Xtol: what difference does it make?

OptiKen · May 9, 2017

I am looking to develop some 35mm TMax 400 in Xtol and 'forum talk' seems to suggest 1:1 dilutions.
Generally, I use replenished Stock.
When looking at the Massive Development Chart, I see listings for Stock, 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3.

So my question is, what difference is there when using the different dilutions when shooting and developing at ISO400?

Thanks in advance

Ken

Anon Ymous · May 9, 2017

The more dilute, the sharper, but also coarser grain. Keep in mind though that the difference isn't huge and the 1+2 and 1+3 dilutions aren't recommended by Kodak.

OptiKen · May 9, 2017

Brilliant!
Thank you.
This was the first time I'd ever seen 1:2 or 1:3 either.
I'll stick with XTOL-R

Mainecoonmaniac · May 9, 2017

I use it straight replenished because I like the look of it and it's economical too.

RattyMouse · May 9, 2017

Anon Ymous said:
The more dilute, the sharper, but also coarser grain. Keep in mind though that the difference isn't huge and the 1+2 and 1+3 dilutions aren't recommended by Kodak.

Sharp and coarse are opposites. It's like saying the grain is hot and cold.

How can it be both?

Anon Ymous · May 9, 2017

RattyMouse said:
Sharp and coarse are opposites. It's like saying the grain is hot and cold.

How can it be both?

The image is sharper and the grain coarser. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Andrew O'Neill · May 9, 2017

Makes sense to me.

bvy · May 9, 2017

Andrew O'Neill said:
Makes sense to me.

Ditto.

Old-N-Feeble · May 9, 2017

I dunno... I've seen some fine grain solvent developers with excellent edge effects. I can't remember what they were but they were scratch-mix so they didn't interest me.

Ian Grant · May 9, 2017

I used Xtol for all my commercial work and some of my personal work from its release (in the UK) until about 2008/9 replenished.

Anon Ymous said:
The more dilute, the sharper, but also coarser grain. Keep in mind though that the difference isn't huge and the 1+2 and 1+3 dilutions aren't recommended by Kodak.

Kodak used to recommend 1+1 and 1+3 dilutions for Xtol, actually 1+2 is about the best choice if you're diluting Xtol, D76/ID-11, Perceptol etc for economy without running into compensation, issues were the developer is losing contrast due to partial exhaustion.

As Anon Ymous says the more dilute the higher the grain and the better the sharpness, this is down to the Sulphite level and at 1+2 that's still OK and mirrors the Wellington & Ward Fine Grain Borax developer that D76/ID-11 and many other Kodak developers were derived from.

You'll get the best results in terms of quality (fine grain, excellent tonality, and sharpness) from replenished Xtol, 1+2 will be close behind.

Ian

RattyMouse · May 9, 2017

Anon Ymous said:
The image is sharper and the grain coarser. Makes sense, doesn't it?

The grains of silver are what form the image. How can coarse grains make a sharp image?

John Wiegerink · May 9, 2017

Andrew O'Neill said:
Makes sense to me.

Me too!

John Wiegerink · May 9, 2017

RattyMouse said:
The grains of silver are what form the image. How can coarse grains make a sharp image?

Because the edges of the grain remain "sharp" edges. The more you dilute the less sulfite content is in your working developer, the less sulfite the less those grain edges are dissolved off. I actually like HP5+(120) in Xtol replenished better than FP4+(120) in the same developer. Why? Simple, it gives the illusion of better sharpness for the very reason I mentioned above.

Andrew O'Neill · May 9, 2017

RattyMouse said:
The grains of silver are what form the image. How can coarse grains make a sharp image?

I thought it was the spaces between the grains that formed the image...

Gerald C Koch · May 9, 2017

Kodak no longer recommends any dilutions greater than 1+1 because of inconsistent results. There are those who would disagree however Roma locuta est, causa finita est. "Rome has spoken the matter is closed."

http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/j109.pdf

John Wiegerink · May 9, 2017

Andrew O'Neill said:
I thought it was the spaces between the grains that formed the image...

Andy, probably a combination of both. I ain't no rocket scientist, but I do know that those prints from HP5+ in Xtol-R compared to FP4+ in Xtol-R sure looked sharper to me. Was the grain more evident in the HP5+ shots? Yes, but it was still hard to see at 16X20 and that's all that counts for me. Oh, and I can gain an extra stop+ with the HP5+ combo.

