Why is XTOL so good

[Donald Qualls]

@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.

I give Ultra 400 in Xtol-R 7:00 at 20C, standard agitation in a Paterson tank. Never have a problem with speed; my shadows have detail and my highlights don't block up.

Now, maybe my metering is equivalent to everyone else's shooting at EI 200 (but I don't think it is, because I get that result with Sunny 16 too), but that's what I've gotten in the 2-3 rolls I've done so far in Xtol-R (it's also what I've gotten in the past in Parodinal 1:50).

 

[shadowleaves]

@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.

I know it's an old thread but I just wanted to concur with my own experience that Xtol-R has difficulties in building up density with Fomapan 400 rated at EI higher than 160. Mr. Adrian Bacon also has a very useful resource page a few years ago confirming that Xtol-R can only reach ISO 160 for Fomapan 400.

Adrian's page:
Foma Fomapan 400 H+D Curve with Replenished XTOL for 8:45 at 24C in a JOBO

Nonetheless, Fomapan 400 can still works with Xtol, and the best way (both economically & density-wise) seems to be (surprisingly) one-shot Xtol dilution at 1+2. At my setting (1+2 Xtol one-shot dilution, 100ml Xtol + 200ml tap water, 60 rpm continuous rotary processing for 12'30", 21 celsius degree), best density range seems to be EI 200, while EI 250 is borderline useable (if metered carefully with an incidence meter).

Even at EI 200 I'd say the combination of Xtol + Fomapan 400 remains a highly attractive option. With rotary processing, Xtol 1+2 dilution produces grains that are reasonably fine, much finer than that of Rodinal and also visibly finer than that of D76, while approaching the economics of replenishment (100ml per roll for the one-shot vs 70ml per roll with Xtol-R) without the hassle of recycling & replenishing used developer. Even w/o rotary processing, I assume if one use those metal dev tanks the total volume can be within 300ml and that's still 100ml per roll (35mm at least).

I'll upload some scanned pics later.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I know it's an old thread but I just wanted to concur with my own experience that Xtol-R has difficulties in building up density with Fomapan 400 rated at EI higher than 160. Mr. Adrian Bacon also has a very useful resource page a few years ago confirming that Xtol-R can only reach ISO 160 for Fomapan 400.

Adrian's page:
Foma Fomapan 400 H+D Curve with Replenished XTOL for 8:45 at 24C in a JOBO

Nonetheless, Fomapan 400 can still works with Xtol, and the best way (both economically & density-wise) seems to be (surprisingly) one-shot Xtol dilution at 1+2. At my setting (1+2 Xtol one-shot dilution, 100ml Xtol + 200ml tap water, 60 rpm continuous rotary processing for 12'30", 21 celsius degree), best density range seems to be EI 200, while EI 250 is borderline useable (if metered carefully with an incidence meter).

Even at EI 200 I'd say the combination of Xtol + Fomapan 400 remains a highly attractive option. With rotary processing, Xtol 1+2 dilution produces grains that are reasonably fine, much finer than that of Rodinal and also visibly finer than that of D76, while approaching the economics of replenishment (100ml per roll for the one-shot vs 70ml per roll with Xtol-R) without the hassle of recycling & replenishing used developer. Even w/o rotary processing, I assume if one use those metal dev tanks the total volume can be within 300ml and that's still 100ml per roll (35mm at least).

I'll upload some scanned pics later.

Welcome to Photrio!

I too have found XTOL amazingly forgiving.

 

[Cholentpot]

I too have been converted to the gospel of Xtol. The members here hooked me up with the replenished regiment and I gotta say, nearly 40 rolls of using the same stuff and it hasn't failed me. I recently developed some UFX400 +1 and when scanning I was confused for a second, I couldn't find the grain that I was used to.

 

[Steven Lee]

@shadowleaves Agree with you on everything. I recently switched back from replenishing to one-shot operation. Got tired of adjusting for drifting developer activity, and with my development volume I wasn't comfortable keeping around 5L of replenisher for 1.5 years. I haven't ran any tests, but it also seems that stock or 1+1 Xtol give me a bit more speed (with all films) than Xtol-R. And I never found any image quality advantages of replenishing. The only benefit I regret loosing is the microscopic environmental footprint of replenishing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

@shadowleaves Agree with you on everything. I recently switched back from replenishing to one-shot operation. Got tired of adjusting for drifting developer activity, and with my development volume I wasn't comfortable keeping around 5L of replenisher for 1.5 years. I haven't ran any tests, but it also seems that stock or 1+1 Xtol give me a bit more speed (with all films) than Xtol-R. And I never found any image quality advantages of replenishing. The only benefit I regret loosing is the microscopic environmental footprint of replenishing.

