@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.@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.
@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.
To update, I have resumed using XTol-R. It's just the GOAT. Scans are significantly better.
To update, I have resumed using XTol-R. It's just the GOAT. Scans are significantly better.
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.
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
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.
Welcome to Photrio!
I too have found XTOL amazingly forgiving.
@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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?