XTOL + TMX = sucky.

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Kodak TMX + Xtol 1+1.
Print on Ilford MGIV in replenished Ethol LPD, untoned.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak TMX + Xtol 1+1.
Print on Ilford MGIV in replenished Ethol LPD, untoned.

It is really good to hear from you Thomas - excellent example as well.

 

[NB23]

Why would that be weird?
You would do the reverse if you were using something like Perceptol - not that I would expect you to use Perceptol and TMax 100.

Weird on many levels... firstly because it is somehow expected that by under-exposingTMX I shall l start liking how it looks in XTOL. Since when is under-exposing actually exposing correctly? As far as I know, TMX is a Iso 80 film... so what would be the correct Iso for xtol, iso 100? Iso 160? 125 or 200?

Weird because for a few people it seems unacceptable that someone would not like this particular combo... crazy fine grain is not everything.

 

[radiant]

Wait..

You are basically using the finest film there is available with the finest developer.

And you want crunch and punch with that combo? It is like driving Rolls Royce in silk suit and wondering why you aren't offroading.

 

[McDiesel]

@Thomas Bertilsson we have never interacted, but I had several of your old posts bookmarked way before I opened an account. Your comments helped me get started with Xtol, thanks for that. Good to see you posting again.

 

[albada]

Weird on many levels... firstly because it is somehow expected that by under-exposingTMX I shall l start liking how it looks in XTOL.

In this case, the purpose of underexposure is to avoid the early shoulder that is common with the TMX-ascorbate combo. I saw that early shoulder in curves when I was creating a new ascorbate dev a few years ago (Mocon). With such a dev, you must meter carefully at the correct ISO.

Mark Overton

 

[Helge]

So... I should rate my TMX @ iso 200 for when I plan to use XTOL, and rate it @
Iso 100 for when I plan to use any other developer? Weird.

The speed increase with 1:1 is “only” just half a stop. So if you are usually spot on with exposure, just enjoy the extra security.

 

[jnamia]

What exactly is the problem(s) you have with the negatives?

thin, terrible, rotten, useless no matter the recommendations from the kodak braintrust or their crypto-evangelists. they might make expensive (good?) films but that chemistry ... the worst. I'd get better results with pine needles, rosemary and mint.

If it makes you feel any better, the best I could do with xtol-r was grade 3 under a diffusion enlarger, never could make a good grade 2 print, thats with either hp5 or tmy-2. D23,130, hc110 all took very little time and testing too give beautiful straight prints under grade 2. I finally gave up on xtol-r for other reasons and went back to hc110 in the deeptank. Still getting times nailed down but this roll prints great at grade 1.5.

sweet! yea, not worth the trouble if you can get what you like another way..

 

[Helge]

thin, terrible, rotten, useless no matter the recommendations from the kodak braintrust or their crypto-evangelists. they might make expensive (good?) films but that chemistry ... the worst. I'd get better results with pine needles, rosemary and mint.


sweet! yea, not worth the trouble if you can get what you like another way..

“Crypto evangelists”?
I’d be curious to get some examples of that.

If you get thin negatives even when adjusting your development a lot, then surely the fault is at your end of the line?

I’ve had to adjust x1.20 time for Adox version. But that could be anything really. Different bottle, my camera, their chemistry, etc.
But longer dev is most often a good thing (within reason). It conserves shadows and spreads time and temp errors out a bit.

And “terrible rotten and useless” is hardly descriptive terms of negatives.
What is the problem? Hard to print? Missing shadows?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Hi Lachlan
I figure I'll ask you since you know what you are talking about more the typical Xtol junkie. ...
I've had troubles for years with xtol and have never been able to get it to give me any semblance of good negatives, no matter the film, no matter the development no matter the dilution, no matter the water supply. I've bracketed like hell ( 3 or 4 stops each way ) and my cameras have always been CLA'd . I've bracketed development like hell too sometimes developing 2x the recommended time, eventually started using it full strength because dilution got me no where, and neither did stock. I found it to be hands down the worst developer I have ever used. This isn't me being green and having no idea how to process film, this is after 20 years of steady daily processing, for a living. thankfully I never developed anything that I needed in it... It never really printed anything less than grade 4 paper, #4 or 5 filter either, to give you an idea of lack of density and bite. I used 4 different water supplies, I think I even used distilled water at one point but it's been 20 years don't hold me to that ...

I think what's happened is that you've been caught out by Xtol's safety mechanisms - it has higher shadow speed, a somewhat shorter (with some emulsions) straight line than D-76 etc & an often relatively longer softer shoulder/ roll-off. All of these are intended to help make negatives on average more easily printable - not necessarily more absolutely optimal, but more printable across a range of contrasts and metering habits. The same development inhibition effects (a useful characteristic of Phenidones) seem to help improve sharpness as well. In essence, the aim seems to be to achieve a degree of real compensatory behaviour that heads somewhat in the direction of what the DIR/DIAR couplers in XP2 Super are more fully able to do - and which most claimed 'compensating' developers signally aren't doing.