The image quality is reflected in grain smoothness and smoother, continuous tonality improvement, not so major change. There is a slight speed boost which some note, but I sometimes notice a slight better shadow detail.

 

[pentaxuser]

It's a very versatile developer that can always deliver and the way things are going price-wise with its rivals it may become even better value for money

What puzzles me is why there has been no attempt to make a 1L packet as Adox have done

pentaxuser

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

To update, I have resumed using XTol-R. It's just the GOAT. Scans are significantly better.

 

[Cholentpot]

To update, I have resumed using XTol-R. It's just the GOAT. Scans are significantly better.

What's your replenish amount per roll?

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I think some more technically minded people may object but I am very loose with it. I just do 70ml per roll regardless of 24 or 36exp, including 120. I do divide sheets so 1 8x10 is 1 roll.

Results are still remarkably consistent. Being that I run a lab we have 3 basic dev times. Most films are done at 7:30, 24C. 3200 speed films, Pan-F, and weirdo films like JCH Street Pan get that time extended to 18 minutes. Then I have a pre-programmed push time that adds a minute to the base time, which I use for +1. +2 films also get the 3200 speed film time. I do sometimes extend the 3200 time if someone sends in one of those films on a push.

If I started to notice density getting too high I could cut back on the replenishment rate for one round, but that hasn't happened yet. Things are pretty consistent.

Also, I fill up the 15L tanks under the Jobo ATL2500 and do all the replenishment in one go after the 'working tank' has emptied. Mostly the amount of fresh dev that I'm adding is like 6100ml, so greater than a single mix. This time of year I'm doing this about once every 2 weeks.

 

[Steven Lee]

To update, I have resumed using XTol-R. It's just the GOAT. Scans are significantly better.

What did you move off of? Asking because I remember downloading massive TIFFs you had shared, Xtol vs Pyro IIRC?

 

[Sirius Glass]

The image quality is reflected in grain smoothness and smoother, continuous tonality improvement, not so major change. There is a slight speed boost which some note, but I sometimes notice a slight better shadow detail.

To update, I have resumed using XTol-R. It's just the GOAT. Scans are significantly better.

I use replenished XTOL and the replenished XTOL lasts for years. I replenish at 70ml/roll as specified by Kodak.

 

[MattKing]

It's a very versatile developer that can always deliver and the way things are going price-wise with its rivals it may become even better value for money

What puzzles me is why there has been no attempt to make a 1L packet as Adox have done

pentaxuser

X-Tol was initially marketed in that size. The availability of that size coincided with the problems that some people had with unexplained sudden death.
In response, there were packaging changes, and the 1 litre size was discontinued.
X-Tol was always marketed more for commercial users. The D-76 small packages received the marketing "push" for powder developer in the small volume/hobbyist marketplace.
There is a reasonable chance that a 1 litre package would have to sell for almost the same price as the 5 litre ones now - packaging and distribution is a large portion of the retail cost. Would you pay almost five times the cost for five 1 litre packages as you would for one 5 litre package?

 

[Steven Lee]

The image quality is reflected in grain smoothness and smoother, continuous tonality improvement, not so major change. There is a slight speed boost which some note, but I sometimes notice a slight better shadow detail.

Nope. I am armed with microscopes, high-DPI scanning equipment, loupes and common sense. We both know you're just parroting something you've read online. You know how I know that you're not describing your personal experience? Because you also said that you always replenish with 70ml. That cannot possibly give you great results because you're violating Kodak instructions. The correct amount of replenishment depends on film speeds, average density and frequency of use. My witnesses are the densitometer, control strips and the Kodak datasheet. It's all there. 70ml is just what you start with.

Lots of opinionated non-practitioners here giving advice.

 

[shadowleaves]

Welcome to Photrio!

I too have found XTOL amazingly forgiving.

Thanks! It's great to be back to Photrio, 15 years later. How time flies!

I'm adding some pics here scanned using Nikon 9000ED (pls ignore the newton rings, they were introduced by scanning 35mm strips on FH869G holder for 120 roll films. I don't have a 35mm holder handy at the moment).

Again these are dev-ed by Xtol 1+2 dilution (100ml Xtol + 200ml tap water) one-shot, 12'30" at 21C with a 3D-printed rotary processor at 60rpm.

With incident metering at close distance using a Gossen Digisix, EI 160 seems to be the best for shadow details. EI 200 very useable too, while EI 250 is losing some info in the shadow. EI 320 is too thin and we can see dusts/scratches/all the minor blemishes on the film base start to become visible. It's a typical signal/noise ratio thing. As the silver density decreases with higher EI, dusts etc stay the same and become more visible.

At the infinity scene using yellow filter, with large portion of sky in the pics, EI 250 became somewhat useable, although the signal/noise ratio still seems better with EI 200. EI160 is a bit overexposed in the highlights. Metering in this case was done with Leica M6's internal TTL meter & confirmed with the LightMe app, assuming +2/3 EV for the yellow filter.

I have done portrait / flash lighting etc with similar settings and the conclusion is largely the same - EI 200 seems to be the best rating. I could try another test with longer processing time (say 15min) but I doubt result would be much different given Foma's curve for its 400 film which plateaus at ISO 250 per their standards. And contrast would be likely too high for EI 250 for longer processing time.

 

[shadowleaves]

@shadowleaves Agree with you on everything. I recently switched back from replenishing to one-shot operation. Got tired of adjusting for drifting developer activity, and with my development volume I wasn't comfortable keeping around 5L of replenisher for 1.5 years. I haven't ran any tests, but it also seems that stock or 1+1 Xtol give me a bit more speed (with all films) than Xtol-R. And I never found any image quality advantages of replenishing. The only benefit I regret loosing is the microscopic environmental footprint of replenishing.

Thanks for the info! I have never tried 1+1 dilution. I have been using Xtol-R for a long time with Fomapan 100 at EI100, Kentmere 400@400/800, and Kodak Double-X @ EI500, and never had any issues for these types of films thus far. The thin negative surprises only happened when it comes to Fomapan 400 Action. Maybe something that builds up in the replenished Xtol (bromide?) is interfering with the developing process for Fomapan 400. But I don't know for sure, and why wouldn't the same stuff interfere with Kentmere 400@800 etc.

But Fomapan 400 is unbeatable in economics when it comes to bulk rolls. Here in HK it can be obtained at prices around 55 USD for 100 ft. And so I was keen to find a way to develop this film with reasonably fine grain & repeatable specs for the developing process. So far IMHO the only other combination that might come close is to push Fomapan 100 to EI200 with Xtol or Rodinal. I shall find some time to try that and report back!

 

[dokko]

I'm adding some pics here scanned using Nikon 9000ED

those look really nice, thanks for sharing.

I always found Foma 400 a bit to rough for bigger enlargements, but I exposed at ISO 400 and developed in XTOL 1+1 or 1+2.
Your examples look noticeable better, so it seems the higher solvent of stock XTOL and more exposure makes it quite a nice film stock.

 

[shadowleaves]

those look really nice, thanks for sharing.

I always found Foma 400 a bit to rough for bigger enlargements, but I exposed at ISO 400 and developed in XTOL 1+1 or 1+2.
Your examples look noticeable better, so it seems the higher solvent of stock XTOL and more exposure makes it quite a nice film stock.

Thanks. These are actually not deved in stock Xtol. I mentioned earlier in another post in the thread that they were 1+2 dilution one-shot. Stock Xtol is nice, but somewhat expensive and less economically/eco-friendly to use. Replenished Xtol on the other hand is eco-friendly and works fine for almost every other film types including Foma 100, but Foma 400 is an exception and it's just oddly difficult to build up density on Foma 400 in Xtol-R for reasons I don't understand. Thus I ended up using 1+2 dilution for Foma 400.

 

[dokko]

I mentioned earlier in another post in the thread that they were 1+2 dilution one-shot.

ah interesting, thanks for the clarification.

so I must have have an unsuitable subject or maybe the extra exposure you gave it helped to tighten up the grain structure (it war rather pepper grain like in my tests)

 

[shadowleaves]

ah interesting, thanks for the clarification.

so I must have have an unsuitable subject or maybe the extra exposure you gave it helped to tighten up the grain structure (it war rather pepper grain like in my tests)

Yeah EI400 would be too underexposed for Xtol regardless of dilution, as the official foma 400 curve indicates max iso at 250 for stock solution. I personally would take another 1/3 ev away from the official data and wont go beyond EI200 for foma 400 with any xtol dilution.

But the grain structure might not be solely based on EI. If you look at my EI 320 exposures above, the grains there seem ok to me. If your grains were much worse, I wonder if it was temperature or something else that might have played a role in your case

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I know it's an old thread but I just wanted to concur with my own experience that Xtol-R has difficulties in building up density with Fomapan 400 rated at EI higher than 160. Mr. Adrian Bacon also has a very useful resource page a few years ago confirming that Xtol-R can only reach ISO 160 for Fomapan 400.

