X-tol @1:3?

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

That's fine if you only use roll films...

 

[Tim Stapp]

I've been known to sacrifice a roll of film just for doing clip tests. A one inch clip is all that is necessary.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's fine if you only use roll films...

I never had a problem with XTOL stock or replenished when developing sheet film. Besides one can use a strip of 35mm film to test a developer and then use the developer on sheet film.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I never had a problem with XTOL stock or replenished when developing sheet film. Besides one can use a strip of 35mm film to test a developer and then use the developer on sheet film.

That's a great idea. I don't have any 35mm film laying around...

 

[MattKing]

That's a great idea. I don't have any 35mm film laying around...

Every once in a while I screw up bulk loading a roll of TMY. That gives me lots of clips for fixer and developer tests.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

hi doremus

sorry for being the person spouting misinformation, but when i was using xtol i even was using straight stock, undiluted developer with FRESH film. when it didn't work box speed for me
i then bracketed up to 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 little something to my developer which helped a lot. ( and i wouldn't have added ansco130 into it at all if i hadn't been
processing 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 130 so i added it and never looked back.

john

Hi John,

I took a look at the contrast-index curves for Xtol and a number of different films. Some of them, notably Tri-X, do seem to deliver curves with fairly pronounced shoulders. This is a characteristic of the film, but could be "enhanced" by the developer somewhat. Maybe that's what your situation is. T-Max 400 on the other hand gives a straight line into the stratosphere! Maybe your additives helped out the curve shape somewhat for the film you are using? Still, Xtol seems to exhibit the expected increase in C.I. when increasing development times.

A quick observation about dilution: higher dilutions aren't inherently bad, one just needs the proper volume to ensure that there's enough developer in the mix to do the job. If it exhausts before the film is developed to the desired degree, no amount of extra time is going to help.

Best,

Doremus

 

[zanxion72]

That's fine if you only use roll films...

Why, what difference does it make with LF sheets? If it works for a roll, for sure it will for a sheet too. Same specs, different dimensions. Of course you always keep an eye on the minimal quantity of developer being used.

 

[removed account4]

Hi John,

I took a look at the contrast-index curves for Xtol and a number of different films. Some of them, notably Tri-X, do seem to deliver curves with fairly pronounced shoulders. This is a characteristic of the film, but could be "enhanced" by the developer somewhat. Maybe that's what your situation is. T-Max 400 on the other hand gives a straight line into the stratosphere! Maybe your additives helped out the curve shape somewhat for the film you are using? Still, Xtol seems to exhibit the expected increase in C.I. when increasing development times.

A quick observation about dilution: higher dilutions aren't inherently bad, one just needs the proper volume to ensure that there's enough developer in the mix to do the job. If it exhausts before the film is developed to the desired degree, no amount of extra time is going to help.

Best,

Doremus

hi doremus

yeah i never used it EVER diluted past 1:2 i knew about XSDS (xtol sudden death syndrome ) and didn't want to risk it...not to mention
if it didn't work 1:1or stock for me ... seems like dilution was not the solution ...
used it with ilford's ( delta, hp, and panF ), as well as big yellow's xxx, "+X", and tmy/x/z ... i figured maybe it was the film...
no clue what the deal was, but all i can say is when i changed developers i realizd it was the developer didn't like me ...
( and it wasn't like i was a tenderfoot, i had been processing and printing for like 20years so ... )

im glad others love it and keep it actively produced ! it's a lot of fun mixing & watching orange " Tang" disappear,
its as much fun as pouring blueblack AH dye into clear developer, watching it vanish. ... which is almost as much fun as watching david blaine blow my mind ....

 

[jonasfj]

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 do not understand why 1:3 was recommended over other dilutions? Xtol is a co-called compensating developer (or grain-refining), in the same was as for example D-76. Thus, at high concentration you prioritize fine grains and shadow detail. At low concentration you prioritize accutance (appearance of sharpness) and better highlight detail.

I did some research long ago about the "sudden death", but I do not believe there was any definitive conclusion about the cause. Some claim that it has to do with mineral impurities in the water (iron supposedly most harmful), others claimed it had to do with oxidation and thirdly it was said to be due to some problem with the packaging of the 1 liter bags (supposedly the reason they stopped manufacture those).

Anyways, I use destilled or boiled water (yes! and I´m not going to explain why here and now) and glass bottles with a rubber seal. Have never had a problem even after as long as one year on the shelf.

