XTOL - D76 - tonality

[GarageBoy]

So, after spending some time reading about the differences (hey, if I'm going to spend time and mix another batch of something, I might as well look into alternatives), the general consensus is that XTOL gives finer grain, and a slight increase in shadow detail. Also, instead of an upswept curve, it gives more of a highlight preserving/compressing S curve. Lots of people have claimed that the midtones are flat in XTOL negs; is this due to poor processing, or a nature of XTOL?
Seems to me that the S curve would expand midtones a little bit

Thanks

 

[tkamiya]

I heard a lot about the differences. But honestly, I don't see it, at least in normal processing.

When I pushed two stops using Tri-X and TMAX400, or when I processed Delta 3200, I saw XTOL results were far superior. Less grain and alot smoother transition. But other times, they look basically the same to me.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Take the idea of an upswept curve with a liberal amount of salt. All it means is not all of the Characteristic Curve has been plotted. In order to compare two curves they must be drawn to the same scale and cover the same exposure region.

 

[cliveh]

So, after spending some time reading about the differences (hey, if I'm going to spend time and mix another batch of something, I might as well look into alternatives), the general consensus is that XTOL gives finer grain, and a slight increase in shadow detail. Also, instead of an upswept curve, it gives more of a highlight preserving/compressing S curve. Lots of people have claimed that the midtones are flat in XTOL negs; is this due to poor processing, or a nature of XTOL?
Seems to me that the S curve would expand midtones a little bit

Thanks

I would suggest that most of the differences you describe are dependent on other factors such as exposure, lighting ratios, development time/temperature to name but a few.

 

[pentaxuser]

OP if you have used D76 and want to compare it to Xtol then try Xtol. If you haven't as yet used either then get both and compare. In the long term and I assume you are into film photography for the long term the cost of two packs of both against all other costs will be tiny and even if you prefer one to the other you will probably have used most of each to make any comparison meaningful.

Neither will produce unprintable negs. Only you will know which of the two sets of negs you prefer.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Bet you won't be able to see the differences in negatives exposed at box speed, unless you have a microscope and/or a densitometer.

But if the lower toxicity and ease of replenishment appeal to you, then you will notice a difference.

And X-Tol is cheap too, so if you haven't used up 5 litres in six months, it isn't a tragedy to discard the unused portion.

You will need a mixing container of at least 4 litres though (5 is better).

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I think so too. the s curveshould expand midtones(increase midtone contrast)at the expense of compressed shadows and highlights;I never was a big fan of pronounced film shoulders;it kills highlight contrastAnyway. to me, D76 is hard to beat as an overall compromise of speed, tonality,grain and sharpness.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes every film curve is S shaped when plotted long enough.

I use replenished XTOL for 135, 120 and 4"x5".

I prefer it over D76 and everything else I have tired.

 

[GarageBoy]

Thanks
I'm worried that I'd be losing something significantly with xtol

 

[GarageBoy]

Hmm, definitely going to try XTOL as it doesn't have the 450mL 1+1 solution per roll like D76 1:1 does

 

[cliveh]

Anyway. to me, D76 is hard to beat as an overall compromise of speed, tonality,grain and sharpness.

+1

 

[Pat Erson]

Thanks
I'm worried that I'd be losing something significantly with xtol

... like your films? The "sudden Xtol death" scares me to death and has so far prevented me from trying it.

 

[dasBlute]

... like your films? The "sudden Xtol death" scares me to death and has so far prevented me from trying it.

I do not believe that this *ever* occurs anymore, it's a myth.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I do not believe that this *ever* occurs anymore, it's a myth.

+1.
I've been using Xtol for a couple of years now and see no reason to consider something else.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The film is an important variable. Regarding image structure characteristics, Kodak says generally XTOL produces slightly finer grain and slightly higher sharpness than D-76. Whether or not you can see the difference would depend on the film and enlargement factor - assuming all other variables are constant.

Regarding tonality and film speed, these are defined by the H&D curve of the film/developer combination. If it helps, attached is one example of comparative XTOL and D-76 curves for TMax 100. In this case the differences are very small.

Also note as Gerald pointed out, every curve is s-shaped if you plot the entire exposure scale. What differentiates films and developers is the relative lengths of the toe, "straight line" and shoulder. So the question about s-shapes really had more to do with the extent to which the s-shape exists within the exposure ranges one normally encounters.

interesting,according to these curves D76 will give you more speed and higher midtone separation,which matches my experience.I think D76 still offersthe best compromise of speed,sharpness,grain and smoothness oftonality.Combined with Tmax 400 or FP4,it's my favorite.

 

[Harold33]

I'm not able to explain why, but the contrast given by XTol to HP5+ and Tri-X seems lifeless compared to D-76 (subjectively speaking, of course).

 

[Dag_Nystuen]

Maybe these filmtests can give you some answers

http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/fkd76.html
http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/fkxtol.html

 

[baachitraka]

D-76 1+1 & HP5+ for me.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

XTOL is great and in my opionion you won't be losing bit gaining by using it.

 

[Alan Klein]

My outside lab uses Xtol for whatever that's worth.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

after sufferring from Xtol's instant death syndrom twice,I went back to D761+1and stuck with it.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

after sufferring from Xtol's instant death syndrom twice,I went back to D761+1and stuck with it.

I've read about it but it never happened to me. In fact I am suprised how long the stock solution lasts in just plastic bottles.

I did read somewhere that the formula has been changed to reduce the risk of instant death.

 

[Ian Grant]

I've read about it but it never happened to me. In fact I am suprised how long the stock solution lasts in just plastic bottles.

I did read somewhere that the formula has been changed to reduce the risk of instant death.

It's now a myth, it was a packaging issue that was cured years ago.

I used Xtol from it's realeas until about 6 years, it's a better developer than D76, slightly more tonality (longer tonal range), better shadow details, sharper, finer grained and can be replenished by fresh stock solution.

Ian

 

[Mark Crabtree]

I've been using Xtol since it came out and haven't had any problems. It seems to keep well for long periods of time also. I have heard people say that iron in the water, or in contact with the solution can cause something similar to the original sudden death issue. I don't know the chemical reason, or whether it is even true, but I do agree that the original sudden death issue was solved in the last century.

If you follow posts here you know people constantly have problems with development (not a high percentage, but a regular occurrence over the population). With Xtol that tends do get blamed on the original sudden death problem, but I don't think there is any more problem with Xtol than anything else.

Maybe someone can explain again the iron issue. I believe distilled water, and checking your processing tanks, solves even that. I used tap water without issue. Originally I used various dilutions, but have been replenishing for several years now and recommend that for anyone willing to understand the process.

D76 is also a great reliable developer and either will work fine, but D76 has its own issues. Pick one and use it. Xtol suits me; my only complaint is the inconvenient package size.

 

[Joel_L]

I'm an XTOL convert. I have tried several developers over the years ( 35 or so ) and recently ( year or so ago ) started using XTOL. I have been happy with the results using FP4+, Delta 400, and a stash of plusX i have. I was worried about it's longevity and have been running an experimental batch. I mixed it in January 14 and it is still going strong. I mixed it at 2X the concentration and use it 1+3 for developing ( yields 1:1 ). Don't know if 2X the concentration is helping or not, but something I read gave me the notion it might help with long term storage. So far it still works.

Joel