XTOL + TMX = sucky.

[Sal Santamaura]

...when xtol came out in the mid 1990s...super thin negatives were a nightmare to print then, and still are if you don't use photoshop, sure #5+ filters exist but that is the "miracle aisle" at the auto part store. if I didn't have negatives that looked like I under developed my film by more than 3-4 minutes no matter what I did ( over expose film 3 stops ) I'd be a fanboy like everyone else. I found the help offered by Kodak's professional help/customer service division to be suboptimal with this developer ( and TMAX seeing laser mentioned it talk about a nightmare )...from my point of view BOTH developers are an epic fail, and I will use SPRINT FILM DEVELOPER or CAFFENOL D72 or ANSCO 130 for every film I process...

Well, so much for just knocking the old packaging, John, now you're back to denigrating the product.

I have numerous TMAX negatives (100 and 400) developed in stock XTOL that reach densities so high at upper exposure zones they're a bear to print. TMAX developer is even "hotter:"

fktmax

Fotoimport er en spesialbutikk innen foto, med et stort utvalg av blekk og papir, samt analogt materiell og lysutstyr.

fotoimport.no

XTOL 1+1 rolls off, but not so much that it's a factor with typical subject brightness range scenes. You never found the cause of your suboptimal results, but it sure wasn't those developers. And a quick trip to

fkcaffenol

Fotoimport er en spesialbutikk innen foto, med et stort utvalg av blekk og papir, samt analogt materiell og lysutstyr.

fotoimport.no

will show just how badly caffenol screws up the TMX curve and grain compared to XTOL 1+1:

fkxtol

Fotoimport er en spesialbutikk innen foto, med et stort utvalg av blekk og papir, samt analogt materiell og lysutstyr.

fotoimport.no

 

[Lachlan Young]

When I revisited APX-25 I was astounded at its high granularity.

That would depend on the age of the film, exposure and processing. All things being equal, Agfa indicated that in a PQ, borate buffered developer (Refinal - so in the same sector as Microphen/ DD-X/ Xtol/ XT3) APX 25 should have delivered in the order of an RMSG of 7.0. Rodinal would be worse, D-76 or Microdol-X might be a bit better still. If the emulsion design in the APX generation had traveled in similar directions to Ilford Delta, a significant granularity increase when overexposed might not be a surprise - in return for a better exposure scale (the older Agfapan 25 seems to have acquired a reputation for not having a particularly long useful scale).

 

[Lachlan Young]

@Sal Santamaura I think what's happening is that John wanted 'brilliant' highlights - much as some portrait films & traditional commercial (rather than fine-grain) developers would deliver - and from the way that people talked about Tmax behaviour initially, you can see where people could easily get confused into believing that it would deliver an upswept curve character (or at least not roll-off).

As ever, it's the age-old problem of certain consumers' description of the product they want not matching the product they think they want, nor the product they actually need - and when the latter is delivered, it sometimes lacks clear enough instructions for all users.

 

[jnamia]

Well, so much for just knocking the old packaging, John, now you're back to denigrating the product.

I have numerous TMAX negatives (100 and 400) developed in stock XTOL that reach densities so high at upper exposure zones they're a bear to print. TMAX developer is even "hotter:"

fktmax

Fotoimport er en spesialbutikk innen foto, med et stort utvalg av blekk og papir, samt analogt materiell og lysutstyr.

fotoimport.no

XTOL 1+1 rolls off, but not so much that it's a factor with typical subject brightness range scenes. You never found the cause of your suboptimal results, but it sure wasn't those developers. And a quick trip to

fkcaffenol

Fotoimport er en spesialbutikk innen foto, med et stort utvalg av blekk og papir, samt analogt materiell og lysutstyr.

fotoimport.no

will show just how badly caffenol screws up the TMX curve and grain compared to XTOL 1+1:

fkxtol

Fotoimport er en spesialbutikk innen foto, med et stort utvalg av blekk og papir, samt analogt materiell og lysutstyr.

