- Joined
- Nov 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,413
- Format
- Multi Format
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?
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 ..
hi jimJohn, 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?
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.
Dektol? A paper developer? Why? How much?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 ..
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
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 itDektol? A paper developer? Why? How much?
gotta watch it !You know, I'e never see that movie in its entirety. The parts I've seen were great, but never the whole thing...someday.
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.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.
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.
, 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
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.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
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
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
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 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.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
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
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
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?