Xtol Recommendations

Ten301

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
211
Location
Boston, Mass
Format
35mm
I want to get back into home processing of black and white film after stopping many years ago. I had developed a sensitivity to the chemicals, but it seems Xtol is more benign in that regard from what I’ve read. So, I’ve decided to give it another go and standardize with Xtol if all goes as planned.

I’ve noticed people are using Xtol with a wide variety of films with good results; it seems to be the ‘Swiss Army knife’ of developers. My question: Are there films it does not necessarily play well with?
 
Last edited:

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,786
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I've only used Xtol a few times, it is a general purpose developer, great balance between speed, acutance and grain. In my experience the only film that I did not use with Xtol was Tmax 100, it has such small to begin with that an acutance developer like Tmax developer, DDX, or Acufine was my preference. With Tmax 400, Delta, and any traditional grain film it was excellent. The only reason I don't use Xtol is that I don't want to mix 5 liters. Foma sells a one liter version but it is too expensive.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,706
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
Paul,
I used to use Xtol, but now I have switched to Adox XT-3, which is the Adox version of Xtol. To me, it's a better product if only for super easy/no dust mixing and the fact that it also comes in 1L size and 5L size. If the result of my negatives weren't as good as they were with Xtol I wouldn't even be telling you this, but they're every bit as good. As far as it being compatible with all films? I haven't had any problems with any of the films I use.
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,829
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
I love XTOL, I agree with John, if you don't want to be exposed to dust try the Adox version.

In terms of easy, Adox Rodinal is brilliant.
 

Sanug

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 27, 2023
Messages
272
Location
Duesseldorf
Format
35mm Pan
After using Fomadon LQN and Adox FX-39 II, I switched to Adox XT-3 due to its fine grain and universality. I have excellent results with Kentmere 100, Kentmere 400, Orwo UN 54, Eastman Double-X, Adox CHS 100 II, and even with Adox HR-50. Higher dilutions like 1+3 will reduce the contrast of HR-50.
 

retina_restoration

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2023
Messages
1,269
Location
Wilammette Valley, Oregon
Format
35mm RF
I will not buy "Kodak"branded chemistry anymore - too many bad batches, inconsistencies, etc. - so I switched to Adox XT-3 and it is an excellent product. (I sometimes make Instant Mytol at home, which is easy to do - it just lacks the shelf life of the commercial products)
When someone develops a sensitivity to B&W developers, it's usually hydroquinone (or sometimes metol) that they are sensitive to, and to the best of my knowledge, XT-3 (and Xtol) contains neither, so the odds are good that you won't experience sensitivity to these ascorbate developers.
That said, I hope you wear gloves when you handle developer and other photo chemistry. My preference is disposable nitrile gloves, which I buy in boxes of 500, and they are very cheap. It's not too difficult to avoid contact with developers if you have sensitivity to them.
 

Besk

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
587
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format
X-tol has been the only developer I have used for at least the past 15 years. Using it for roll film and sheet film both - Kodak films and also Rollei's Superpan among others.

I mix X-tol (using distilled water) and store most of it in 8 oz bottles- tightly capped with no air. One 8 oz bottle of developer is used 1:1 for one 8x10 equivalent roll of film ex: 36 exp. of 35mm film, one roll of 120 film, 4 sheets 4x5 etc.

Not having enough of the 8 oz bottles, I store the balance in a full, tightly capped glass 1 liter bottle with no air.

Usually, I don't use the whole 5 liters and discard some of the developer if it is over 6 months old.

This week, however I had some shots that I could reproduce if the developer was no longer working.

So I opened my last mixed x-tol which was in the 1 liter bottle. This had been mixed 1 year ago exactly.

It worked fine without any noticeable degradation of the developer.
 

Prest_400

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
1,460
Location
Sweden
Format
Med. Format RF
Another vote for XT-3. I just bought another 1L package locally yesterday. In my case I switched to it mostly because of the Tabular grain films. I didn't like my HC110 developed TMX some years ago, it's probably more user error

Otherwise HC110, I still have left my syrupy bottle bought in 2019. Very convenient, general use, and I just use it for traditional cubic grain films.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,706
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
Paul Howell said:
I will have to give XT 3 a try.
Click to expand...
Paul,
I think that from what other folks have said about XT-3 verifies my findings. I won't be going back to Xtol unless the supply of XT-3 dries up. I should ad that I only use XT-3 in a replenished system. That said, I'm starting to think I might just buy a couple of 1L packs of XT-3 so as to be able to use the developer at higher dilutions for films like Adox HR-50 and such. Yes, I think I'll do just that!
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,706
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
Steven Lee said:
The Delta 3200 has trouble building density in Xtol. It looks much better in Microphen or DDX.
Click to expand...
I haven't shot Delta 3200 in years, but I believe what you are saying. Delta 3200 is a horse of a different color from the ones I ride. Good film, just don't use it.
 

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,783
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
I have developed exactly one roll of Delta 3200 in Kodak Xtol, and I thought my results looked more-or-less normal, considering the subject matter. This was a roll of 120 shot after dark, with partial illumination by artificial light -- so lots of deep shadows, as expected. My results are posted here: https://garywright.smugmug.com/Photography/Ilford-Delta-3200-120-Nov-2024 (exposure and development details given in the description at the top of the gallery) Of course, anecdotal evidence with an "n" of 1 doesn't really mean much.

Otherwise, during the past six years I have had good, consistant results from a moderately wide variety of different films developed in Kodak Xtol as well as Legacy Pro Eco-Pro, which is a Xtol knock-off. I would love to try Adox XT-3, but availability has been spotty in the US, and whenever I needed to make an order, my usual sources did not have any.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,706
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
Yes, that's my only complaint so far with any Adox chemical product I have used so far, when I need it I can't get it. I do notice that many Adox chemicals from Freestyle are always "in stock", but the more popular ones like XT-3 and FX-39II are very hit and miss. More miss than hit for FX-39II
 

BHuij

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
888
Location
Utah
Format
Multi Format
I avoided XTOL for years because I didn't want to mix up 5 liters, use 0.5 of them, and see the rest go bad on the shelf.

Now I use Instant Mytol - a DIY clone of XTOL, which is very inexpensive and can be mixed up in one-shot quantities. I'm quite happy with the results on all films I've run through it (Delta 100, FP4+, HP5+ primarily).

The only thing that would make me switch away from Instant Mytol as my go-to for almost all roll films, is if my upcoming tests with Pyrocat HDC convince me it's the better option
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,706
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format

I use both XT-3R (Adox Xtol clone) and Pyrocat-HDC. They are both excellent developers in their own right. One is a staining developer and one is not. You have to choose when to use one over the other. At least that's the way it is for me.
 

abruzzi

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
3,091
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
Large Format
John Wiegerink said:
I haven't shot Delta 3200 in years, but I believe what you are saying. Delta 3200 is a horse of a different color from the ones I ride. Good film, just don't use it.
Click to expand...

I love Delta 3200 in Xtol. I use John Hicks reccomendation here:


Xtol 1:2, 20min, 75F.

Mostly what I shot was still underexposed compared to 3200, and the negatives were fairly thin, but thats expected because it was faily dark. I was hand holding the camera at 1/30 and the lens wide open at 2.8 or 2.4. Here is a way under exposed sample:


And here is one that is closer to 3200:


Both were on the same roll, so identical development.
 

npl

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2021
Messages
211
Location
France
Format
35mm
The only downside I see with XTOL is that the solvent aspect works a little bit too well, meaning you sacrifice sharpness for fine grain. It's great for 200/400 ISO films and above in 35mm, but for slow-speed film that are fine-grained to begin with other developers can be more suited. In theses cases developping at high dilutions (1:2, 1:3) help with sharpness at the cost of longer developping times.

But it's of course all about personnal preferences, lots of people here are happy with slow films in XTOL in all formats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…