X-tol @1:3?

[jim appleyard]

the person who recommended i try using xtol told me it would be like that,
not sure how unusual it is if more than 1 person has similar results ...
as i have said in other "should i use xtol" threads .. it wasn't like i used it once
and never used it again .. i used it for a couple of years .. put countless rolls and sheets
through it, used it replenished and 1:1, stock and 1:2 ... varied exposures .. and
a handful of years later ... tried it again after thinking " hmm maybe it was me, i have a handful of years more experience"
after 2 or 3 runs i got rid of the developer and never bought it again.
interestingly enough i got similar results when i first started using caffnenol c ( tablespoons+instant coffee ) years later
( maybe its vit c developers==>> low contrast ? ) and i remedied the problem by adding a shake of stock ansco 130 ..
years after i stopped using xtol, i read how les mClean mixed his xtol wtih rodinal i figured maybe if i mixed ansco 130 ( sorry i have never seen or used rodinal )
i'd probably still be using xtol ...
my recommendation to the OP is use it 1:3 but add some stock dektol into your developer, you will get better results than using xtol 1:3 )
YMMV

LOL
i'd rather be an outlier than run with the pack ..

John, I wonder if it's your water? Could it be something in your water that doesn't like ascorbic acid? Have you had unfixable results with other devs?

 

[removed account4]

John, I wonder if it's your water? Could it be something in your water that doesn't like ascorbic acid? Have you had unfixable results with other devs?

hi jim
nope, never had results like that with any other developer >>>>
i've taken it as a sign, you know like when "Joliet' Jake Blues was in the church and the beam of
light hit him and he did back flips all the way to the alter got down ( hallelujah! )

im not on a mission from God but .. i figured it was a message not to use the developer again

 

[Arvee]

zelph
good luck with your xtol, i won't touch the stuff.
i did for years but found it to be too flat and contrast-less
and unable to get contrast + density for my tastes
( even when i over exoposed and over processed the film, it was WEAK while
anything else would have been bulletproof )
with regards to why you should or shouldn't use it ... IDK time spent exposing film
which is locked up in the latent image is much more valuable to me than using a developer
that doesn't give me satisfaction //
the only thing i found it is good for is mixing, its a lot of fun watching the orange stuff turn clear
when you mix part a and part b..



IDK some say its a clone but not the same thing..
i use sprint film developer sometimes its uses the same times as d76+1d11 but
is much better, it won't bind up highlights like the other 2 will do.

John,
I complained about the same thing when I used Xtol. The negs were flat and my prints were blah as well. Tried increasing the times but that didn't help.
I believe a lot of the 'Xtol base' might be changing their tune if they actually did a side by side A/B densitometer comparison of an identical subject with a proper D-76 neg and an Xtol neg (and wet prints also). I catalog all my negs and just simply looking at negs processed with different developers on a light table revealed a whole lot. It was a real eye opener! I believe that's why Kodak relied on 'the first best print' for determining their development parameters.

 

[fjpod]

the person who recommended i try using xtol told me it would be like that,
not sure how unusual it is if more than 1 person has similar results ...
as i have said in other "should i use xtol" threads .. it wasn't like i used it once
and never used it again .. i used it for a couple of years .. put countless rolls and sheets
through it, used it replenished and 1:1, stock and 1:2 ... varied exposures .. and
a handful of years later ... tried it again after thinking " hmm maybe it was me, i have a handful of years more experience"
after 2 or 3 runs i got rid of the developer and never bought it again.
interestingly enough i got similar results when i first started using caffnenol c ( tablespoons+instant coffee ) years later
( maybe its vit c developers==>> low contrast ? ) and i remedied the problem by adding a shake of stock ansco 130 ..
years after i stopped using xtol, i read how les mClean mixed his xtol wtih rodinal i figured maybe if i mixed ansco 130 ( sorry i have never seen or used rodinal )
i'd probably still be using xtol ...
my recommendation to the OP is use it 1:3 but add some stock dektol into your developer, you will get better results than using xtol 1:3 )
YMMV

LOL
i'd rather be an outlier than run with the pack ..

Dektol? A paper developer? Why? How much?

