Xtol vs Rodinal

OptiKen · Dec 15, 2014

I'm thinking of trying Xtol developer for by B&W films due to the ability to replenish it. Rodinal is very economical but perhaps Xtol is even more so<?>
I also like the idea of having my developer already mixed rather than mixing a fresh batch every time I want to develop a roll of film.

For those of you who know, how does Xtol compare to Rodinal?

Thanks in advance

Ken

bdial · Dec 15, 2014

Rodinal will produce more apparent grain. Xtol is a solvent developer which softens the grain structure a bit. Rodinal isn't, and so the grain shows more, but you get slightly better sharpness.
Xtol will give you a little more film speed. I can safely shoot most films at box speed, but, YMMV.

Not sure which is the more economical. Xtol used in a replenish scheme is very cheap, and it will last a long time if it's protected from oxygen, and not mixed with water that has iron in it. OTH Rodinal concentrate lasts for years.

I don't care for the graininess that Rodinal produces for small negatives, for me, Xtol offers the best collection of trade-offs between grain, sharpness, film speed and general look.

That said, the differences between film developers can be quite subtle, and unless you keep track, you may have a hard time knowing what was used on a particular roll a year from now.

JW PHOTO · Dec 15, 2014

Depends on the films you are using and your dilution of Rodinal. I really don't understand the problem with mixing Rodinal for each session. Actually that's kind of why I like Rodinal. I can go 1:25 or 1:50 or 1:75 or 1:100 or 1:200...............................I think you get the drift. Xtol replenished will not be able to be diluted any more than what it is. I have read that replenished Xtol is like using Xtol 1:2, but I've never tried it. Try them both and see what you think. John W

Sirius Glass · Dec 15, 2014

XTOL is cheap.
XTOL produces finer grain.
One can shoot at box speed with XTOL.

Everything bdial said.

Sirius Glass · Dec 15, 2014

Replenished XTOL is use full strength.

moltogordo · Dec 15, 2014

You are being well tutored from the comments above.

I'd kick in also that the film you are using is also important. I've just run some tests on Fomapan 400 using BOTH of these developers. (see the post (there was a url link here which no longer exists))

On Fomapan 400, they produce very different results. Startlingly different, actually. On my other favorite films, such as Tri-X or HP5, the differences are similar but to a much lesser extent.

So make sure you consider the film you are using. Xtol is also very good for high contrast scenes, as its solvent action tames highlight blowout to some degree. I'd hesitate to use Rodinal if I was filming at a beach in the summer, for instance, if the scene had a wide dynamic range.

Personal testing is always best. Since I've returned to film I've learned a lot from the guys on the forum. And I intend to keep learning, using their advice as a guide.

gone · Dec 15, 2014

I agree, it depends on the film, and also how you expose it. Never used Xtol, but a lot of people love it. Some people say that Rodinal at 1:25 will cause a loss of film speed, but it doesn't seem to be much from what I see. People also say don't use it w/ 400 speed film. I get excellent results w/ Tri-X and this developer.

For me, one of the reasons to use Rodinal is for its ability to tailor make the negs the way you like them. I always use it at 1:25, even in 35mm. In my experience, how you agitate it makes all the difference in the grain. The following shots were taken w/ a 35mm camera w/ the same film (Tri-X). In the first shot, the grain is clearly visible in the hot rod's paint. It almost looks like a metal flake paint job. I like the grain myself. The second shot is w/ the agitations greatly reduced. Nice, tight grain on this one.

If you use this dilution w/ 120 film and don't over agitate it, you will be hard pressed to see any grain at all even at 1:25 (see last shot of Shanghai GP3 Pan 100), assuming you exposed it right. I love this developer, mainly for the grain, flexibility, and ease of use. Lasts forever in a bottle too. For tonality, give me D76/TD-16, or my new love, Microdol-X.

Gerald C Koch · Dec 15, 2014

The problem with replenished developers is that you need to use them on a regular basis. If you develop two rolls in a week and then wait 2 or 3 weeks to develop a third roll the results will be different. Replenishment works best for people that develop a lot of film. The advantage of one-shot developers is consistency between rolls. You will always know what you will get. Another problem with X-tol is that it is available only in 5 liter packages. That's a lot of developer to store.

Athiril · Dec 15, 2014

My experiences with Xtol Replenished vs Rodinal in actually comparing the two is basically with FP4+, it was as sharp as Rodinal 1+25 but with much finer grain and particularly sharper than Rodinal 1+100 stand developing (loss of resolution). I replenish at 75mL a roll instead of the recommended 70mL as it makes measuring line up with my graduate a lot easier for multiple rolls etc.