fotoimport.no

so im not permitted to relay my experiences which may be atypical for a certain developer ?
not really sure why you linked to caffneol sites, I don't use their caffenol but something completely different that I have been using for about 12years. not sure why you are trying to "shame me". it's kind of strange, other people are allowed to cheerlead and relay their experiences but I'm not allowed to say "I had this experience, tried to use the developer off and on from 1998-2005 and was never able to get great negatives from it". kind of lame if you ask me. .. whatever.
also not a fan of tmax developer after the folks at kodak told me to use regular TMAX instead of TMAX RS and after I got dicrotic fog on 100 sheets of film, then they told me to throw away the film instead of using their own product to fix the negatives. I had to ask the founder of SPRINT chemistry how to do that. I haven't used it since 1991 and don't plan on using it again, and I don't plan on using xtol ever again either. you use it? I'm happy for you...

thanks Lachlan, I've appreciated your help and explanations !

john

 

[Sal Santamaura]

so im not permitted to relay my experiences which may be atypical for a certain developer ?
not really sure why you linked to caffneol sites, I don't use their caffenol but something completely different that I have been using for about 12years. not sure why you are trying to "shame me". it's kind of strange, other people are allowed to cheerlead and relay their experiences but I'm not allowed to say "I had this experience, tried to use the developer off and on from 1998-2005 and was never able to get great negatives from it". kind of lame if you ask me. .. whatever.
also not a fan of tmax developer after the folks at kodak told me to use regular TMAX instead of TMAX RS and after I got dicrotic fog on 100 sheets of film, then they told me to throw away the film instead of using their own product to fix the negatives. I had to ask the founder of SPRINT chemistry how to do that. I haven't used it since 1991 and don't plan on using it again, and I don't plan on using xtol ever again either. you use it? I'm happy for you...

thanks Lachlan, I've appreciated your help and explanations !

john

Of course you're permitted to post what you do. And somone reading it is permitted to reply.

I linked to caffenol because you listed it (in your post I quoted) as a developer you use and which you espouse as providing better results than XTOL.

Someone at Kodak gave you mistaken advice a long, long time ago. You continue to repeat the story and use that experience to denigrate TMAX developer. Kind of lame if you ask me. By the way, Kodak recently reformulated TMAX developer, and it might now be compatible with sheets. See John Sexton's note about that just past halfway down his newsletter here:

John Sexton.com - Newsletter - November, 2020

Lachlan's help/explanation addresses you potentially seeking an upswept characteristic curve. If you don't want to use XTOL with TMAX films, try it with 320TXP. No dilution or protocol has been successful for me when trying to tame that film's upswept curve in XTOL. Or any other developer.

 

[jnamia]

Of course you're permitted to post what you do. And somone reading it is permitted to reply.

I linked to caffenol because you listed it (in your post I quoted) as a developer you use and which you espouse as providing better results than XTOL.

Someone at Kodak gave you mistaken advice a long, long time ago. You continue to repeat the story and use that experience to denigrate TMAX developer. Kind of lame if you ask me. By the way, Kodak recently reformulated TMAX developer, and it might now be compatible with sheets. See John Sexton's note about that just past halfway down his newsletter here:

John Sexton.com - Newsletter - November, 2020

Lachlan's help/explanation addresses you potentially seeking an upswept characteristic curve. If you don't want to use XTOL with TMAX films, try it with 320TXP. No dilution or protocol has been successful for me when trying to tame that film's upswept curve in XTOL. Or any other developer.

yes I use caffenolc and have since 2006, your links make no sense because I don't use their recipes or use the developer like they typically use it.
I don't know who John Sexton is but I really hope you and John Sexton enjoy yours TMAX developer.
BTW maybe you should be harassing the OP and others who have said they didn't get good film from XTOL too.
LOL you must be really bored since they closed the honeycomb hideout ...