Xtol yields similar (many claim to see the difference but know really can) as D-76. The main advantage with Xtol is that is not poisonous and harmless to the environment.

 

[jonasfj]

Every discussion on developers always ends up with people who have good experience and others who have bad experience and then people start to suggest all this weird developers and strange techniques (read standing development)

The truth is that you can get excellent results with almost any combination of film and developer if you know what you are doing.

There is nothing magical or mystical about developers. It is just chemistry. With the right skills you can achieve most of your goals with any developer. Saying anything else is merely ignorance.

As I see it there are two types of developers + a bunch of specialties that most of us have no use of:

- Compensating (also called fine-grain) developers
The compensating can be divided in powder and liquid

The powder ones are for example D-76 (ID-11) and Xtol. The magic substance is sodium sulphate. The sulphate dissolve silver from hightlights and this silver is partly precipitated where there is less silver = shadows. Thus, it controls the contrast. As the silver dissolve, it will make the grain appear finer. These types of developers give different result by varying the concentration. Stock solution or 1:1 pronounce grain refining and control contrast better. 1:2 or 1:3 does very little grain-refining/contrast control. However, the developing process starts to become diffusion controlled (between agitations) and thus you get a higher degree of accutance (appearance of sharpness)

The liquid compensating developers (such as HC-110) contain potassium sulphate instead of sodium sulphate. I do not know the reason for this, but it has to be like this. This kind of sulphate show less effect and the compensating/grain-refining effect is much less and the degree of concentration has much less impact. That is the reason many use dilution H rather than dilution B, just because the latter´s development times can be inconveniently short.

The liquid developers are convenient since you can make a one-shot solution every time you develop. Many like that.

In reality almost nobody can ever tell the difference between say HC-110 dil H and D-76 1:1. Some of the best printers I know use only HC-110.

- Non-compensating
The classical developer in this class is Rodinal. You get a certain look from these developers that some like. Coarser grain and punchier highlights.

My suggestion is to pick one compensating and one non-compensating and to stick with those for a long time.

 

[removed account4]

Saying anything else is merely ignorance

not quite sure about that stuff you said, but ...
its ez to make claims... not sure how ignorant i was with about 20 years experience and 10+ of them
being as a professional processor/printer + assignment photographer .. i was told by the person who
suggested i use the developer that it was going to do what it was doing, she was a master printer
with extensive training. i figured it was "normal" what it was doing until i read here about 10-12 years ago
how wonderful xtol was. i had given up at that point and wasn't going to waste anymore film or time working with it.
there are no magic bullets, just stuff people get used to.

ps. in your post you forgot staining developers like pyro and caffenol

 

[Alan Johnson]

Every discussion on developers always ends up with people who have good experience and others who have bad experience and then people start to suggest all this weird developers and strange techniques (read standing development)

The truth is that you can get excellent results with almost any combination of film and developer if you know what you are doing.

There is nothing magical or mystical about developers. It is just chemistry. With the right skills you can achieve most of your goals with any developer. Saying anything else is merely ignorance.

As I see it there are two types of developers + a bunch of specialties that most of us have no use of:

- Compensating (also called fine-grain) developers
The compensating can be divided in powder and liquid

The powder ones are for example D-76 (ID-11) and Xtol. The magic substance is sodium sulphate. The sulphate dissolve silver from hightlights and this silver is partly precipitated where there is less silver = shadows. Thus, it controls the contrast. As the silver dissolve, it will make the grain appear finer. These types of developers give different result by varying the concentration. Stock solution or 1:1 pronounce grain refining and control contrast better. 1:2 or 1:3 does very little grain-refining/contrast control. However, the developing process starts to become diffusion controlled (between agitations) and thus you get a higher degree of accutance (appearance of sharpness)

The liquid compensating developers (such as HC-110) contain potassium sulphate instead of sodium sulphate. I do not know the reason for this, but it has to be like this. This kind of sulphate show less effect and the compensating/grain-refining effect is much less and the degree of concentration has much less impact. That is the reason many use dilution H rather than dilution B, just because the latter´s development times can be inconveniently short.

The liquid developers are convenient since you can make a one-shot solution every time you develop. Many like that.

In reality almost nobody can ever tell the difference between say HC-110 dil H and D-76 1:1. Some of the best printers I know use only HC-110.

- Non-compensating
The classical developer in this class is Rodinal. You get a certain look from these developers that some like. Coarser grain and punchier highlights.

My suggestion is to pick one compensating and one non-compensating and to stick with those for a long time.

None of the above definitions is correct. See "The Film Developing Cookbook" by Anchell & Troop.1998.
p53- definition of compensating developer
p43- formula of D-76
p49- Xtol patent
p58- HC110 patent

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Why, what difference does it make with LF sheets? If it works for a roll, for sure it will for a sheet too. Same specs, different dimensions. Of course you always keep an eye on the minimal quantity of developer being used.

Don't have any 35mm on hand... but I do have wasted sheet film aplenty!

 

[jonasfj]

All of your information is wrong.

It´s correct!

 

[jonasfj]

None of the above definitions is correct. See "The Film Developing Cookbook" by Anchell & Troop.1998.
p53- definition of compensating developer
p43- formula of D-76
p49- Xtol patent
p58- HC110 patent

Substances in Xtol:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/static/pdf/msds/kodak/KodakXtol.pdf

Substances in D-76:
https://fotofast.com.au/files/msds kodak d-76 .pdf

Substances in HC-110:
https://uwaterloo.ca/fine-arts/site...s/files/kodak_hc-110_developer_cat1408988.pdf
Note: I believe the Sulphur Oxide and Potassium Bromide forms the equivalent ions as the Potassium Sulphate

It is the solvent action of the sulphates that give the compensating effect as well as the grain-refinement effect. There is a threshold for the sulphate to be active. This you can read about in Anchell´s book.

 

[jim appleyard]

Perhaps a typo, perhaps a simple mistake, but there is a difference between sulfite and sulfate.

Rodinal is often considered to be a compensating developer.

 

[MattKing]

Do you mean sulfite?
None of the three are true compensating developers, although one can achieve somewhat similar effects due to localized developer exhaustion with very dilute HC-110.

 

[jonasfj]

not quite sure about that stuff you said, but ...
its ez to make claims... not sure how ignorant i was with about 20 years experience and 10+ of them
being as a professional processor/printer + assignment photographer .. i was told by the person who
suggested i use the developer that it was going to do what it was doing, she was a master printer
with extensive training. i figured it was "normal" what it was doing until i read here about 10-12 years ago
how wonderful xtol was. i had given up at that point and wasn't going to waste anymore film or time working with it.
there are no magic bullets, just stuff people get used to.

ps. in your post you forgot staining developers like pyro and caffenol

You´re misunderstanding me if you think I am calling everybody ignorant. The problem I am trying to address is that if you read all these forums, the results are all over the place and it must be very confusing for someone trying to make heads or tails out of the information.

There is a reason why people get different results with the same developer. It is because everybody has a different process. It starts with the exposure (ISO, accuracy of meter, method of metering, subject contrast etc.) and then there is the development (time, temperature, water quality, agitation, even the rinsing temperature is of importance), finally there is the printing (condenser or diffuser head, paper, quality of filters for variable hardness paper) or the way you scan (type of scanner, software). The list goes on and on and on.

My point is that with any combination of film and developer, it is possible to make huge modifications to the characteristic curve and you can get almost whatever you want.

Many great photographer just shoot Tri-X and develop in HC-110. For example: Michael Kenna, Bruce Barnbaum and Anton Corbijn. The quality of a photographs mainly come from gesture, mood, emotion etc.

 

[removed account4]

You´re misunderstanding me if you think I am calling everybody ignorant. The problem I am trying to address is that if you read all these forums, the results are all over the place and it must be very confusing for someone trying to make heads or tails out of the information.

There is a reason why people get different results with the same developer. It is because everybody has a different process. It starts with the exposure (ISO, accuracy of meter, method of metering, subject contrast etc.) and then there is the development (time, temperature, water quality, agitation, even the rinsing temperature is of importance), finally there is the printing (condenser or diffuser head, paper, quality of filters for variable hardness paper) or the way you scan (type of scanner, software). The list goes on and on and on.

My point is that with any combination of film and developer, it is possible to make huge modifications to the characteristic curve and you can get almost whatever you want.

