch was pretty saturated with bromide that I tossed the working solution and never got back to using it. But it seems that XTOL works much more gently that HC-110. This is just my observation. Both are excellent developers.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I shoot Tmax 100 and Tmax 400. I know of two lab. One uses Xtol. The other uses Clayton F76+ developer similar to D76 Kodak. Where would you send your film if you too and why?

If I were me, I'd send it to me.

My standard developer is replenished XTOL, though, you can request D-76, HC-110, and Rodinal.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Thread Revival Warning!
I've gone through some disruptions lately, including a major move. One of the consequences being that I just developed a test roll of film - the first roll I have developed in 11 months!
After doing a clip test, I shot and developed a roll of 35mm Plus-X in the X-Tol I have stored unused (except for scheduled replenishment for the first couple of months) for those 11 months, and fixed it in the partly used working strength Kodak Rapid Fixer (without hardener) that I have stored unused for the same time.
Success - the X-Tol appears to have survived unharmed!
I'm hoping that the old replenisher of same vintage will also continue to do its job.
I've scanned and uploaded two of the frames:

Socially Distanced Ducks

• MattKing
• Sep 8, 2020
• 2

I post this to celebrate finally getting my "Ducks in a Row".
After a whole bunch of...

EDIT: I Replaced the galery download but forgot until now that I needed to re-link

Parked Inside - Sept/Oct 2020 MSA - "Interior"

• MattKing
• Sep 9, 2020
• 7

The parking garage in the interior of our complex

:

So, just out of curiosity, how did you store the solutions? Also, were they mixed up with tap water or something else?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If I were me, I'd send it to me.

My standard developer is replenished XTOL, though, you can request D-76, HC-110, and Rodinal.

Fair enough. But why would you want it processed in Xtol rather than D76?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Fair enough. But why would you want it processed in Xtol rather than D76?

Typically, you get a bit more toe speed with XTOL, and specifically with regards to replenished XTOL, there is just something about the grain structure and tonality that replenished XTOL imparts onto the emulsion that is just very lovely looking with many films. In particular, Kodak's TMAX line looks spectacular in replenished XTOL. D-76 isn't a slouch by any measure, but replenished XTOL is just better looking.

 

[MattKing]

So, just out of curiosity, how did you store the solutions? Also, were they mixed up with tap water or something else?

I keep my working solutions in rectangular 2 litre juice pitchers that happen to use fairly heavy PET, have straight sides and an almost flat top, and have a wide round mouth with a good threaded cap which has at one edge a small pop on mini-lid which is great for inserting a thermometer or pouring out a small quantity of fluid.
X-Tol in the container with the orange cap. Working strength fixer in the container with the green cap .
I looked for a while, and found them for a small price at a local Dollar Store.
I mixed my X-Tol using 4 litres of distilled water and 1 litre of tap water - we have good water here.
The bottles are always kept inside a plastic tote with a lid. Up until about mid-January this year that tote was in a room temperature hall closet. After than and until the last couple of weeks the tote was stored in a walk-in, inside a building, storage locker - no heat or air conditioning, but well protected from the elements. We have one of the most temperate climates in the world, and that locker is always reasonably comfortable, no matter what the weather is outside.
Essentially, the chemicals didn't move for many months, and spent most of the time in the dark.
The two litres or so of X-Tol replenisher - split between one 1 litre bottle and a couple of full small ones - were stored with the working solution. I use re-purposed hydrogen peroxide bottles for the one litre size, and plastic cough syrup bottles of a variety of sizes for the smaller sizes. I get the cough syrup bottles new from my pharmacist - so far they have given me what I need.

 

[Sirius Glass]

XTOL and replenished XTOL does many things well [see below], but also it is very forgiving. Not at all finicky.

 

[Bormental]

Hey, can I just say that for some films full-strength Xtol beats replenished? Fomapan 400 and Delta 3200 and (debatable) HP5+ look a bit better in full-strength Xtol. Basically, light-hungry flatter films. @Donald Qualls I know you like Arista Ultra, try FS Xtol for ISO 400 at EI320. The replenished developer can barely do EI250 with this film, you just can't build density.

 

[mshchem]

Here's how I do XTOL. Every container as full as possible. Have several small bottles for storing partials. I throw away any volume that doesn't fill a bottle. For replenishing I have a couple old glass gallon jugs. To start I fill the bottle full (takes over a gallon). Then after use put most of the developer back in the gallon jug, add the required amount of replenisher, then top off with any remains of the used developer, then toss any extra.

 

[mshchem]

Hey, can I just say that for some films full-strength Xtol beats replenished? Fomapan 400 and Delta 3200 and (debatable) HP5+ look a bit better in full-strength Xtol. Basically, light-hungry flatter films. @Donald Qualls I know you like Arista Ultra, try FS Xtol for ISO 400 at EI320. The replenished developer can barely do EI250 with this film, you just can't build density.

I use a couple of different Jobo machines. I do almost everything stock XTOL 1 shot.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Hey, can I just say that for some films full-strength Xtol beats replenished?

Love Arista film. Gets your replenished developer nice and green! It’s a matter of taste. I like the look of replenish developer better. More economical too! But you could dump money down the sink if you want to.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If I'm going to one-shot a developer, I'll do it with home-mixed Parodinal. With my minimal agitation regimen (agitation every third minute) in 1:50, I can get full box speed or better with every film I've tried, at normal contrast, and it costs pennies a roll. What it doesn't do is smooth grain the way Xtol and D-76 do. Xtol (replenished) is the only one that does this with little or no cost in sharpness.

Given the amount of replenishment (70 ml per 8x10 equivalent, ~ 120 or 135-36) A liter of working solution is entirely replaced after fourteen rolls, so bromide build-up shouldn't be a huge problem. My working solution is 2L, because I need to use the developer in my Yankee Agitank, which takes a bit more than 1.5 L for 4x5 film -- but the bromide is diluted over twice as much solution, so the end result is the same. I don't expect bromide issues in any reasonable period of time, certainly not before I finish up my second 5L package...

 

[Bormental]

@Donald Qualls just saying. I love Xtol-R but I pretty much gave up on Arista EDU Ultra 400 having switched to it from Ultrafine D76. Will be interested to hear your experience. I've gone up to 17 minutes 21C and the density still wasn't there. Workable negs, but not nearly as gorgeous as what I was getting with D76.

 

[BradS]

.....or is it just some magic balance of factors that makes it so good?

I think this is probably the closest to the truth.

XTol represents the culmination many decades and many millions of dollars spent on research and development. It is Kodak at (or near) the pinnacle of its existence.