Andrew O'Neill · May 9, 2017

John Wiegerink said:
Andy, probably a combination of both. I ain't no rocket scientist, but I do know that those prints from HP5+ in Xtol-R compared to FP4+ in Xtol-R sure looked sharper to me. Was the grain more evident in the HP5+ shots? Yes, but it was still hard to see at 16X20 and that's all that counts for me. Oh, and I can gain an extra stop+ with the HP5+ combo.

Thanks, John. Is Xtol-R with Rodinal? If so, I conducted tests back in the lat 90's with this combo and like the results I got, but not enough to do more. I got hooked into Pyrocat-HD. I'll have to dig up those old notes and take another look.

Gerald C Koch · May 9, 2017

Andrew O'Neill said:
I thought it was the spaces between the grains that formed the image...

Yes what appears to be grain in prints is actually the space between grain in the negative.

Silver grains are often not compact but more a linear tangle of a single filament. During development they do not grow like a snowball rolling down hill.

Another thing to remember is that the grain seen in a negative is actually composed of multiple grains since the emulsion is three dimensional. What can be perceived as a single grain is actually composed of many grains overlapping to a greater or lesser extent. These three facts, which never seem to be mentioned discussions, account for most of what is said about grain to be a load of crap. Pardon my French.

Andrew O'Neill · May 9, 2017

Interesting. Thank you, Gerald.

John Wiegerink · May 9, 2017

Andrew O'Neill said:
Thanks, John. Is Xtol-R with Rodinal? If so, I conducted tests back in the lat 90's with this combo and like the results I got, but not enough to do more. I got hooked into Pyrocat-HD. I'll have to dig up those old notes and take another look.

Andy,
No, it's just Xtol-R. I've never tried adding Rodinal, but might. I'm kind of hooked on Pyrocat-HDC at the moment. I tried all of Wimberley's pyro's and liked them all. Also, some of Jay's concoctions, but finally settle down to Pyrocat-HDC. Pyrocat-MC is no slouch either and I used it for a long time before switching to the HDC version. I have been using Xtol-R for most of my shooting and Pyrocat-HDC for almost all high contrast and cloud scenes, but if I had to rely on just one developer I could get by fine with either one. Of course the "full speed" ability of Xtol-R is a big help at times.

zanxion72 · May 10, 2017

Although Kodak no longer recommends 1+3 dilutions of the XTol, it shows its best in it. Grab the old datasheet of XTOL that listed times for 1+3 from here. I don't know why Kodak removed the 1+3 dilution of XTOL from its datasheet.

Anon Ymous · May 10, 2017

zanxion72 said:
Although Kodak no longer recommends 1+3 dilutions of the XTol, it shows its best in it. Grab the old datasheet of XTOL that listed times for 1+3 from here. I don't know why Kodak removed the 1+3 dilution of XTOL from its datasheet.

This is related to the sudden death problems that occurred especially soon after the introduction of this developer. A developer that is marginally active will not produce a usable negative when used too dilute (1+2 and 1+3), so Kodak stopped recommending these dilutions. Of course, you can go on and use these dilutions, but a clip test is a good idea.

zanxion72 · May 10, 2017

Anon Ymous said:
This is related to the sudden death problems that occurred especially soon after the introduction of this developer. A developer that is marginally active will not produce a usable negative when used too dilute (1+2 and 1+3), so Kodak stopped recommending these dilutions. Of course, you can go on and use these dilutions, but a clip test is a good idea.

Thank you! I have always been wondering why. Funny, it has become a habit for me checking the developer with the clippings of the roll I have loaded to the tank just before using it. Bad xtol has happened to me and I always check the state of the developer before using it since then.

Sirius Glass · May 10, 2017

I gotten the best results with replenished XTOL.

trendland · May 10, 2017

Andrew O'Neill said:
I thought it was the spaces between the grains that formed the image...

I thoughts also to very long time (decades) - until I was realizing that you
CAN'T see grain in film unless you have
a cheap electron microscope in use at home.

What you see (with enlargements) are
gatherings of this little species named GRAIN.

It may be simular like beeing on the beach in summer.

That makes the discussion about grain
a little more complicate.

So some stated flat cristals films Must be more grainy because of the surface of
their cristals - it is indeed with more surface (look on higher ISO ) but by regarding this in that way it is simple
nonsense - of cause.

with regards

Xtol: what difference does it make?

OptiKen

Anon Ymous

OptiKen

Mainecoonmaniac

RattyMouse

Anon Ymous

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

bvy

Old-N-Feeble

Ian Grant

RattyMouse

John Wiegerink

John Wiegerink

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Gerald C Koch

John Wiegerink

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Gerald C Koch

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

John Wiegerink

zanxion72

Anon Ymous

zanxion72

Sirius Glass

trendland

Xtol: what difference does it make?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency