XTol 1+3

Hi,

I'm currently testing XTol with HP5 and TriX and come to like the results.

I read somewhere (was it on APUG ?) that I could also use XTol at 1+3, but found not information about times.

Would somebody have information to share ?

Kodak discontinued publishing times for higher dilutions when there were some reports of very inadequate development. There was, as far as I know, no real resolution to the issue, but part of the problem was said to be poor packaging of 1litre packs. There are still occasional reports of sudden death of xtol ( and some other ascorbate developers.)

Anyway, lots of people still use 1+2 and 1+3. A number of us have the old Kodak pdf which includes the times. PM me with your email address and I'll send it to you.

Thanks John, PM sent

I've used XTOL 1+3 with TMY on many ocassions without problems. Using it at the same dilution with Tri-X should be no different. The 1L packets, whch are by now ancient history, had nothing to do with it. XTOL made from these packets reportedly suffered from early and sudden failure, caused by poor packaging.

The "problem" of using XTOL at high dilutions is one of capacity from what I've seen. A roll of film, about 80 square inches, requires a minimum of 100 ml of stock solution to insure complete development according to Kodak. In the real world, I feel safer with at least 150 ml. You cannot acheive that minimum at 1+3 unless your tank can contain at least 600ml of solution. Needless to say, a single reel tank with a capacity of 250 to 300 ml. won't cut it. Two rolls of film in a two reel tank won't cut it either. To make this work, you need a fairly large tank with a relatively small amount of film and a large amount of solution. Stick to the minimums or better, and the combination works fine. Skimp on developer and you get skimpy development.

Thanks Frank,

my concern is primarily to avoid wasting developer when I develop 1 or 2 sheets in a Combiplan which holds 1liter. At 1+1, I'm using 500ml of XTol, whereas 100ml should be enough (two sheets is equivalent to 40 Sq Inches, so even less than 100ml should do it)

I'm also curious to see I if get a difference in terms of sharpness and rendition of highlights/shadows.

In your scenario, we're talking 250 ml. to fill the CombiPlan with XTOL 1+3. In my experience, the CombiPlan likes to have somewhere between 1.1 to 1.2 L. 1 L just barely covers 4x5 and if it leaks a bit when inverting you could wind up with less fluid than would cover the entire film sheet. So now we're talking 300 ml. of stock solution which is more than enough for two sheets, and really more than enough for the six sheets that the tank can hold. If you really want to avoid waste, you might want to try tray processing if you can. With a small 5x7 tray, you'll need maybe 500 ml. to cover. Of course, working in the dark like that really sucks, and temperature control can be a real PITA if you don't have plumbing and dark in the same space like me.

I have no way for tray processing at the moment ( I process in the kitchen, the darkroom is planned but only a little more than a hole in the ground with concrete block around ;-) )

In fact, I'm using US ounces for the Combiplan, as I have a 36 oz measure, but the same "test tube" (sorry I forgot the english name) stops at 1 Liter.

My question fits in here...

I use Jobo tanks in various sizes. They need 260ml for one film, 500ml for two and 1150ml for five films. So far I use XTol 1:1, but I would like to process 35mm and 120 rolls of Tri-X at higher dilutions, mainly to boost sharpness and shadow details a little, saving developer is nice but not so important.

With these tanks, I will use much less than Kodak's recommended minimum of stock solution per film at 1:2 and 1:3:

260ml at 1:3, that is 65ml stock solution and 195ml water - only 32% of Kodak's advice. Sounds dangerous...

Are there significant differences between the old Tri-X in the old data sheet and the new one? Can I simply use the old dev times? (As a starting point for my own testing, of course. But I like to stick with these recommendations because they are almost always right or at least very good.)

cmo, as cheap as developer is compared to the cost of film, and to the value of your time and effort, I'd not go below Kodak's minimum stock-solution requirements. I also use a Jobo; at such high dilutions you are looking at one or two films in the largest Jobo tank.

Having tested most of them, I don't find much purpose going beyond 1+2. Just me, YMMV.

Mike, you say you tested it - does 1+2 make a visible difference compared to 1+1?

http://wwwfr.kodak.com/AT/plugins/acrobat/de/professional/xtolEntwickler.pdf

Brush up on your German -- the 1:3 stuff is all there.

I've been using XTOL 1:3 for about five years now. First with 5x4 Tri-X, now with TMY-2. All in a Jobo 3010 tank and a CPP-2. Works a treat.

One liter of 1:3 is 250ml of stock + 750ml of water, or enough to handle 10 sheets of 5x4. IOW, you need about 100ml of XTOL stock for each 80 sqin (516 sqcm) of film, regardless of format.

I like XTOL 1:3 in a JOBO CPP-2 because I can control contrast very nicely with it. Here is my graph for XTOL 1:3 with FP4 plus.

My experience agrees with Bruce for 4x5 Ilford HP5+ and Xtol 1:3. My last batch was 6 sheets of film, 150ml of Xtol and 450ml of water. I used the time from the German PDF: 12:15 in a Jobo 3010 spun on a Beseler motor base. It works! Don't tell Kodak USA!

Venchka said:

My experience agrees with Bruce for 4x5 Ilford HP5+ and Xtol 1:3. My last batch was 6 sheets of film, 150ml of Xtol and 450ml of water. I used the time from the German PDF: 12:15 in a Jobo 3010 spun on a Beseler motor base. It works! Don't tell Kodak USA!

Click to expand...

6 sheets of 4x5 is the same as 1.5 rolls of 80in^2, so as far as I can see, you're following Kodak's recommendation to the letter.

john_s said:

6 sheets of 4x5 is the same as 1.5 rolls of 80in^2, so as far as I can see, you're following Kodak's recommendation to the letter.

Click to expand...

Kodak no longer recommends 1:3 dilution. There were some development failures at higher dilution, but it occurred with the now-discontinued 1 liter package.