Xtol 1:2

[darkroommike]

Kodak have never published a time for 1+2 they do publish a tine for 1+1 which is technically 1:2. Unfortunately they use the ratio sign incorrectly

Ian

As others have already pointed out the J-109 for Xtol dated 1998 had times for using fresh Xtol 1:1 1:2 and 1:3 You still need about 100ml stock solution per 80 square inches of film.

https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j109-1998_04.pdf

 

[Ian Grant]

As others have already pointed out the J-109 for Xtol dated 1998 had times for using fresh Xtol 1:1 1:2 and 1:3 You still need about 100ml stock solution per 80 square inches of film.

https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j109-1998_04.pdf

Kodak's data sheets varied in different countries, so we didn't have a 1998 update here in the UK as we've only ever had the metric packs sizes. Kodak have since dropped the 1+2 and 1+3 dilutions most likely because more people were using Jobo and similar processors and insufficient Xtol in the dilute developer.

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

With regards to Xtol at 1+1 and 1+2 I had a good look at Sal Santamaura's link and thought I could detect a very slight difference in the sharpness of the nearest wheel's spokes but to be honest if both pictures had been placed in the gallery together with no comments about dilutions to pre-condition my thinking I feel I might have commented to Sal that he had uploaded the identical print twice by mistake.
So the difference on my screen is very marginal. The difference with both prints in my hand might be clearer but there is still the saving in Xtol used, as long as it is a 120 film in my case. My 35mm tanks only use 250ml so 1+2 might lower the quantity of Xtol at 80ml too far below the safe minimum of 100ml.

Anyone out there tried a minimum of 80ml and was it enough?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Anyone out there tried a minimum of 80ml and was it enough?

The answer to this question may very well vary with subject matter.
A roll with lots of high key subjects with lots of bright areas may lead to partially exhausted developer, whereas a roll with lots of low contrast and dark subjects may result in the developer having excess capacity.
The manufacturer's recommendations are made with volume processing of diverse subjects in mind, and are made very conservatively.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Matt. So 1+2 in a 250ml tank may be a risk unless all frames are taken of low contrast and dark subjects. If anyone has scans to show of negs in 1+2 with only 80ml stock I'd be glad to see them.

Recognising the problems of screen comparisons of reversed negatives, can others who have used 1+2 say if they saw a real difference in sharpness in prints from the same scenes developed at both 1+1 and 1+2

Clearly we have two experienced members in the form of Sal and Ian who can see a difference and on this basis alone I am tempted to try 1+2 but other experiences would be welcome

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Try 1+1.5 dilution, 100ml stock + 150ml water.

 

[ericdan]

I tried 1:2 yesterday in a Paterson tank. 100ml xtol and 200ml water per roll.
No issues at all, but I’m not seeing any noticeable difference in sharpness.
This combo definitely gives full box speed with Tri-X if not slightly more. At normal -4 stops i can still see clear shadow separation. I’m just working on getting the developing time right for the highlights.
Kodak’s old sheets recommend 10.5 mins to which felt kind of short. I tried with 20% more time and it blew highlights. At normal +3 to 4 stops I only see white. No separation at all. Maybe the recommended time is spot on.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

With regards to Xtol at 1+1 and 1+2 I had a good look at Sal Santamaura's link and thought I could detect a very slight difference in the sharpness of the nearest wheel's spokes but to be honest if both pictures had been placed in the gallery together with no comments about dilutions to pre-condition my thinking I feel I might have commented to Sal that he had uploaded the identical print twice by mistake...

First, that you can see any difference at all on a screen is evidence of definitely increased sharpness when developing HP5 Plus in XTOL 1+2 vs XTOL 1+1. Second, the link is not to any Web page of mine, it's just something someone else put up that I found via search. My own experience with that film and varying XTOL dilutions does correlate, however.

Hovering one's cursor over those two images (at least in Firefox) reveals which one is which, in case anyone can't tell the difference.

 

[darkroommike]

Kodak's data sheets varied in different countries, so we didn't have a 1998 update here in the UK as we've only ever had the metric packs sizes. Kodak have since dropped the 1+2 and 1+3 dilutions most likely because more people were using Jobo and similar processors and insufficient Xtol in the dilute developer.

Ian

That's my thinking, too. It's very easy to use too little developer when using horizontal rotary processing, I don't have a Jobo but I have a Unicolor setup and have used both Imagemaker and Phototherm "rigs". Both were very careful to specify minimum volumes for developers.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's my thinking, too. It's very easy to use too little developer when using horizontal rotary processing, I don't have a Jobo but I have a Unicolor setup and have used both Imagemaker and Phototherm "rigs". Both were very careful to specify minimum volumes for developers.

Jobo tanks and drums have the minimum and maximum fill quantities printed on the labels.

 

[Ian Grant]

Jobo tanks and drums have the minimum and maximum fill quantities printed on the labels.

That's not hat Mike and I are talking about. We aren't specifically talking about the volume of developer rather the amount of Developing agents etc present in that volume particularly when a developer is used quite dilute.

So there needs to be a minimum of 100ml of the original stock developer per film in the case of Xtol in the final dilute volume used.

Ian

 

[darkroommike]

That's not hat Mike and I are talking about. We aren't specifically talking about the volume of developer rather the amount of Developing agents etc present in that volume particularly when a developer is used quite dilute.

So there needs to be a minimum of 100ml of the original stock developer per film in the case of Xtol in the final dilute volume used.

Ian

Right, I have played around with some pretty high developer stock dilutions to extend developer times (nothing like stand development, just looking for a time that is about 2-3 times the induction period for the developers I am using) I will also use two or three times the volume of diluted working solution than I would with a "normal" by the book dilution. The classic example might be HC-110 at the unofficial "Dilution H".

 

[Sirius Glass]

Jobo tanks and drums have the minimum and maximum fill quantities printed on the labels.

That's not hat Mike and I are talking about. We aren't specifically talking about the volume of developer rather the amount of Developing agents etc present in that volume particularly when a developer is used quite dilute.

So there needs to be a minimum of 100ml of the original stock developer per film in the case of Xtol in the final dilute volume used.

Ian

A very important point.