Xtol 1:2 & Tri-X dev time

[ericdan]

D-76 doesn't mix easily. Just can't get the stuff dissolved.
HC-110 is prohibited in Japan.
B&H doesn't ship chemicals anymore.
So I started playing around with Xtol and Tri-X while being home sick for most of the week.
While Xtol seems to pull out 320 - 400 ISO of Tri-X, I need to almost double the recommended dev time to get decent highlights.
I am at 18'30" now and started at the recommended 10'30".

Can the recommended starting time really be off by that much?
I used distilled water, fresh film and fresh paper and kept my temp pretty constant at 20 degrees.

 

[MattKing]

By "1:2" do you mean what some of us describe as "1+1" or do you mean "1+2"?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Take a look at the instructions for replenished XTOL which is the most economical way to use it. Replenished XTOL provides better and smoother tonality while increasing acuity. It is also very forgiving if one follows the instructions.

 

[ericdan]

by 1:2 I mean 1 part xtol and 2 parts water.

 

[ericdan]

Heard a lot of good things about replenished xtol, but honestly xtol is so cheap already.
Especially at 1+2 it's so economical already. Trying it replenished means, I'd have to basically test a new developer all together. One more roll of film dedicated to testing at least. Maybe that's what it takes though.

 

[MattKing]

I don't replenish for economy (although I appreciate the economy). I like the "all room temperature" workflow, plus the other advantages.

That being said, you are working from old data, given that Kodak hasn't published times for X-Tol 1+2 for a long time.

What size tank are you using? If it is quite small, you may not have the minimum 100 ml of stock solution in the tank.

 

[Chris Livsey]

I am puzzled as to why XTOL 1+2 is what appears to be first choice. Have you started at stock and nailed that down for your workflow, then gone 1:2 before the no longer Kodak recommended 1:3 at which dilution the characteristics of the developer do change. As discussed elsewhere here water quality has a large impact on the developer and obviously at 1:3 ( sorry I just don't use the 1+2 nomenclature) the water plays a major part. If you are using tap water that may e having an effect. As above you must have 100ml of stock XTOL per roll regardless of how you dilute it.
What are you trying to achieve by going to this dilution rather than stock or 1:2 ?

 

[ericdan]

Yes, I have 100ml at least per roll as my Paterson takes 300ml per roll and I do 1+2.
I also used distilled water, so the water quality shouldn't have any impact.

I haven't used stock or 1+1 simply because I started with 1+2 and don't want to repeat the tests for another dilution.
If I nail 1+2 I can try other solutions I assume. but 18 and a half minutes, seems a little long....

 

[Chris Livsey]

Yes, I have 100ml at least per roll as my Paterson takes 300ml per roll and I do 1+2.
I also used distilled water, so the water quality shouldn't have any impact.

I haven't used stock or 1+1 simply because I started with 1+2 and don't want to repeat the tests for another dilution.
If I nail 1+2 I can try other solutions I assume. but 18 and a half minutes, seems a little long....

I think you need to reverse and start with stock then go to your dilutions, again I must ask why you are so keen on high dilutions without having tried stock, the gains are marginal IMHO, (I have never used more than 1:1 with XTOL so that is a disclaimer) others may disagree and they prefer 1:2, but I am willing to bet they started with stock then used dilutions to see if they gained anything.
With a new to you developer surely you nail stock first that the majority of proving work was done on and has robust, well established, times and curves and a wealth of experience accumulated on exposures/times/temps/agitation.
You are at that time, as you acknowledge well out of the normal range for that dilution, again without direct experience I would suspect that further extending times will have a diminishing effect on development but i am sure there are some 1:2 users that can chime in.

 

[Neal]

Dear ericdan,

First, I admit that I have not used Xtol at more than 1+1 more than a few times in the last 10 years due to migrating to a Jobo rotary system. Having said that, at 18:30 you should have a very high contrast negative. If you do not and have truly ruled out the other usual possibilities, I would suggest that your exposure is the problem.

One last stab in the dark, if you normally use TMY, TX has a more pronounced "shoulder" which might be fooling your eye.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why would one want to use a developer diluted for the first time? As pointed out, one should know what the developer does before going off with dilutions, especially dilutions that are NOT recommended. With XTOL the dilutions only bring marginal results and can lead to major problems. If one looks at all the threads about developer problems, most of the problems come from dilutions that are not recommended by the manufacturer. One would think that the manufacturer would know more about its products that a random experimenter.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Kodak no longer recommends any Xtol dilution higher than 1+1. I would take their advice.

You may find the following site of value. http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/

 

[Peter Schrager]

I use xtol 1+2 ALL THE TIME WITH TMY400
And it works perfectly
You might still be able to pull the kodak charts off the German site??.I have the master developing charts in storage...maybe,someone here has them
Guys why don't we help tge the guy out instead of telling him what and how to do it !
Have a great day!
Peter

 

[ericdan]

That's right, I've looked at Kodak's old publication and covington's site.
I can try 1:1 but then I might as well try another developer all together. Maybe the damn powder isn't dissolving just like D-76.
And yes, I use distilled water for that.
HC-110 was the best so far. No hassle with powders and it lasted forever. Just can't buy or import that stuff to Japan anymore.

