• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

XT-3 development times (vs Xtol)

Autonerd

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 27, 2019
Messages
251
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Format
35mm
Hey all -- About to try Adox XT-3 for the first time (with some HP5+ shot at 1600). The Massive Dev Chart shows identical development times for XT-3 and Xtol. But Ilford's data sheet differs on XTol -- 13 mins for Xtol stock versus 14 for the MDC (for 1600). Are XT-3 and Xtol chemically identical? I generally go with the film manufacturers' recommendation over MDC, but am not sure what I should do here.

Thanks in advance!
Aaron
 

It has been mentioned on the forum before that some of the published XTOL development times are on the short side so I would go with the longer option. Generally however I would use XTOL or XT-3 at a dilution of 1+1, e.g 250ml water + 250ml XTOL stock.
 
The Massive Dev Chart is riddled with errors. Trust nothing in it unless another source confirms that times.
 

If I have understood you correctly I think you are saying that the Ilford time for Xtol is different from the MDC time for Xtol but it doesn't follow from this that XT-3 and Xtol are different The key question is : What is the Adox time, if any, for XT-3 and HP5+ at 1600? If there is none but there is for HP5+ and Xtol in the Ilford specs, I'd go with Ilford times for Xtol and XT-3

I had thought that Henning Serger had said that for development purposes Xtol and XT-3 were identical

pentaxuser
 
For my enlarger with led lights from Heiland I need to add 20% of developing time with Massive's times for all the combinations I used thus far. YMMV with the weather of course
 
otto.f said:
For my enlarger with led lights from Heiland I need to add 20% of developing time with Massive's times for all the combinations I used thus far. YMMV with the weather of course
Click to expand...
I’m relieved to hear I’m not the only one to have that experience.
In the XT-3 thread you just get the usual silence or “you are doing it wrong” response.

@ADOX Fotoimpex , it’s fine if it takes a minute or three longer.
That probably means more real speed too.
But please come out and tell us and make it publicly know and documented. Even if the difference is just for some badges.
People will be remarkably understanding you’ll find.

On the other hand I’d like to hear from people who don’t have that experience too of course.
 
Sirius Glass said:
Under developing cannot be corrected.
Click to expand...
Flat can be better than super blown out. You can develop away information too.
What I do if in doubt is to let the tank stand for the time I decided to go over normal time (to exhaust the developer around highlights).
 
Last edited:
Sirius Glass said:
Under developing cannot be corrected.
Click to expand...
For negative film, within reason, it can - intensify the negative.
Under-exposure of negatives requires a time machine to correct.
And of course, one can do a fair amount of correction of under-development by either darkroom printing or post processing to enhance contrast.
Over-development can be corrected with care use of chemical reduces.
All in the case of standard black and white film, of course.
In my experience, inexperienced photographers tend to ere toward under-exposure and over-development.
 
Sirius Glass said:
The Massive Dev Chart is riddled with errors. Trust nothing in it unless another source confirms that times.
Click to expand...
That^^^

Sometimes that other source is yourself... by wasting a roll of your favorite film in a test. If the MDC times work for your process, then they were right. Otherwise, adjust. The adjustment value must be determined after asking the good people of APUG (Photrio) what they would do. WWAD?
 

If the image details do not get developed, no amount of post processing will bring it out, however with FauxTow$hop will allow you to just draw it in.
 
Sirius Glass said:
If the image details do not get developed
Click to expand...
This is only the case for gross under-development - essentially no development - the sort that results in almost transparent negatives.
Under-development usually means you have details throughout (i.e. you have provided enough exposure), but the developer hasn't had the opportunity to build sufficient density in the highlights and mid-tones to yield good contrast. Your negatives are detailed, but flat.
 
MattKing said:
In my experience, inexperienced photographers tend to ere toward under-exposure and over-development.
Click to expand...

Thats me! I never shoot HP5 at box speed and because of that I overdevelop. And because I like high-contrast negatives (easier to print), I overdevelop quite a much.
 
For XT-3, I follow the X-Tol instructions as published by KODAK:
 

Attachments

  • X-TOL_J-109_Feb_2018.pdf
    337.6 KB · Views: 136
Kodak (and others) in their heyday did an amazing job of explaining how to arrive at an appropriate development time. The old Kodak Darkroom Dataguides have dial computers that allow for varying times to accommodate diffusion or condenser light sources. Contrast aim points etc.

The joy of darkroom work is finding the right point for you.

I use very diffuse VC coldlights and diffuse dichro heads. I have the condenser heads, but they are in storage. I tend to slightly overdevelop according to the recommendations for any developer. I still have most prints fall into normal contrast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register