Xtol or D-76?

[Chuck_P]

But if everything else was actually equal, I would use it just because with XTOL I get full box speed with TMY-2. That extra half- stop of real film speed is a huge plus for me.

With testing for EI under ZS terms, I get full box speed from TMX with D-76 1:1, and I have been very pleased with that combo so far. Others have stated that it's better than D-76 in all respects, so I'm going to have to give Xtol some serious thought for LF TMX.

 

[Rick A]

I realize my question will be interpreted in a mostly subjective manner by most posters, and subjective answers are totally accepted and legitimate...so post away.

I've used D-76 for years and find the results with my two favorite films to be very good in the proper dilutions for each film. I'm pretty comfortable with predicting the results I will get with the films I use in D-76, so now I don't mind branching out to some other developers to compare how they perform. One developer in particular that has caught my interest is Xtol. I don't really know anything about it...so that's where you all (hopefully!) come in.

How do you see Xtol as a developer compared to D-76? What are the reasons you would use one over the other?

If you know D-76 so well then by all means try the XTOL. If you really want to branch out, then try something exotic. I've been using D-76 for over 40 years, and have tried Microdol and Micro-X and ID-11 now I finally ordered Pyrocat HD to see what all the fuss is about with staining developer. All the other "standard" developers are fairly predictable, and really do not vary to much between them. Just a thought, if you are really trying to spread your wings.

Rick

 

[Sirius Glass]

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf

There is everything you need to know about Xtol. If you look on the second page you find the schedule of extending times as the developer ages. that is the method I use and have used in custom film processing for many years.
Dennis

What he said. I use it full strength and replenish after each roll. If you want box speed or faster, fine grain and sharpness use XTOL. Otherwise, any old crap will do.

Steve

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not to sidetrack the thread but I would like to give Xtol a proper go. I have had great difficulty in keeping the developer active for more than six weeks.

I have mixed 7 or so 5L batches, store the developer in brown glass 750ml wine bottles with VacuVin stoppers (I use a pump to evacuate all the air) but the developer is dead after six weeks or so.

I use a thoroughly clean plastic bucket for mixing, tap water (normally) at about 80 degrees and mix A thoroughly before adding B.

Film developed within the first couple of weeks looks okay but I can see the decreasing activity as the next few weeks pass. At five or six weeks the negs are quite thin. At eight weeks it is dead.

I store the topped, evacuated bottles in the darkroom at about 65 degrees.

I have also tried Brita filtered water and supermarket distilled water. No difference.

There has to be something wrong with my system but I haven't been able to put my finger on it. I use D-76 most of the time using the same mix/storage system and have had no failures.

Have also tried the replenish method, same result.

Any thoughts?

-F.

Never a problem with XTOL. See previous post.

Steve

 

[trexx]

I have mixed 7 or so 5L batches, store the developer in brown glass 750ml wine bottles with VacuVin stoppers (I use a pump to evacuate all the air) but the developer is dead after six weeks or so.


Any thoughts?

-F.

I use XTOL, never had it go bad. But if you are putting 5 liters into .75l bottles then you have at least 6 bottles and some you use today. A sealed bottle of XTOL should last at least 6 months. So I would thing the stoppers you use are not suitable for chemistry. Wine has used cork for many years to allow exchange of gases.. Modern screw tops for wine do to. The VacuVin may also.

If using wine bottles fill to the top, no air gap, cover with several layers of plastic wrap, held in place with elastic bands. Then electrical tape going up the neck folding over the top. Or fill with a gap then stopper with a plastic wrapped cork. Maybe wax the top of that.

 

[Arvee]

I use XTOL, never had it go bad. But if you are putting 5 liters into .75l bottles then you have at least 6 bottles and some you use today. A sealed bottle of XTOL should last at least 6 months. So I would thing the stoppers you use are not suitable for chemistry. Wine has used cork for many years to allow exchange of gases.. Modern screw tops for wine do to. The VacuVin may also.

If using wine bottles fill to the top, no air gap, cover with several layers of plastic wrap, held in place with elastic bands. Then electrical tape going up the neck folding over the top. Or fill with a gap then stopper with a plastic wrapped cork. Maybe wax the top of that.

I have ordered a dozen 500ml Boston Round bottles and will try them with Saran sealers. I have had no problems with the 250ml Bostons and other home brew developers.

-F.

 

[fschifano]

Geez, I use filled to the brim, PETE plastic soda pop bottles for mine and have never had it go bad. Clearly something else is going wrong.

 

[df cardwell]

With testing for EI under ZS terms, I get full box speed from TMX with D-76 1:1, and I have been very pleased with that combo so far. Others have stated that it's better than D-76 in all respects, so I'm going to have to give Xtol some serious thought for LF TMX.

With most films, the EFFICIENCY of the Ascorbate/Phenidone combination is simply greater than Metol/Sulfite. For years, we saw metol as the most efficient thing going, and if we only read old texts (and 'recycled' old texts) we don't know any better.

XTOL will give you an honest range of N-1 ~ N+3 (and beyond), with a linear section from II to IX. And a higher EI than D-76 1+1. You can take TMX beyond a Ci of 1 if you want to, and still have a linear response.