Sirius Glass · Dec 16, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
The problem with replenished developers is that you need to use them on a regular basis. If you develop two rolls in a week and then wait 2 or 3 weeks to develop a third roll the results will be different. Replenishment works best for people that develop a lot of film. The advantage of one-shot developers is consistency between rolls. You will always know what you will get. Another problem with X-tol is that it is available only in 5 liter packages. That's a lot of developer to store.

I shoot and develop irregularly and I never had a problem with different results. I have not had that problem with XTOL.

I never had a problem with 5 liters of XTOL. I store it in one liter bottles. I have not had a problem with that either.

darkosaric · Dec 16, 2014

Beside grain issue - one question: how many films do you shoot per month? Rodinal is good because it lasts forever. So if you shoot 1-2 films in a month, then Rodinal is a smart choice.

Ian Grant · Dec 16, 2014

Rodinal produces very fine grain negatives on a par with Xtol with modern T grain & similar films, ie Delta 100 & Tmax100. I used both developers from the late 1980's until about 8 or 9 years ago and even with 35nn negatives there's no differences in grain size.

Ian

Xmas · Dec 16, 2014

There won't be a detectable difference unless you use side by side shot of same subject to same gamma or use a step wedge.

I've had a 1/4 bottle of Rodinal last 25 years; ---

Lamar · Dec 16, 2014

I'm a long time almost exclusively XTOL user but have just started using Rodinal. I'll leave the analysis to those more capable. Lots of good comments from the experts above. Here are some samples of 135 T-Max 100 in both.

T-Max 100 in Rodinal 1+25:

T-Max 100 in XTOL:

Xuco Martin · Dec 16, 2014

Some users also refilled or reused the Rodinal thus is unbeatable in economics, 35mm adding a couple of tablespoons of sulfite water to make 500ml of Rodinal 1:25 greatly improves fine grain

Arvee · Dec 16, 2014

Another problem with X-tol is that it is available only in 5 liter packages. That's a lot of developer to store.[/QUOTE said:
I mix Xtol in 2.5l of water and store in five 500ml brown plastic bottles from the pharmacy. I also have a 250ml and a 125ml plastic bottle that I use to decant/store the unused developer from a 500ml bottle. This way the bottles are always filled to the top with no air space. I simply dilute 1:1 for stock developing solution.

Xtol 5l packet dissolves quite nicely in 2.5l of water. You're right, storing 5l of developer is a PITA.

flavio81 · Dec 16, 2014

OptiKen,

FWIW, D-76 can also be replenished. The formula for D76 replenisher is out there on the internet. In this way you can have a super cheap standard developer.

zehner21 · Dec 19, 2014

darkosaric said:
Beside grain issue - one question: how many films do you shoot per month? Rodinal is good because it lasts forever. So if you shoot 1-2 films in a month, then Rodinal is a smart choice.

Not always. What if I want to achieve full speed? Let's just stop at "... good because it lasts forever"

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 19, 2014

Tonality is the most important difference between the two developers.

Rodinal is extremely powerful and just keeps building and building and building contrast ad nauseum. It gives a fairly straight line representation tonally, basically showing you an honest representation of the film's curve. It is slightly weak in the shadows, though. Expose generously.

Xtol is a marvel at film speed. It gives gobs more shadow detail than Rodinal, and then it's really good for when you shoot subjects directly lit by your light source. It controls those highlights beautifully. But when you shoot in subdued light, the highlights can often seem a little bit dull. But you can rest assured that they will very rarely be blocked up.

The grain department is often overstated, and after the print has been finished, spotted, mounted, and framed, that difference in grain is not even going to matter. But, tonality screams at you from across a room!

Alan Klein · Dec 19, 2014

For whatever it's worth, the pro lab I use to develop my film uses Xtol. They will use other developers but at additional fee for the special set-up.

flavio81 · Dec 19, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Rodinal is extremely powerful and just keeps building and building and building contrast ad nauseum. It gives a fairly straight line representation tonally, basically showing you an honest representation of the film's curve. It is slightly weak in the shadows, though. Expose generously.

Xtol is a marvel at film speed. It gives gobs more shadow detail than Rodinal, and then it's really good for when you shoot subjects directly lit by your light source. It controls those highlights beautifully. But when you shoot in subdued light, the highlights can often seem a little bit dull. But you can rest assured that they will very rarely be blocked up.

The grain department is often overstated, and after the print has been finished, spotted, mounted, and framed, that difference in grain is not even going to matter. But, tonality screams at you from across a room!