Many great photographer just shoot Tri-X and develop in HC-110. For example: Michael Kenna, Bruce Barnbaum and Anton Corbijn. The quality of a photographs mainly come from gesture, mood, emotion etc.

i agree with what you have said in this post that basically times and temps are a startingpoint because
everything else is a variable that is different with every person ( have posted the same thing more or less many times ) forget about printing or the enlarger/light source ..
that's another kettle of fish...

but you were posting this RIGHT AFTER i posted about iused xtol and it just didn't work .. &c so i figured you were
suggesting *I* was ignorant. i am ignorant about a lot of stuff but not using a plain vanilla developer like xtol .. should have worked like a walk in the park ...

what a beginner should take from threads like this are for most people developers work great, all of them
but for some people they have to use something else.
i for years have used ansco 130 as a film developer .. yes i know, its a paper developer but it works ( like dektol ) for films too.
i gave them dilutions and developing times but what works GOLD for me, worked LEAD for them .. because of everyting you have mentioned
all or some ... its all a starting point, that is what people should take from discussions like this, not stand developing or rotary processing or hyper dilute boiling hot developer .. just
that if used like the instructions say on the package, ( dilution + time + box speed+camera that shutter isn't wonky+ meter isn't wonky +standard temp + standard agitation ) negatives should come out OK
and maybe ( or maybe not ) need a little tweaking ...
it doesnt' matter the ingredients sodium sulfite metol HQ glycin coffee urine favabeans garbonzobeans rosemary beer redline .. if you follow directions most of hte time things work out.

i almost forgot
YMMV

 

[jonasfj]

i agree with what you have said in this post that basically times and temps are a startingpoint because
everything else is a variable that is different with every person ( have posted the same thing more or less many times ) forget about printing or the enlarger/light source ..
that's another kettle of fish...

but you were posting this RIGHT AFTER i posted about iused xtol and it just didn't work .. &c so i figured you were
suggesting *I* was ignorant. i am ignorant about a lot of stuff but not using a plain vanilla developer like xtol .. should have worked like a walk in the park ...

what a beginner should take from threads like this are for most people developers work great, all of them
but for some people they have to use something else.
i for years have used ansco 130 as a film developer .. yes i know, its a paper developer but it works ( like dektol ) for films too.
i gave them dilutions and developing times but what works GOLD for me, worked LEAD for them .. because of everyting you have mentioned
all or some ... its all a starting point, that is what people should take from discussions like this, not stand developing or rotary processing or hyper dilute boiling hot developer .. just
that if used like the instructions say on the package, ( dilution + time + box speed+camera that shutter isn't wonky+ meter isn't wonky +standard temp + standard agitation ) negatives should come out OK
and maybe ( or maybe not ) need a little tweaking ...
it doesnt' matter the ingredients sodium sulfite metol HQ glycin coffee urine favabeans garbonzobeans rosemary beer redline .. if you follow directions most of hte time things work out.

i almost forgot
YMMV

Well, I am sorry if you felt offended and I am glad that you took the time to develop on the topic (haha... no pun intended)...

 

[removed account4]

naaa wasn't offended, i figure it is all like some cosmic unconsciousness ... like the mayans invented television and all that

 

[jonasfj]

Please find an example in the link below of a negative I developed in Xtol 1:3 for 14min 45s

https://flic.kr/p/rSXpeS

Hasselblad 503cx, 50/4 CF T* FLE, Ilford FP4+

Scanned on flatbed Epson V700 with Silverfast 8 SE Plus

 

[Dismayed]

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 do all of my film testing with a densitometer. And I found that I can easily control contrast by altering XTOL development times. I used to use D76, but XTOL gives a bit more shadow detail and negatives that print nicely in the darkroom.

 

[mshchem]

I XTOL.

1. Replenished best.
2. Stock, foolproof
3. 1:1 lovely results, make sure you use at a MINIMUM 100mL of stock to make your 1:1. I use 150mL per 80 sq. in.
4. Use distilled (pure) water exclude the air it lasts for years!

D-76 was the developer of choice of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and it's JUST as good today . Can't go wrong with fresh D-76.
Best Mike

 

[jonasfj]

I do all of my film testing with a densitometer. And I found that I can easily control contrast by altering XTOL development times. I used to use D76, but XTOL gives a bit more shadow detail and negatives that print nicely in the darkroom.

Yes, if you go about it in a structured way and you know what you are doing, you can make any film/developer combination work for you. Most people do not have access to a densitometer, but there are ways where you do not need anything special. Sometimes a different developer also requires a different exposure for best result.