 

[jim appleyard]

hi jim
nope, never had results like that with any other developer >>>>
i've taken it as a sign, you know like when "Joliet' Jake Blues was in the church and the beam of
light hit him and he did back flips all the way to the alter got down ( hallelujah! )

im not on a mission from God but .. i figured it was a message not to use the developer again

You know, I'e never see that movie in its entirety. The parts I've seen were great, but never the whole thing...someday.

 

[removed account4]

Dektol? A paper developer? Why? How much?

i'd put dektol or ansco 130 / ansco 125 in if you have it .. the paper developer would boost the overall contrast and density of the film and IMHO make it
a better developer. i'd probably put about 1oz / L or 20cc/L as a starting point and see how it goes. (that's what i do with caffenol c and it works like a champ !
but then again the orthodox / caffenol purists aren't happy with that and im guessign xtol users will have issue with my suggestion .. oh well )
you might search posts here by les mClean or go to his website to see the amounts of rodinal he puts in if you want a mellower maybe more nuanced situation ...
here are a few links >> https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html https://www.flickr.com/groups/819042@N23/

keep in mind whatever you put in there ( dektol, rodinal, ansco 130, ansco125 &C )
will give you different developing times so you will have to re-tool your system ( you might have to change your in camera exposure too, a bracketed roll should work )

You know, I'e never see that movie in its entirety. The parts I've seen were great, but never the whole thing...someday.

gotta watch it !
they were on a mission from God !

 

[fjpod]

i'd put dektol or ansco 130 / ansco 125 in if you have it .. the paper developer would boost the overall contrast and density of the film and IMHO make it
a better developer. i'd probably put about 1oz / L or 20cc/L as a starting point and see how it goes. (that's what i do with caffenol c and it works like a champ !
but then again the orthodox / caffenol purists aren't happy with that and im guessign xtol users will have issue with my suggestion .. oh well )
you might search posts here by les mClean or go to his website to see the amounts of rodinal he puts in if you want a mellower maybe more nuanced situation ...
here are a few links >> https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html https://www.flickr.com/groups/819042@N23/

keep in mind whatever you put in there ( dektol, rodinal, ansco 130, ansco125 &C )
will give you different developing times so you will have to re-tool your system ( you might have to change your in camera exposure too, a bracketed roll should work )


gotta watch it !
they were on a mission from God !

I happened upon this thread as I was just going to start trying xtol in the next week or so. Just waiting to finish my d-76, which I feel works well. I want to see the difference in grain. I read about all the sudden death reports, but I don't feel it poses a serious threat at this point, and my solution will be fresh.

But, I'm hearing a lot about poor contrast, thin negatives, yada.....in this thread. I'll keep the dektol in mind, but wouldn't a little longer development time solve the issue? Maybe a little more agitation? Two or three degrees more temp? Maybe less dilution. Kodak says (dangerous words), it maintains good contrast and film speed.

Thanks for the info.

 

[removed account4]

I happened upon this thread as I was just going to start trying xtol in the next week or so. Just waiting to finish my d-76, which I feel works well. I want to see the difference in grain. I read about all the sudden death reports, but I don't feel it poses a serious threat at this point, and my solution will be fresh.

But, I'm hearing a lot about poor contrast, thin negatives, yada.....in this thread. I'll keep the dektol in mind, but wouldn't a little longer development time solve the issue? Maybe a little more agitation? Two or three degrees more temp? Maybe less dilution. Kodak says (dangerous words), it maintains good contrast and film speed.

Thanks for the info.

the sudden death thing was solved something like 20 years ago LOL
good luck with your tests, i hope it works out for you ..
regarding a little longer development time solve the issue? Maybe a little more agitation? Two or three degrees more temp? Maybe less dilution. ...
well, i used the developer for a couple of years to see if i could get the kinks out of my systemand none of those things helped
i'll never buy it again ..

 

[Anon Ymous]

I've used Xtol to push process 400TX shot at EI1600 and the result was certainly fine. Probably better than anything else I've tried, but not by too much. Produced plenty of contrast as far as I am concerned.

 

[removed account4]

John,
I complained about the same thing when I used Xtol. The negs were flat and my prints were blah as well. Tried increasing the times but that didn't help.
I believe a lot of the 'Xtol base' might be changing their tune if they actually did a side by side A/B densitometer comparison of an identical subject with a proper D-76 neg and an Xtol neg (and wet prints also). I catalog all my negs and just simply looking at negs processed with different developers on a light table revealed a whole lot. It was a real eye opener! I believe that's why Kodak relied on 'the first best print' for determining their development parameters.

yeah its weird stuff ...