@lachlan. not sure about the brilliant highlights, what I wanted was negatives that didn't look like I had under developed all my film, and a developer that responded to over exposure and over development like other developers I had used for 2 decades. Wasn't meant to be I guess ..

 

[DREW WILEY]

John - Tmax was never "optimized" for D76. It was once ad marketed that way. But it was engineered as a multi-application film with the ideal developer depending on the specific usage. Soon enough, TMax and TMax RS developers came out to try to get the longest straight line out of these films. The RS version was intended for sheet film use, but is no longer being made; regular TMax developer was NOT recommended for sheet film; maybe that's a default position now. Dunno. I sure don't use it. Did once use RS for sheet film color separation negs. But all kinds of developers work, depending.

John Sexton was an assistant to Ansel Adams who later was contracted by Kodak to use certain film and developer combinations they hoped to market. Nice fellow and well-known on the workshop circuit.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I took a look at the examples Sal posted and frankly I think Sal is seeing what he wants to see. The Caffenol negs have much better shadow separation than the Xtol negs. Typical Sal.

I've never liked XTol so I never use it. Not surprised that Ned doesn't like it. I don't like the TMax films either. I can appreciate that other people like it. Whatever floats your boat I say.

There is no right or wrong way of doing anything if you get the results that please you. Telling others what to do or use because of what you like or don't like is pretty Lame.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I took a look at the examples Sal posted and frankly I think Sal is seeing what he wants to see. The Caffenol negs have much better shadow separation than the Xtol negs. Typical Sal...There is no right or wrong way of doing anything if you get the results that please you. Telling others what to do or use because of what you like or don't like is pretty Lame.

See, lots of people like to tweak me for sport. John alluding to the Soap Box and your "typical Sal" jab for example. Those folks in Norway don't know what they're doing either. John hasn't complained about shadow separation; he's displeased by the shouldering.

Try reading the post. I never told anyone what to use. Rather, I've responded to John's decades-long denigration of XTOL developer, which is in effect him telling others not to use it. Nice try at tweaking, though.

 

[Helge]

I took a look at the examples Sal posted and frankly I think Sal is seeing what he wants to see. The Caffenol negs have much better shadow separation than the Xtol negs. Typical Sal.

I've never liked XTol so I never use it. Not surprised that Ned doesn't like it. I don't like the TMax films either. I can appreciate that other people like it. Whatever floats your boat I say.

There is no right or wrong way of doing anything if you get the results that please you. Telling others what to do or use because of what you like or don't like is pretty Lame.

See, the trouble with threads like this is that people either take the binary option of right/wrong or go completely relativistic and “anything goes”/it’s just a tool” etc.

All, when we are probably not even equipped to ask the right question(s) to start with.

 

[Bill Burk]

Of course you're permitted to post what you do. And somone reading it is permitted to reply.

I linked to caffenol because you listed it (in your post I quoted) as a developer you use and which you espouse as providing better results than XTOL.

Someone at Kodak gave you mistaken advice a long, long time ago. You continue to repeat the story and use that experience to denigrate TMAX developer. Kind of lame if you ask me. By the way, Kodak recently reformulated TMAX developer, and it might now be compatible with sheets. See John Sexton's note about that just past halfway down his newsletter here:

John Sexton.com - Newsletter - November, 2020

Lachlan's help/explanation addresses you potentially seeking an upswept characteristic curve. If you don't want to use XTOL with TMAX films, try it with 320TXP. No dilution or protocol has been successful for me when trying to tame that film's upswept curve in XTOL. Or any other developer.

I have speculated that an upswept curve might be beneficial to portraiture, but I should qualify that my thoughts were an armchair comment… not based in experience.

When I have seen upswept curves, it really was an artifact of sheet developing/edges getting more development (so it was a testing problem, the high density steps were near the edges).

When I have seen other people’s upswept curves I think it was minor, a fine distinction- not a clearly useful effect to plan on.

 

[jnamia]

Drew - check out laser’s post a page back

Facts:

T-Max Films were optimized to be developed in D-76.

T-Max Developer and Xtol Developer were optimized to develop T-Max, Tri-X and Plus-X Films.

www.makingKODAKfilm.com

I just repeated and agreed with what he said ( through personal experience of processing a few thousand feet of TMx/y ) I wasn't making some sort of inflammatory remark or making stuff up, not sure what the point is to be a BS artist no point. for me personal experience trumps loose talk on the internet, and the problem with the internet is it is 90-95% loose talk of people just repeating and not experiencing …. I don’t do workshops and had never heard of him, glad he likes what he likes! I know and remember when the TMAX line of films came out it had almost universal photographic application from copy negatives to separation negatives to pictorial work. it's too bad they had 2 developers with nearly the same name and it was as confusing for people working there as it was people using their product.

See, lots of people like to tweak me for sport. John alluding to the Soap Box and your "typical Sal" jab for example. Those folks in Norway don't know what they're doing either. John hasn't complained about shadow separation; he's displeased by the shouldering.

Try reading the post. I never told anyone what to use. Rather, I've responded to John's decades-long denigration of XTOL developer, which is in effect him telling others not to use it. Nice try at tweaking, though.

I said it didn't build contrast and density when *I* used it no matter how *I* exposed the film and processed it over several *years* of testing it. I don't even know what shoulders or shouldering is, never said it in 50 years until now, and no you don't have to explain it to me cause I don't care what it is. I'm happy people are able to get vit c developers to do what they wanted it to do without adding print developer, never said I wasn't. you claim I have prescribed a certain type of photography, gear, developer, methods &c? weird.

not sure about you, but for me it's no fun when developers people rave about don't work, wasted-money wasted-effort wasted-time, I want something that works and is idiot proof, I don't have money or time to waste . .maybe it is time to move on and make some photographs and have a good time? Im just about done here.
===
the Queen is dead, long live Dorothy and all that ...

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

what I wanted was negatives that didn't look like I had under developed all my film, and a developer that responded to over exposure and over development like other developers I had used for 2 decades. Wasn't meant to be I guess ..

XTol itself should be able to give you this if you increase pH of the working solution substantially by adding appropriate amount of Sodium hydroxide (lye). Of course this could be heretical to XTol purists of this forum.

 

[jnamia]

XTol itself should be able to give you this if you increase pH of the working solution substantially by adding appropriate amount of Sodium hydroxide (lye). Of course this could be heretical to XTol purists of this forum.

that's the kind of thing that got me in trouble with the caffenol crowd, but I guess it doesn't matter seeing I'm already on the skids with the xTol purists, LOL they've freaked when I mentioned Les M and Ed B add something into their elixir, it's as if the world was going to end ... you're a bad influence Raghu
Thanks!

 

[pentaxuser]

laser is Bob Shanebrook and yes he wrote the book and worked for Kodak as a photo engineer.

So his comments carry a little extra veracity.

Thanks I had no idea. I wasn't trying to cast any doubts on what he said but was merely looking for the source of Kodak's statement.

It may be that Kodak never made this statement that Tmax was optimised for D76 in those exact words but said enough for any reasonable person to conclude that this was what Kodak meant but it would be interesting to know what those actual statements that lead to the conclusion about optimised for D76 actually were

pentaxuser

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

LOL they've freaked when I mentioned Les M and Ed B add something into their elixir, it's as if the world was going to end

They added Rodinal to XTol pep it up a bit, didn't they? I think adding 10-20ml of acetone to XTol working solution would be fun giving the developer a definitive odour and raising its spirits a bit.

BTW acetone forms an adduct with sulphite in the developer releasing hydroxyl ions and thereby raising pH of the developer.

 

[jnamia]

They added Rodinal to XTol pep it up a bit, didn't they? I think adding 10-20ml of acetone to XTol working solution would be fun giving the developer a definitive odour and raising its spirits a bit.