 

[ericdan]

So I tried with 1+1 instead of 1+2 and even started with a +10% dev time from the suggested starting point.
So instead of 9'00" I did 9'54" and the results are even worse than what I got with 1+2.
1+1 seems to give a little less speed than what I got with 1+2. Maybe around 250, but even at 250 iso and +3 stops overexposure I still get medium grey at best.
In fact I shot from 400iso - 100iso in 1/3 stop adjustments and went Normal, +3, -4 on a neutral grey surface.
The entire roll doesn't have anything dense enough for a +3 overexposure. Even when I bracketed at 100iso.
This is with fresh Tri-X, fresh Adox MCC110, fresh Dektol 1+2 and distilled water for all chemicals.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Eric..somethings wrong..check your lightmeter and if you have another camera try that...
You should not be getting grey!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

When Kodak says DON'T DO THAT they have a reason. Just because you haven't seen a problem doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. At the time of the change in the Kodak documentation there were discussions that the higher dilutions producing inconsistent results.

 

[MattKing]

Did you try a single bag, or are the results from more than one?
I'm wondering if you either have a contaminated bag, or if there was a mistake in mixing it up.

 

[pentaxuser]

It would seem to me that either those successfully using Xtol at 1+2 are either very lucky or as Matt and maybe others have hinted at, there is something else wrong. The OP has followed the advice of those who believe that Kodak must have eliminated 1+2 or bigger dilutions for a good reason and yet he has not had success.

Don't we need to help him look at other aspects of his Xtol processing instead?

All I can say is that I like Xtol and it has been my developer for maybe 6-7 years now but I must admit that getting it to fully dissolve is not easy. My stirrer has a flat bottom and in the end I have to resolve to letting the mixture stop swirling and then crush the remaining the crystals in the bottom of the container by a twisting motion until the stirrer stops transmitting the crunching feel and sound and thee is no sight at all of any crystals left

By this stage the remnants of the crystal are small in terms of the total weight and volume of original crystals so I have no idea whether a few remaining undissolved crystals, if left, would make any difference.

I can't give useful advice only sympathy with his frustration

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have the old version of the XTOL tech pub. The recommended starting time (small tank, 35mm Tri-X) for 1+2 at 68F was 10:50 (as quoted by OP) using Kodak's recommended agitation scheme at the time.

That's right, I've looked at Kodak's old publication and covington's site.
I can try 1:1 but then I might as well try another developer all together. Maybe the damn powder isn't dissolving just like D-76.
And yes, I use distilled water for that.
HC-110 was the best so far. No hassle with powders and it lasted forever. Just can't buy or import that stuff to Japan anymore.

When Kodak says DON'T DO THAT they have a reason. Just because you haven't seen a problem doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. At the time of the change in the Kodak documentation there were discussions that the higher dilutions producing inconsistent results.

It would seem to me that either those successfully using Xtol at 1+2 are either very lucky or as Matt and maybe others have hinted at, there is something else wrong. The OP has followed the advice of those who believe that Kodak must have eliminated 1+2 or bigger dilutions for a good reason and yet he has not had success.

Don't we need to help him look at other aspects of his Xtol processing instead?

All I can say is that I like Xtol and it has been my developer for maybe 6-7 years now but I must admit that getting it to fully dissolve is not easy. My stirrer has a flat bottom and in the end I have to resolve to letting the mixture stop swirling and then crush the remaining the crystals in the bottom of the container by a twisting motion until the stirrer stops transmitting the crunching feel and sound and thee is no sight at all of any crystals left

By this stage the remnants of the crystal are small in terms of the total weight and volume of original crystals so I have no idea whether a few remaining undissolved crystals, if left, would make any difference.

I can't give useful advice only sympathy with his frustration


pentaxuser

I know from working at Kodak, that if they stop recommending something there are reasons, really good reasons. So where does one come off thinking that they know more about a Kodak product than Kodak does. The Greeks have a work for it =====> hubris1.



1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

 

[ritternathan]

Strange: I also found the recommended times for Xtol (1+1, 1+2, and 1+3) and Tri-X in 35mm and 120 to be off. I used and recommend looking at the times for HP5+ and Xtol as a starting point for Tri-X and Xtol.

 

[ericdan]

Did you try a single bag, or are the results from more than one?
I'm wondering if you either have a contaminated bag, or if there was a mistake in mixing it up.

well, yes all attempts were made from the same bag. Maybe I should try another bag.

 

[obviouslygene]

I use 50C water from my tap (filtered through a Toray waterball) D-76 gets fully dissolved. Might be a problem from that bag.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

What is usually not considered is that when you dilute a developer not only are the concentrations of the developing agents reduced but also the concentration of the preservatives. For a developer like Xtol which already has stability concerns this can be a problem. This may be why Kodak ceased to recommend the 1+2 and 1+3 dilutions due to inconsistency.

 

[Sirius Glass]

While we're at it, stop erroneously claiming replenished XTOL gives better tonality (?) and "acuity" . There is no evidence for any of that. Kodak recommends replenished systems primarily for economy.

(But I do agree regarding 1+2 etc. Kodak explicitly states XTOL solutions more dilute than 1+1 are not recommended - although for some reason that is only said in the tech pubs for the T-Max films, not Tri-X).

Actually is does. Try it, you will probably like it.