Look at the curves at the bottom of this Kodak publication. Works, too.

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

 

[Martin Aislabie]

I have recently been running some subjective tests comparing ID11 to XTOL both diluted at 1+1 on HP5 and Delta100

XTOL does appear to be slightly finer grained but not quite as sharp (less acutance)

I put both of these factors down to slightly "mushier" grain.

Dev times are very similar to those required for ID11/D76

Personally, I was a little disappointed in the overall XTOL results, I had expected to see more positive differences to ID11 but it seemed another case of some positives to be weighed against a similar number of negatives - I thought from what I had read here and else where that there would be more noticeable positives and few if any negatives.

From what I have found so far about XTOL, I would not choose to switch from ID11.

YMMV

However, I now have a bout of the "lets experiment” bug and so am trying XTOL at 1+1 mixed with a little Rodinal - and although early days does seem to show some clear benefits - marginally better acutance and marginally finer grain v ID11

Martin

 

[Nicole]

but if the others compare it to Microdol-X, then it definitely softens the grain

No.

The term 'fine grain' used to mean regular, neat, and unobtrusive grain. That changed - largely through Kodak's marketing of DK-20, Microdol, and Microdol-X - whose signature SOFT grain (for reasons beyond the scope of a quick forum post !) became the standard.

But there is NO NEED for fine grain to be soft and XTOL delivers fine grain and sharpness

D-76 was the best all around developer for 70 years. XTOL is EVERYTHING D-76 is, but better in most things, and LOTS better in a couple things. XTOL is especially useful because it's 'look' can be fine tuned by the craftsman. The ultimate thrill for the craftsman is Xtol replenished. VERY easy, and reliable.

D-76 is easier for a recreational user to mix from scratch...

The short comparison: Finer grain, sharper, more dependable over a long storage period, and at least a half-stop more speed. BETTER IN EVERY WAY.

What he said!
(Don, thank you for getting me onto Xtol years ago now. I haven't looked back since. See you around the traps old friend.)

 

[JohnArs]

He Nicole

I was one of the first here which was pushing XTOL in every which developer should I take tread;--))))

Cheers Armin

 

[Nicole]

He Nicole

I was one of the first here which was pushing XTOL in every which developer should I take tread;--))))

Cheers Armin

Absolutely John, you also pushed me onto Xtol in the early days, thank you. It's so nice to see old friends in the APUG community are still here. I had a very steep learning curve in the early days - and I'm still climbing. Thanks for sticking around.

 

[JohnArs]

I wish you all the best und fröhliche Weihnachten und eine gute Gesundheit und alles Glück im neuen Jahr!

...have a good time, Armin

 

[moouers]

Thank you all for the in depth responses. I appreciate them.

I must say I am more concerned with overall tonality moreso than with grain size or acutance. How would you all compare the tonality? I've been reading around on several other websites that say the tonality of Xtol is pretty lacking compared to D76, which has me a bit concerned. 5L is a lot of developer for me, and if it can't compete in that very important category...I might as well throw my money down the drain along with the developer. I like silky smooth gradations of tones, to describe the tonality I'm after.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have great tonality with Tri-X 400 at box speed with XTOL.

See the first post on
http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4075&highlight=38mm

Steve

 

[df cardwell]

say the tonality of Xtol is pretty lacking compared to D76

Tonality is expressed in the curve shape. Either D-76 or XTOL are capable of virtually any palette you want. They are superb, but we have to do our part.

It is a sure thing that the one who complains of the piano....

 

[markbarendt]

I've been reading around on several other websites that say the tonality of Xtol is pretty lacking compared to D76, which has me a bit concerned. 5L is a lot of developer for me, and if it can't compete in that very important category...I might as well throw my money down the drain along with the developer. I like silky smooth gradations of tones, to describe the tonality I'm after.

IMO if "you" can't get the tonality you want using Xtol, "you" won't get the tonality from D-76/ID-11 either. (and vice versa)

 

[moouers]

IMO if "you" can't get the tonality you want using Xtol, "you" won't get the tonality from D-76/ID-11 either. (and vice versa)

Well, since I do get the tonality I want out of D-76, I guess I shouldn't worry too much about Xtol. I ordered some a couple nights ago and I'm looking forward to working with it. Ordered some PMK too, which I'll be trying for the first time as well.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I have no issues with the tonality of Xtol. It is finer grained than D76 at the same dilution, but using Xtol 1+2 or 1+3 does give more bite than 1+1.

Alternatively experiment with adding rodinal. Unlike others I used the same base of Xtol 1+2 that I normally use and add rodinal on a 1+100 or 1+200 basis to that. This gives subtle but noticeable increases in bite and grain, which can work wonders with modern films like D100.

 

[2F/2F]

IMO, the difference between standard developers, while generally visible in some way, is effectively insignificant for "general-purpose" use, and totally overblown by most photographers (in general). If you can't get consistently good results in general-purpose situations with any standard developer, you aren't trying hard enough; aren't putting in the time and energy to really get the best out of yourself and your materials, so the choice of developer doesn't matter anyhow, and you might as well go to a lab.