Very interesting points, thanks!

RalphLambrecht · Dec 19, 2014

OptiKen said:
I'm thinking of trying Xtol developer for by B&W films due to the ability to replenish it. Rodinal is very economical but perhaps Xtol is even more so<?>
I also like the idea of having my developer already mixed rather than mixing a fresh batch every time I want to develop a roll of film.

For those of you who know, how does Xtol compare to Rodinal?

Thanks in advance

Ken

Ken, Because these two are so differentit might be easier to compare both to an industry standard such as D76 than to each other.for exampleD76 gives less grain and more speed than Rodinal butmore grain and less speed than XtolBoth developers are first-class products but very different with a strong followship eachfor different reasons and purposes. I don't believe in 'magic bullets' when it comes to developers and like to stick to D76as a great compromise between grain,speed,tonality and versatility.I did a proper film test with it for all my favorite films and know exactly what speed to expectand how long to develop to get anything from N-3 to N+3.I make myself one liter of working solution at a time and dilute it 1+1 as needed as one-shot.That's usually gone within a couple of weeks.So, I always have fresh developer and consistent results.D76has he peculiar tendency to get stronger with age as the pHrises but that doesn't happen the way I use it.

Ko.Fe. · Dec 19, 2014

Replenishing XTOL? You get 4L of it fresh and you could mix it 1:3, if you want to have it for long time.
I have tried Rodinal with my regular films and some new to me. Results were kind of unpredictable.
With XTOL it is much more consistent at 1:1 mix and no crazy grain. XTOL is my second choice after HC-110, which is superior to all common developers I have tried so far.

removedacct1 · Dec 19, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Rodinal is extremely powerful and just keeps building and building and building contrast ad nauseum. It gives a fairly straight line representation tonally, basically showing you an honest representation of the film's curve. It is slightly weak in the shadows, though. Expose generously.

Xtol is a marvel at film speed. It gives gobs more shadow detail than Rodinal, and then it's really good for when you shoot subjects directly lit by your light source. It controls those highlights beautifully. But when you shoot in subdued light, the highlights can often seem a little bit dull. But you can rest assured that they will very rarely be blocked up.

The grain department is often overstated, and after the print has been finished, spotted, mounted, and framed, that difference in grain is not even going to matter. But, tonality screams at you from across a room!

I've been using Rodinal with Fuji Acros 100 (120 roll format w/Hasselblad) and I am getting the impression that Rodinal isn't doing me any favors as far as smooth tonality goes. Is it just a characteristic of Acros that in areas of smooth gradient (blue sky, for example) it tends to show what I would call "clumpy" grain, or is that something I am inducing by the use of Rodinal? I've heard some of you talk about "chemical reticulation" when using Rodinal, and I wonder if this is what I'm seeing here.... If so, I will gladly stick with my old friend D-76 or perhaps give Xtol a try. What about one of the pyrocat developers used with some of these "classic formula" films? (I am a fan of HP5 and Pan-F as well)

Thank you for the wealth of information you folks have to offer.
(FYI I am an old school darkroom person from the 1980s-1990s who, after a decade of working solely as a digital person, have returned to film with great enthusiasm. My skill set from the earlier era is still very much intact, but I freely admit I still have plenty of room to expand my materials and methods vocabulary)

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 19, 2014

paulbarden said:
I've been using Rodinal with Fuji Acros 100 (120 roll format w/Hasselblad) and I am getting the impression that Rodinal isn't doing me any favors as far as smooth tonality goes. Is it just a characteristic of Acros that in areas of smooth gradient (blue sky, for example) it tends to show what I would call "clumpy" grain, or is that something I am inducing by the use of Rodinal? I've heard some of you talk about "chemical reticulation" when using Rodinal, and I wonder if this is what I'm seeing here.... If so, I will gladly stick with my old friend D-76 or perhaps give Xtol a try. What about one of the pyrocat developers used with some of these "classic formula" films? (I am a fan of HP5 and Pan-F as well)

Thank you for the wealth of information you folks have to offer.
(FYI I am an old school darkroom person from the 1980s-1990s who, after a decade of working solely as a digital person, have returned to film with great enthusiasm. My skill set from the earlier era is still very much intact, but I freely admit I still have plenty of room to expand my materials and methods vocabulary)

I honestly don't know. Never used Acros with Rodinal. I have some Acros at the house now, and it's been really great with replenished Xtol (in the past) and currently stock D76, which is a beautiful combination.

Xtol vs Rodinal

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency