Xtol 1:2 & Tri-X dev time

[Peter Schrager]

It behooves me to read this about dilutions
You mean to tell me kodak developed xtol then proceeded to publish 20 or 30 pages of reference materials regarding dilution and different films..quite extensive research done
Quite time consuming and costly to do; then go on to disclaim the info. ?? I think it's called covering their butt...

 

[jeztastic]

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.

Have you tried importing Ilford Ilfotec HC? Pretty much the same stuff by all accounts. I imagine it's a lot more expensive in Japan, but it's so economical it may even out.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It behooves me to read this about dilutions
You mean to tell me kodak developed xtol then proceeded to publish 20 or 30 pages of reference materials regarding dilution and different films..quite extensive research done
Quite time consuming and costly to do; then go on to disclaim the info. ?? I think it's called covering their butt...

Basically Kodak decided that any benefits from those dilutions were outweighed by the increased likelihood of problems. Therefore they decided to stop promoting those dilutions with XTOL.

 

[pentaxuser]

I wonder whether ericdan has worked out what went wrong with his process and has had any success with whatever he has decided to do?

pentaxuser

 

[Gerald C Koch]

When you dilute a developer a series of complex reactions occurs. For example the pH of the working solution changes. There is also less restrainer, less silver halide solvent, etc. The result i is that you are no longer dealing with the original developer and it's properties.

Kodak did publish a lot of data on diluted Xtol. However these data were obtained under laboratory conditions; pure water, rigid temperature control .... Once the average consumer using his water etc began using these recommendations problems began to occur. Kodak was not able to solve some of the problems and pulled their recommendations.

 

[ericdan]

I wonder whether ericdan has worked out what went wrong with his process and has had any success with whatever he has decided to do?

pentaxuser

I'm still on vacation and haven't decided what to do yet.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I remember reading these posts earlier and scratching my head. I have tried Xtol at stock and at dilutions up to 1+3 and had no problems with any of the mixes. My times were always slightly under Kodak's and other folks time listed here. I then went to Xtol Replenished and have found it's what I have been looking for in a film developer for a long time. It's extremely easy to use, very economical, very predictable, very safe, very clean working, very good in the speed department................I think you get my drift. I only had two slight bumps in the road and they were that my times, again, are lower than recommended and I had to get used to "NOT" dumping the used developer from the tank down the drain. Once I learned not to do that and got my times nailed down I was home free. For right now I won't go back to anything else. I will admit I do use pyro developers and Pyrocat-MC mainly, for certain scenes, but now 95% of my film now goes into Xtol-R. I just did a little testing for my, new to me, 35mm film. I ran Delta 100 in four different developers and was a little surprised at some of the results. I found that Perceptol 1+2 was very good with grain, sharpness and tonal range. FX37 1+3 was good in the speed department and grain department, but speed wasn't any better than Perceptol. Now, that surprised me a little! So, of those two I would pick Perceptol 1+2 and that's not what I expected. I also tried D-23 with potassium iodide + potassium thiocyanate and while it gave the smoothest grain and really pretty good sharpness considering how smooth the grain was, it fell way down in the speed department. Then comes Xtol_R and the results didn't surprise me. It lead all the others in general. To be honest, I could use either Perceptol 1+2 or Xtol-R and be very, very happy. Now this developer test was crude, but it did give me and idea of where to start with Delta 100. Again, my times with Delta 100 in Xtol-R are going to have to be lower than the recommended 10:50 at 68 degrees since the scene I shot had the highlights slightly blown. My own tests with Xtol-R and Delta 100 will straighten this out. ericdan I would certainly not give up on Xtol that's for sure, but the results you're getting still have me scratching my head. You just might want to waste a roll or two of film(not really a waste) to get your time/temps down to your liking.