Adrian's page:
Foma Fomapan 400 H+D Curve with Replenished XTOL for 8:45 at 24C in a JOBO

Nonetheless, Fomapan 400 can still works with Xtol, and the best way (both economically & density-wise) seems to be (surprisingly) one-shot Xtol dilution at 1+2. At my setting (1+2 Xtol one-shot dilution, 100ml Xtol + 200ml tap water, 60 rpm continuous rotary processing for 12'30", 21 celsius degree), best density range seems to be EI 200, while EI 250 is borderline useable (if metered carefully with an incidence meter).

Even at EI 200 I'd say the combination of Xtol + Fomapan 400 remains a highly attractive option. With rotary processing, Xtol 1+2 dilution produces grains that are reasonably fine, much finer than that of Rodinal and also visibly finer than that of D76, while approaching the economics of replenishment (100ml per roll for the one-shot vs 70ml per roll with Xtol-R) without the hassle of recycling & replenishing used developer. Even w/o rotary processing, I assume if one use those metal dev tanks the total volume can be within 300ml and that's still 100ml per roll (35mm at least).

I'll upload some scanned pics later.

I've unfortunately (or fortunately, I guess it depends on your point of view) left replenished Xtol and went to replenished Ilford DD, and haven't looked back even once. The reason I left Xtol was due to the total mayhem that happened a few years back with dead developer (and the replacement they sent also being dead). I have a film lab to run, so replenished Ilford DD it is, and it has been nothing but rock steady reliable with published dev times that just work. At this point I've easily run many thousands of bw rolls through my bottle of working solution, and it's been great. I get full film speed, the grain is pretty good, the developer is also its own replenisher. Functionally, it's the same as replenished Xtol in terms of usage. I run Ilford's FP4+ control strips, and at 50ml per roll, it's been bang on target every single time.

Replenished Xtol is great, but for me, it came down to a business decision, and until Ilford messes up DD, that's what I'm on.

 

[Cholentpot]

I've unfortunately (or fortunately, I guess it depends on your point of view) left replenished Xtol and went to replenished Ilford DD, and haven't looked back even once. The reason I left Xtol was due to the total mayhem that happened a few years back with dead developer (and the replacement they sent also being dead). I have a film lab to run, so replenished Ilford DD it is, and it has been nothing but rock steady reliable with published dev times that just work. At this point I've easily run many thousands of bw rolls through my bottle of working solution, and it's been great. I get full film speed, the grain is pretty good, the developer is also its own replenisher. Functionally, it's the same as replenished Xtol in terms of usage. I run Ilford's FP4+ control strips, and at 50ml per roll, it's been bang on target every single time.

Replenished Xtol is great, but for me, it came down to a business decision, and until Ilford messes up DD, that's what I'm on.

How long ago was this incident?

 

[shadowleaves]

I've unfortunately (or fortunately, I guess it depends on your point of view) left replenished Xtol and went to replenished Ilford DD, and haven't looked back even once. The reason I left Xtol was due to the total mayhem that happened a few years back with dead developer (and the replacement they sent also being dead). I have a film lab to run, so replenished Ilford DD it is, and it has been nothing but rock steady reliable with published dev times that just work. At this point I've easily run many thousands of bw rolls through my bottle of working solution, and it's been great. I get full film speed, the grain is pretty good, the developer is also its own replenisher. Functionally, it's the same as replenished Xtol in terms of usage. I run Ilford's FP4+ control strips, and at 50ml per roll, it's been bang on target every single time.

Replenished Xtol is great, but for me, it came down to a business decision, and until Ilford messes up DD, that's what I'm on.

Thank you Adrian for the update. I myself will probably move away from Xtol-R as well, now that I found a somewhat economical way to use Xtol one-shot. I heard DD is very similar to DDX but it’s not available in my region unfortunately. I used DDX a lot when I first did B/W photography many years ago and I have a vague memory about pronounced grains with HP5+. Maybe time to re-try that as well…

 

[Sirius Glass]

Nope. I am armed with microscopes, high-DPI scanning equipment, loupes and common sense. We both know you're just parroting something you've read online. You know how I know that you're not describing your personal experience? Because you also said that you always replenish with 70ml. That cannot possibly give you great results because you're violating Kodak instructions. The correct amount of replenishment depends on film speeds, average density and frequency of use. My witnesses are the densitometer, control strips and the Kodak datasheet. It's all there. 70ml is just what you start with.

Lots of opinionated non-practitioners here giving advice.

You are attributing actions to me that are not mine. I am a practitioner and I am satisfied with my work. Your last line is well tributed to yourself.

 

[MattKing]

The definition of "practitioners" is a vague one - many here have reason to apply criteria to their results that satisfy themselves and will satisfy many others, even though others may want or need to apply narrower tolerances.
It is fine to specify your own targets - just be prepared to acknowledge that they may differ with the tolerance that may satisfy many others.