BTW acetone forms an adduct with sulphite in the developer releasing hydroxyl ions and thereby raising pH of the developer.

that's exactly what they did ! when I add stuff to my caffenol it's about the same amount 15-20ml, maybe it's a similar thing that's happening cause I know 15-20cc doesn't do it on its own. it's amazing how just a dribble can do so much...
acetone, huh? I hope you do it and post your results, your reversals are something to behold!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Im just about done here...

Again?

Come on, John, reflect. When one does the same things over and over, why expect a different outcome?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There's a note that says the following on the TMAX100 and 400 data sheets. Are there two Tmax developers? Also note they list around 5 available developers to use. I develop in outside labs so have nothing else to add other than one lab uses XTOL and the other uses Clayton D76+.

Note: Do not use KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Developer to process sheet films

Tmax 100 https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/resources/f4016_TMax_100.pdf
Tmax 400 https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/products/f4043_tmax_400.pdf

 

[jnamia]

reflect sal?
I just deleted my reply so I don't embarrass you and others about what a sewer the soapbox was, and what was said there, and cause grief for Sean after he has spent so much effort to upgrade this place.
please leave me alone.

There's a note that says the following on the TMAX100 and 400 data sheets. Are there two Tmax developers? Also note they list around 5 available developers to use. I develop in outside labs so have nothing else to add other than one lab uses XTOL and the other uses Clayton D76+.

Note: Do not use KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Developer to process sheet films

Tmax 100 https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/resources/f4016_TMax_100.pdf
Tmax 400 https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/products/f4043_tmax_400.pdf

must be a "used to be" thing
not sure when they stopped but they had regular TMAX. and TMAXRS...
I guess they stopped wanting complaints of dicrotic fog ( dark green metallic sheen ) with sheet film, and
people unable to tell their customer base how to remove it.
there was a bit of confusion between the 2 developers? maybe it fell out of style and stopped making the RS... ? no clue
some people loved it, I didn't want to risk my film.

 

[MattKing]

There's a note that says the following on the TMAX100 and 400 data sheets. Are there two Tmax developers? Also note they list around 5 available developers to use. I develop in outside labs so have nothing else to add other than one lab uses XTOL and the other uses Clayton D76+.

Note: Do not use KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Developer to process sheet films

Tmax 100 https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/resources/f4016_TMax_100.pdf
Tmax 400 https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/products/f4043_tmax_400.pdf

Yes, there were two T-Max developers - T-Max developer, and T-Max RS developer. The latter has just recently been discontinued. It was designed to work in a replenishment regime and, unlike T-Max developer, it did not create problems with the creation of dichroic fog on sheet film.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

acetone, huh? I hope you do it and post your results

The best results using acetone in a developer are surely that of @Merg Ross:

Large Format Photography Forum

A discussion forum on large format phtography http://largeformatphotography.info

www.largeformatphotography.info

Large Format Photography Forum

A discussion forum on large format phtography http://largeformatphotography.info

www.largeformatphotography.info

Large Format Photography Forum

A discussion forum on large format phtography http://largeformatphotography.info

www.largeformatphotography.info

Large Format Photography Forum

A discussion forum on large format phtography http://largeformatphotography.info

www.largeformatphotography.info

If I am not wrong, some of those results are included in his recently published book.

your reversals are something to behold!

 

[Sirius Glass]

See, the trouble with threads like this is that people either take the binary option of right/wrong or go completely relativistic and “anything goes”/it’s just a tool” etc.

All, when we are probably not even equipped to ask the right question(s) to start with.

It is the misinformation and disinformation, not from you, about XTOL that the same posters keep pushing that is so obnoxious. It is also done about other developers, but the attacks on XTOL are in the majority of these attacks are have been disproved many times.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

This thread reminds me why I have some blowhards on ignore here.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, there were two T-Max developers - T-Max developer, and T-Max RS developer. The latter has just recently been discontinued. It was designed to work in a replenishment regime and, unlike T-Max developer, it did not create problems with the creation of dichroic fog on sheet film.

What is dichroic fog on sheet film?