AS for D-76 vs. X-Tol, they're both good, standard, off-any-shelf developers. I also don't have much use for either of them in what I do. For general purposes, I use HC-110. Its qualities generally suit my subjective aesthetic desires for my pictures, and it is as consistent, versatile, easy to handle, and long lasting a developer as I have ever used. For special purposes, I use D-19, and as of late, Rodinal and D-23 (both usually quite diluted).

I used to use D-76 for everything. It's good. I like its character. I don't like mixing it or storing it, or being unsure of how long to keep it. I think it is best made up batch at a time, and I find this annoying for a general-purpose developer. (If I am going to mix up my own, I make D-23, which is a bit more simple.) You can get D-76 in one-liter packages, but it kills a lot of its excellent economy (which is greater than HC-110, despite commonly-held beliefs) when you do this. I think that D-76 is best if you consistently process a very large volume of film. I never got the consistency of results that I get with HC-110, and to me, nothing is more important in a general-purpose developer than consistency. D-76 and HC-110 are the two developers I recommend to all beginners. They will always get the job done, and are affordable and versatile.

As for X-Tol, it is very easy to mix, which is nice. It works very well. I simply don't find its aesthetic qualities pleasing for most of what I shoot, and for my subjective taste of what my pictures should look like. On paper, if you want to choose a readily-available off-any-shelf developer based solely on technical specifications, this is the one. However, I find that it is so general purpose and so technically sound that it lacks the character I like and am used to from more "flawed" developers. I also find HC-110 more consistent, again. I have used X-Tol as a substitute for T-Max developer in certain cases, and it gave me great results, but for me this was a special-purpose situation which was well-suited to such a "technically good" developer (flat light, T-Max film, overdevelopment, wanted razor-sharp, low-grain results and lots of support in the low tones), and don't see myself doing much else with it other than this in the future. My overall impression of it is that it is kind of bland for me, and also that I like its results best with T-Max, Delta, and Acros, not any of the random-grained films like FP4, HP5, Tri-X, etc.

So, while any of the three developers above can certainly be used as "general-purpose" developers, I only view X-Tol as a "special-purpose" developer for my own purposes. No reason, other than a subjective opinion of what I think my pictures should look like (in general).

So, the choice between X-Tol and D-76 comes down to what you want in your pictures.....and is subtle, though noticeable. I suggest trying some of each in a controlled comparison test, and seeing what happens. As I said, for "general purposes", I doubt you will see any practical difference.

 

[keithwms]

How do you see Xtol as a developer compared to D-76? What are the reasons you would use one over the other?

ID11/D76 1+1 is my usual developer. I use xtol pretty much only for neopan 400, that is a special combo, just google around.

The local lab uses xtol for just about any b&w roll film that I submit there, that's how I came to know it. Generally speaking there is a small improvement of apparent sharpness, to my eye. Barely perceptible in print, unless you use a really sharp paper like the smooth Ilford warmtone... and/or enlarge considerably. For 35mm I think I would favour xtol or perceptol, but then again, lately when I do shoot 35mm I am using the epitaxial/t-grain films.

I must say I am more concerned with overall tonality moreso than with grain size or acutance. How would you all compare the tonality?

I think if you really want to compare/contrast developers' effect on tonality, then go whole hog and try a pyro and compare that to ID11 or xtol. The differences between ID11/D76/xtol/perceptol are pretty minor in comparison... in terms of grain, edge sharpness, highlight rendering, just about everything.

If I were to suggest an initial tour of developers with traditional-grain films, I suppose it'd be D76/ID11, a pyro, and POTA. Those three are very different in almost every respect. After getting interested in one or two of those, then you could consider the subdivisions within each family and explore some of the more specialized concoctions.

 

[Rolleijoe]

I used to use X-tol (straight) for Tri-X when it was available in 1L bags. But, stuck with D-76 (straight) for HP5+. Just different results for different subject matter.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I agree Xtol is great with Neopan 400...

For many other films I found that 1+2 was more aesthetically pleasing that 1+1 as it added a bit more bite. Its subtle, but there. The shoulder of diluted Xtol is not right for every scenario, but if you are shooting in high contrast is is very handy indeed. Xtol 1+1 would not necessarily be my choice in flat UK lighting though. I do rather like rodinal in dull lighting.

I struggle to go back to D76 due to the speed loss. DDX gives me more speed than D76 and arguably a little more character than Xtol. grain is a little larger (at the 1+7 I use) and it has a very traditional feel.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I wholeheartedly agree. Tonality is something that you shape with Xtol, by using different agitation schemes, film exposure, and altering the development time.

Thanks to Cardwell I have learned how to make my TMY-2 negs look and print nearly exactly like my previous favorite of TX400 & Edwal 12.

Tonality = your job, not the developer.

say the tonality of Xtol is pretty lacking compared to D76

Tonality is expressed in the curve shape. Either D-76 or XTOL are capable of virtually any palette you want. They are superb, but we have to do our part.

It is a sure thing that the one who complains of the piano....