However, if you are coming from a background of developers that are often just-about box speed or slightly under (universal developers, HC-110 & antecedents etc) - and which are low enough in solvency that they don't produce much roll-off - or keep a straight-line into the highlights for longer, the speed differential can be significant enough to have an impact, yet not be immediately obvious - the subsequent reaction to insufficient highlight contrast is usually to bump up the processing, but all that'll do is increase the development inhibition effects & further shorten the straight line & roll the highlights off more - and increased exposure will squeeze you further on to the shoulder. So, if you are used to a fairly vigorous developer without much shouldering/ late shouldering & a slightly low shadow speed, Xtol may be an exercise in extended frustration. Approach it as a speed increasing D-76 evolution with a slightly earlier but somewhat softer shoulder & you might find it more tractable.

Since when is under-exposing actually exposing correctly?

PQ/ PA developers can add 1/2-2/3 stop of real shadow speed. If Xtol had been used as the ISO speed defining developer for 100TMX, it might well have ended up as 160TMX instead - and if Ilford had used Microphen for that, we'd probably be talking about Delta 500 - and HP5+ being a 640 speed film. Rating TMX at 80 may be fine with D-76 and your exposure methods - but is clearly excessive with TMX/ Xtol.

 

[jnamia]

“Crypto evangelists”?
I’d be curious to get some examples of that.

If you get thin negatives even when adjusting your development a lot, then surely the fault is at your end of the line?

I’ve had to adjust x1.20 time for Adox version. But that could be anything really. Different bottle, my camera, their chemistry, etc.
But longer dev is most often a good thing (within reason). It conserves shadows and spreads time and temp errors out a bit.

And “terrible rotten and useless” is hardly descriptive terms of negatives.
What is the problem? Hard to print? Missing shadows?

Crypto evangelists, just read the fanboy threads here and elsewhere about the wonders of the developer, people using a replenished batch for 30 years and still producing wondrous negatives etcetera not sure what to say about user error on my end .. this was after IDK 20 +/- a few years experience developing film, from 35mm to 5x7, various brands. different lighting conditions some harsh and bright, some overcast / flat, bracketed exposure bracketed development. this is the only developer I have ever used that gave me such flat lifeless no contrast negatives that had to be printed with the highest contrast filter or graded paper I could find. any other developers I have used no issues, over exposed 3 or 4 full stops usually does something, with this developer it did absolutely nothing. extra agitation, nothing .. terrible, rotten negatives, and they were pretty useless by comparison to any other negatives I had made for the 20 years preceding my xtol attempts and 14-15 years after my xtol attempts. can't really put my finger on what the problem is but I do know my solution, it's to use a different film developer!

I think what's happened is that you've been caught out by Xtol's safety mechanisms - it has higher shadow speed, a somewhat shorter (with some emulsions) straight line than D-76 etc & an often relatively longer softer shoulder/ roll-off. All of these are intended to help make negatives on average more easily printable - not necessarily more absolutely optimal, but more printable across a range of contrasts and metering habits. The same development inhibition effects (a useful characteristic of Phenidones) seem to help improve sharpness as well. In essence, the aim seems to be to achieve a degree of real compensatory behaviour that heads somewhat in the direction of what the DIR/DIAR couplers in XP2 Super are more fully able to do - and which most claimed 'compensating' developers signally aren't doing.

However, if you are coming from a background of developers that are often just-about box speed or slightly under (universal developers, HC-110 & antecedents etc) - and which are low enough in solvency that they don't produce much roll-off - or keep a straight-line into the highlights for longer, the speed differential can be significant enough to have an impact, yet not be immediately obvious - the subsequent reaction to insufficient highlight contrast is usually to bump up the processing, but all that'll do is increase the development inhibition effects & further shorten the straight line & roll the highlights off more - and increased exposure will squeeze you further on to the shoulder. So, if you are used to a fairly vigorous developer without much shouldering/ late shouldering & a slightly low shadow speed, Xtol may be an exercise in extended frustration. Approach it as a speed increasing D-76 evolution with a slightly earlier but somewhat softer shoulder & you might find it more tractable.

Hi Lachlan
Thanks for your thoughts. Im not one for graphs shoulder and heel/ toe stuff, its like greek to me (and the only greek I speak is ooopa, moussaka, ouzo, ibriki and baklava) and I haven't used those developers you've mentioned but I can imagine what you are talking about. My poor translation is something like: built into the the developer is an almost foolproof mechanism that makes easier to print negatives out of a variety of mild and harsh lighting situations, and sometimes foolproof isn't necessarily best or even foolproof because there are exceptions to every rule ... sadly it seems no matter the lighting I shot in, and no matter my bracketing, metering and developing technique I just unfortunately was the exception to the rule

 

[warden]

Kodak TMX + Xtol 1+1.
Print on Ilford MGIV in replenished Ethol LPD, untoned.

Thomas, I hope you stick around. Good to see you back!

 

[John Wiegerink]

Kodak TMX + Xtol 1+1.
Print on Ilford MGIV in replenished Ethol LPD, untoned.

Good to hear from you again Tom. I thought maybe you had gone into hibernation up in our cold, cold north and not come out. You could probably shoot ice pack buildup on Sturgeon Bay right now. JohnW

 

[John Wiegerink]

I use Xtol-R as one of my main developers and have never had a problem with flat negatives. Sure, some scenes are flatter than others, but that's life. As for the TMX + Xtol combo? I don't use TMX so I can't say, but I do shoot TMY2 and it developes just fine for me in Xtol-R. I do remember when TMX 100 first came out there was a real uproar from folks who just couldn't get it to work the way they got films like PlusX to work. There was an article in the old "Darkroom Techniques" mag where folks were using the their developers heated to above 90F and getting better results. Or at least results they liked much better. I think Kodak tweaked TMX after that, but I'm not sure. I say if it doesn't make you smile then don't use it, but if it works, it works. JohnW

 

[faberryman]

What's the problem? Different photographers want different looks from their film/developer combinations. This is no different than a photographer who prizes fine grain expressing the opinion that TriX developed in Rodinal is sucky. Besides, negatives with fine grain and a long tonal scale is a bourgeois concept.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Since when is under-exposing actually exposing correctly? As far as I know, TMX is a Iso 80 film...

Since when is "over exposing" (compared to "box speed") actually exposing correctly? Since approximately forever -- for some films. Why would TMX be wedded to 100? Apparently, as far as you know isn't very far.

...built into the the developer is an almost foolproof mechanism that makes easier to print negatives out of a variety of mild and harsh lighting situations, and sometimes foolproof isn't necessarily best or even foolproof because there are exceptions to every rule...

Well, that's an improvement, John. At least you're now addressing XTOL's characteristics rather than dwelling on decades-old, long-since resolved "failures" of the product.

 

[jnamia]

Well, that's an improvement, John. At least you're now addressing XTOL's characteristics rather than dwelling on decades-old, long-since resolved "failures" of the product.

I never did any dilutions beyond 1:2 even though the brain trust told me that I should be using 1:10 if I was contact printing .. I told them they were nuts.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes good to hear from you again Thomas. I was beginning to think that you'd joined Marge Gunderson and stopping guys feeding bodies into meat grinders was taking up all of your time


pentaxuser

 

[Bill Burk]

NB23 can you send me some of these terrible negatives to analyze?

I wonder if you need to develop longer if the negatives are flat, or print on a condenser enlarger.

Heck no don’t underexpose TMAX100.

 

[NB23]

Wait..

You are basically using the finest film there is available with the finest developer.

And you want crunch and punch with that combo? It is like driving Rolls Royce in silk suit and wondering why you aren't offroading.

What’s so fine about dull prints?

 

[NB23]

NB23 can you send me some of these terrible negatives to analyze?

I wonder if you need to develop longer if the negatives are flat, or print on a condenser enlarger.

Heck no don’t underexpose TMAX100.

Which negative to send... you can also just buy one roll and test it against, say, fp4. Both in XTOL.

I use two focomat iic

 

[flavio81]

Geez, I hate ALL my prints involving this combo. All of them. They all lack the crunchiness, the punch I need.

= contrast is too low for your taste.

Increase development time and/or temperature.

Too much shadow detail means no blacks, or very little.

"Increased shadow detail" means increased speed, a good thing. XTol is supposed to increase film speed. It does what it says on the tin!! Who knew? Finally, honest advertising!!

 

[flavio81]

T-Max films appear to be a technological marvel, the pinnacle of photo engineering coming from Kodak at their peak.

This, this this. We should be glad we have TMax 100/400, Delta 100/400, Acros 100.

There's a ton of people that think the old stuff is somehow "superior" with strange arguments such as "more forgiving in development" (if you want the highest quality, you need to be exacting in your development, dont' you think?)

Too much marketing and romanticising about Tri-X or HP5.

We should buy and use more of the advanced/modern films until someday demand drops so much that they get killed.

You are basically using the finest film there is available with the finest developer.

Year 2040 in Photrio: "Back then in 2022 were happy and joyful, yet we didn't realize it then..."

 

[bernard_L]

Too much shadow detail means no blacks, or very little.

???
Who prevents you from increasing the exposure time under the enlarger ?
Or to push the left slider in the levels tools if that is how you deal with your negatives?
Shadow detail present, you remain free to bury it into max black; the converse is not true.

 

[grat]

Year 2040 in Photrio: "Back then in 2022 were happy and joyful, yet we didn't realize it then..."

Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.