XTOL + TMX = sucky.

[MattKing]

What is dichroic fog on sheet film?

Here is a good definition of dichroic fog: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dichroic fog
You don't see the problem very often with modern films, because it and modern developers are designed to inhibit it.
Those who make their own emulsions have to guard against it. To a certain extent those who formulate their own developers need to guard against it as well.
Sheet films have enough differences from roll films that they respond differently to certain issues. The combination of sheet film and the very active T-Max developer was susceptible to the problem. T-Max RS in combination with sheet films dealt with the problem.

 

[Mr Bill]

Is your source for your statements in the link your provide and is this statement endorsed by Kodak itself or is/was Mr Shanebrook a Kodak engineer himself with a pedigree in those fields of TMax films and those developers?

To add on a bit to what Bill Burk has said, here is a somewhat recent post by laser...

Why So Many Kodak Standard Developers?

So you have D76, XTol, HC110, TMAX, and I believe still a few others if they still make Microdol X. D76 is D76, XTol is it's 'replacement'. Okay I get that. Lots of improvements, more environmentally friendly. HC110 and TMax are also out there. I know some labs that use TMAX is their...

www.photrio.com

Something that is probably not well-known is that he was also a chapter editor in the IS&T Handbook of Photographic Science and Engineering. If someone needed "credibility" in the industry, this alone should do it. I appreciate that this book is not well-known here, but it's been more or less the Bible of the photo processing (and more) industry for many years. For those familiar with "The Theory of the Photographic Process," you might see this as the applied version.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks Mr. Bill - I had meant to bookmark that post from Bob Shanebrook, but didn't.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I get less fog with Tmax films than any other other kind of film, regardless of developer. It's amazing how clear the borders are. That being said, I have no intention of using ordinary TMax (non-RS) developer with it, sheet-film wise; the risk of that shipwreck is just too well-known by now. Nor do I see any need of adding Xtol to my already substantial arsenal of options.

 

[Mr Bill]

Thanks Mr. Bill - I had meant to bookmark that post from Bob Shanebrook, but didn't.

Sure thing. I just recall that he was involved with Duraflo, a machine developer not often mentioned here. So it's easy to just search for the word "Duraflo" used by member "Laser." (Another post also shows up, but it's primarily related to Dektol.)

Fwiw everyone should feel free to refer to me as just "Bill." (Unless Bill Burk is also in the same thread.) The handle was originally just a way for me to distinguish between a couple of forums.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

jnamia said:
...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,


I’m a 23 year user of XTOL and D-76 with FP-4 and now TMAX 400. The experience of thin, XTOL developed negatives sound like legacy package defects. Kodak ended production of the problem 1l bags 20 plus years ago. The package defects resulted in thin negs. There are also possible water quality issues that involve iron. Recently some Kodak branded chems, XTOL included, again had product failures due to packaging. The formula is not the fault. It may be jnamia was unlucky to get a compromised product way back. The experience can produce a critical attitude toward a product or company.

In response to the latest Kodak chem packaging failures I decided to source XTOL‘s clone from Adox or use ID-11, just a 1/4 step behind XTOL‘s results with films I use. EPIC fail is unfair strong language. Not discounting his experience but it would be more meaningful if the experience is repeatable with a clone or the current product.

 

[Bill Burk]

What is dichroic fog on sheet film?

If you have seen antique photos where it looks like an oily colorful sheen on the surface … that’s what it is.

p.s. Bill is fine for Mr Bill even if I am in the thread with other Bill’s, I can tell us apart

 

[Bill Burk]

p.p.s. Take anything I say about XTOL with a grain of salt. I have never used it and so should have no opinion.

And although I worked for Kodak for many years, my profession is related to the printing industry. I never worked in Kodak film manufacturing.

 

[MattKing]

Sure thing. I just recall that he was involved with Duraflo, a machine developer not often mentioned here. So it's easy to just search for the word "Duraflo" used by member "Laser." (Another post also shows up, but it's primarily related to Dektol.)

Fwiw everyone should feel free to refer to me as just "Bill." (Unless Bill Burk is also in the same thread.) The handle was originally just a way for me to distinguish between a couple of forums.

I think I may be disappointed.
All this time I had assumed that your screen name was meant as a homage to early Saturday Night Live and the wonders of Super 8 moviemaking

 

[Mr Bill]

I think I may be disappointed.
All this time I had assumed that your screen name was meant as a homage to early Saturday Night Live and the wonders of Super 8 moviemaking

Well, that is actually the origin from back in the day; I just didn't think people would remember (or that it was even widely known). Fwiw I used to have one of those Mister Bill at the beach posters - looks like a big Polaroid photo - cut out and mounted, on the wall in my office. Big Shark coming up to get him.

For the uninitiated Mr Bill was a good-natured, naive little claymation figure, often coming to an unfortunate end(?), in many creative ways. Done in a crude, distinctly amateur way, using high-pitched voices like a five-year-old might use. Sometimes ending with the hand of the animator, Mr. Hand, accidentally mashing him flat (also like a five-year-old might do).

 

[MattKing]

The "Mr. Bill" name also resonates for me in another way. I used to act for a number of corporate clients whose principals and shareholders were mainly of South Asian decent, and whose first language was Punjabi. In that culture and with that language, names are usually expressed in the Surname, Given Name order - often with Singh or Kaur in the middle.
With those clients, I was often addressed as "Mr. Matthew", which would make my staff smile.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

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.

Yup, reflect John. There's nothing in your now-deleted quote that could possibly embarrass me, only you. I didn't bring up the Soap Box, you did.

As for leaving you alone, I'll stop replying to anyone's baseless attacks on XTOL when they stop making them.

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

Yet another attempted tweak that fails miserably. It's telling when substantive responses about characteristic curves are ignored and ad hominem attacks are launched instead of dealing with facts.

In case you've got Richard Jepsen on ignore you might have missed his reasoned post:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/xtol-tmx-sucky.191620/page-7#post-2548101

John could benefit from considering what Richard wrote too.

 

[MattKing]

This thread has descended into bickering, after some useful and interesting contributions.
(Also a couple of fun detours).
I'm closing it now.