 

[pentaxuser]

, i read how les mClean mixed his xtol wtih rodinal i figured maybe if i mixed ansco 130 ( sorry i have never seen or used rodinal )
i'd probably still be using xtol ...
my recommendation to the OP is use it 1:3 but add some stock dektol into your developer, you will get better results than using xtol 1:3 )
YMMV/QUOTE]

Interesting. Can you recall where you read Les McLean's recommendation on Xtol with Dektol. I leafed through his book Creative Black and White Photography and there is no mention of Xtol there at all, However that book was published in 2002 and maybe Xtol had not been launched then.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[jim appleyard]

I think xtol came out in '96? There's a small blip about Rodinal & Vit. C at the end of this article:

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html

 

[pentaxuser]

I think xtol came out in '96? There's a small blip about Rodinal & Vit. C at the end of this article:

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html

Thanks for that. If you are right then It would appear that Les McLean had not used it for any of his negatives in the 2002 book. Mind you those negatives might have been processed pre 1996 but were the ones chosen for his book. Les was certainly asked to do a lot of articles and did test developers such as one called Prescysol so it may be that his recommendation was in one such article.

Maybe jnanian will still reply to my post

pentaxuser

 

[removed account4]

Interesting. Can you recall where you read Les McLean's recommendation on Xtol with Dektol. I leafed through his book Creative Black and White Photography and there is no mention of Xtol there at all, However that book was published in 2002 and maybe Xtol had not been launched then.

Thanks

pentaxuser

sorry i don't remember when les said it, its been a long time since he was here
maybe it was a thread involving pat gainer...

les NEVER recommended using Dektol, but said he used Rodinal ..
i said I would use dektol or ansco130 or something similar ..
sorry for the confusion
john

 

[Alan Johnson]

I have used Xtol 1+3 (with times from the old Kodak German website) for the last few films, it makes Xtol into a moderate acutance developer, slightly more grainy than the 1+0. The working solution is actually quite similar in composition to Crawley's FX-55, for which he published a curve showing increased mid-tone contrast and it seems that I am getting increased mid-tone contrast with Xtol 1+3 as well.I think it is probably a good thing to only use Xtol that has not been exposed to too much air before diluting it 1+3.

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

As someone else mentioned, at 1:3 in a roll film tank, you are on the edge of not having enough stock solution to fully develop. That's why Kodak pulled those times from its recommendations a long time ago. 1:1 as a one-shot works great...

 

[pentaxuser]

les NEVER recommended using Dektol, but said he used Rodinal ..
i said I would use dektol or ansco130 or something similar ..
sorry for the confusion
john

No, its my fault entirely The confusion is sadly all mine. I completely mis-read your post. As you say it was not a Les McLean recommendation. Sorry about that

pentaxuser

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Have not used X-Tol for more than a decade. Was one who experienced the Sudden Death of the developer - with a 5 litre pack. Never used it again. Part of that was moving completely to 8x10 and no more small format film at all in B&W.

Now have a newer 120 film camera for square format and will be shooting B&W.

What's the verdict these days on X-Tol. My use and old notes are all diluted 1:3 which was recommended when I was using it before. I see Kodak now does not have that information and only goes to 1:2.

Any "sudden Death" reports lately? Any rational reason not to try the developer now?

I used D76 for a really long time but switched over to replenished XTOL a number of months back and have gone through a number of 5 liter packages since then. It’s a commercial developer. Mix it up with distilled water and keep it away from oxygen just like you would with any other developer and you’ll be fine.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

There's a fair bit of misinformation on this thread.

Xtol by itself, in the right dilution and amount for the volume of film you're developing, should develop negatives to whatever contrast index you want. If your negatives are too flat, then you are 1. not developing long enough or 2. not using enough developer stock solution to fully develop the amount of film you are developing or 3. both.

No need for adding Dektol, Rodinal, or whatever. It's basic photochemistry. The problem seems to be that people want to skimp and use higher-than-recommended dilutions in small tanks, thereby not having enough stock solution to fully develop the film. A perfect recipe for flat negatives.

Best,

Doremus

 

[fjpod]

There's a fair bit of misinformation on this thread.

Xtol by itself, in the right dilution and amount for the volume of film you're developing, should develop negatives to whatever contrast index you want. If your negatives are too flat, then you are 1. not developing long enough or 2. not using enough developer stock solution to fully develop the amount of film you are developing or 3. both.

No need for adding Dektol, Rodinal, or whatever. It's basic photochemistry. The problem seems to be that people want to skimp and use higher-than-recommended dilutions in small tanks, thereby not having enough stock solution to fully develop the film. A perfect recipe for flat negatives.

Best,

Doremus

I can vouch for this. As a newbie I was making this mistake with d76...since you need a minimum of 250 ml per roll of 135 or 120. Most small developing tanks indicate needing 300 to 325 ml of liquid for a roll of 135,...to cover the film physically. At even a 1+1 dilution this would be insufficient stock solution. Xtol only requires 100 ml stock per roll.

I'm going to start trying Xtol 1+2 with roller agitation....for finer grain and higher contrast, which I like.... See what happens. I hate printing from a low contrast negative.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There's a fair bit of misinformation on this thread.

Xtol by itself, in the right dilution and amount for the volume of film you're developing, should develop negatives to whatever contrast index you want. If your negatives are too flat, then you are 1. not developing long enough or 2. not using enough developer stock solution to fully develop the amount of film you are developing or 3. both.

No need for adding Dektol, Rodinal, or whatever. It's basic photochemistry. The problem seems to be that people want to skimp and use higher-than-recommended dilutions in small tanks, thereby not having enough stock solution to fully develop the film. A perfect recipe for flat negatives.

Best,

Doremus

This needs to be repeated many times and loudly!

 

[removed account4]

There's a fair bit of misinformation on this thread.

Xtol by itself, in the right dilution and amount for the volume of film you're developing, should develop negatives to whatever contrast index you want. If your negatives are too flat, then you are 1. not developing long enough or 2. not using enough developer stock solution to fully develop the amount of film you are developing or 3. both.

No need for adding Dektol, Rodinal, or whatever. It's basic photochemistry. The problem seems to be that people want to skimp and use higher-than-recommended dilutions in small tanks, thereby not having enough stock solution to fully develop the film. A perfect recipe for flat negatives.

Best,

Doremus

hi doremus

sorry for being the person spouting misinformation, but when i was using xtol i even was using straight stock, undilute developer with FRESH film. when it didn't work box speed for me
i then bracketed upto 3-4 stops over exposed. i also increased my developing time in the end by almost 100%. it gave me flat negatives no matter what i did.
so while it works great for some people... and believe me, i wanted it to work great for me, that is why i used it for a couple of years trying to get it to work.
the negatives weren't un-printable, or too thin or anything like that, they were just flat and lacked contrast. so while i got flat film for 3ish years
i was able to print them with a grade 31/2 filter+/- or grade 4 paper when i had some. i just opted not to use it because for years i had been struggling with underexposed flat negatives
and i needed to make negatives with more snap/sparkle/pizazz & a crispness i wasn't able to get with xtol. as i mentioned i had similar negatives with i first started using
caffenol C and i fixed that by adding a sittle somethingsomething to my developer which helped a lot. ( and i wouldn't have added ansco130 into it at all if i hadn't been
procesing my film with it for 6+/- years and knew what it might do ) ... maybe lacking contrast is a symptom of vit c ? not sure but added contrast was a symptom of a130 so i added it
and never looked back.

john

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Xtol used to be my main developer. I never experienced developer death. I used it one-shot, always diluted 1+1, and sometimes 1+2. I have also used it at 1+3 but there was no real advantage other than excruciatingly long development times. Bottom line is you must make sure that you have enough stock developer in the mix.

 

[Alan Johnson]

http://wwwfr.kodak.com/AT/plugins/acrobat/de/professional/xtolEntwickler.pdf
Times in Table 2 here.
This report from a lab user:
https://www.joerg-bergs.de/en/xtol/

 

[zanxion72]

Why many worry their xtol dying unexpectedly? Trying it before using it takes just a few minutes. Take a piece of the film, say its tongue, and try the developer. If it gets black, the developer is fine, if the fix clears it completely, then the developer has died.
Xtol is a versatile developer and it works wonders at 1+3.