Hi everyone. I am just kind of curious. I have been running Xtol 1 to 1 in my darkroom for years and years, but during the time of troubles for xtol, I decided to give XT3 a try as it sounded like a great drop in replacement. Indeed, the mixing was much better. I will say, however, that my first impression is that it is grainier than I remember from Xtol. Does this conform to other's expectations? Right now I don't want to make any solid conclusions because it could have been a roll that was heated or otherwise damaged at some point, but I felt like a recent 6x6 roll I shot was quite grainy for the film (TMY2). I have mostly been using 8x10 and 4x5 recently, so perhaps it is the shock of going back to a small format, but it does seem grainier than most of the 6x7 I shoot (which I do more regularly). Has this been the impression of anyone else? I am basically using the same processing as I did for Xtol -- 1 to 1 at 20C in a Jobo ATL for 9 minutes 15 seconds (for TMY2). I am attaching a portrait where the grain is quite visible. Just curious to hear others' impressions, or if they have any advice. Particularly if they had to adjust their times or other variables to achieve what they were getting with Xtol.
XT 3 grain question
-
- Thread starter Stuart Richardson
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Color by Beseler Print Processing Drums
- Started by logan2z
-
Want to Buy Jobo 3005 expert tank for 5 sheets of 8x10
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale FS: One of a kind Canonet QL17 GIII, PANDA
- Started by dirkfletcher
Forum statistics
I haven't made any controlled comparison test (yet : ) but I used XTOL for many years and switched to XT-3, and didn't notice any change in grain.
something definitely seems off in your example of 6x6 TMY-2 in XT-3.
I usually get less grain using Tri-X in XT-3.
could indeed be outdated film, and also looks somewhat under-exposed.
how does the negative look like and how was it scanned?
something definitely seems off in your example of 6x6 TMY-2 in XT-3.
I usually get less grain using Tri-X in XT-3.
could indeed be outdated film, and also looks somewhat under-exposed.
how does the negative look like and how was it scanned?
Last edited:
PS: I think Henning Serger wrote a long report about XT-3 when it came out in this forum and I seem to remember that he found very little difference, and if anything slightly smaller grain in some instances.
PPS: found it:
www.photrio.com
PPS: found it:
ADOX XT-3 Developer: Further and Final Test Results
Dear photrio-members, as some of you may remember, some months ago I have reported about my ADOX XT-3 test results. Since then I have done several further very detailed tests with the currently available, final XT-3 version with CAPTURA. In total I have done so much intensive/detailed tests...
www.photrio.com
Thank you. Yes, I did find that post by Henning. It sounds good, and I am glad to hear that you also can second his results. In any case, I will test more. I have been away on a residency and have a big batch of film to process when I get back, so I wanted to see if people had ideas. I do not have the negative in front of me right now, but I am pretty sure it was fine. I have a lot of experience processing...have run a small lab for fifteen years and shoot everything from 35mm up to 8x10 in color and black and white, doing it all myself. So my procedures are pretty well established and things are very consistent because of the ATL processing. That is why I was wondering if people had had to make adjustments. I will go back and look again, but I think my impression was that the 4x5 was also a bit grainier than normal.
In any case, I will mix up a new batch and test and see what I get.
P.S. the film was scanned on an X5, which I have had since 2011 I believe. So that is also consistent. The main two variables are the film and the developer. And of course any dumb mistake I might have made at any point...
In any case, I will mix up a new batch and test and see what I get.
P.S. the film was scanned on an X5, which I have had since 2011 I believe. So that is also consistent. The main two variables are the film and the developer. And of course any dumb mistake I might have made at any point...
I see, it sounds you have a lot of experience to track down issues then.
for me the image looks like it could be a bit underexposed, like the camera body doesn't really separate from the jacket for example.
here's a scan of TMY-2 in XT-3 [edit: at 1+1 dilution], zoomable up to 4900ppi:
(Mamiya 7 with 65mm)
for me the image looks like it could be a bit underexposed, like the camera body doesn't really separate from the jacket for example.
here's a scan of TMY-2 in XT-3 [edit: at 1+1 dilution], zoomable up to 4900ppi:
(Mamiya 7 with 65mm)
Last edited:
There's quite visible grain in the jacket of the person, but this is due to underexposure and the ensuing contrast enhancement in digital post processing to recover the minimal detail present.
Hello all. I am sorry I did not come back to you all earlier. I just was on a month long residency and have been busy. I was able to take a picture of the grain and compare it to an older roll of TMY2 in Kodak Xtol from 2017 when I was burning through a ton of film and developer, and when Kodak chemicals were still reliable. The difference is stark, but the emulsion of the film is much darker, so it strikes me that this film was exposed to heat. I am not sure if that would increase the grain too, however? Any thoughts. The jacket is dark, but in my experience Tmax is not nearly that grainy even when underexposed. I looked at an 8x10 sheet that I developed with the same batch of developer and it was also comparatively grainy and a bit dark, but that might also have been mistreated. For me to rule out the film I will need to buy a fresh batch and see how it comes out.
For the pictures, the more recent roll processed with XT3 is on top. Apologies if they are not perfect. I did not have time to scan them or even set up a tripod. But they are 47mp with a 105mm Sigma Art macro, so they should be sharp enough to judge, at least to some degree.
For the pictures, the more recent roll processed with XT3 is on top. Apologies if they are not perfect. I did not have time to scan them or even set up a tripod. But they are 47mp with a 105mm Sigma Art macro, so they should be sharp enough to judge, at least to some degree.
Attachments
Thanks for that! That is more what I would expect. I am glad to hear that you are getting those results with XT-3.
Did the affected film go through a carry-on baggage CT scanner at an airport?
No, it did not. If I can think of a problem, the greatest chance of a problem would be getting too hot in a car. In general the outdoor temperature here is rarely above 15C, even in the summer. But in certain situations the car can get hot. I try not to let the film stay in the car, but there have been times when I have gotten to the car and it was hot. But hot in this context is like 30C or so maximum, not 50+. I also don't think it will have been exposed to that for that long. But it is my best theory at the moment.
No, that can't be it.
Looking at the high level of fog, this really looks radiation-related. So either very old film, or exposed to CT at some point in the supply chain.
There has been a similar problem with parallel import Portra in China recently.
Looking at the high level of fog, this really looks radiation-related. So either very old film, or exposed to CT at some point in the supply chain.
There has been a similar problem with parallel import Portra in China recently.
Fog level is absolutely also developer related in general and in this case too imho. Bigger grain is also a consequence.
All in all I'd stick with original Kodak Xtol.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |