Xtol: what difference does it make?

Gerald C Koch said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sorry Gerald - you stated this before.I
just read it now.

Yes multiple grain - in highly variable amounds of many singular grain.

with regards

Sirius Glass said:

I gotten the best results with replenished XTOL.

Click to expand...

I see this in comparison to your preferences.

As I would say : Best results I have with
undiluted Perceptol.

Others would answer : "Oh - no - what's
aboud the sharpness, you lose with
your extreme fine grain.

They work with Rodinal - I guess.

So I interprete your personal preferences
(don't forget different films in use from each other) : You have undeluted Xtol therefore the replunishement?

Am I right ?


with regards

trendland said:

I see this in comparison to your preferences.

As I would say : Best results I have with
undiluted Perceptol.

Others would answer : "Oh - no - what's
aboud the sharpness, you lose with
your extreme fine grain.

They work with Rodinal - I guess.

So I interprete your personal preferences
(don't forget different films in use from each other) : You have undeluted Xtol therefore the replunishement?

Am I right ?


with regards

Click to expand...

REPLENISHMENT of cause replunish is
something different of cause.

with regards

total nonsense...I develop all my TMY400 with xtol 1+2 and it makes great negatives. never had a failure..not ever
if you don't use it don't knock it....I'll match my prints with anyone here...

Peter Schrager said:

total nonsense...I develop all my TMY400 with xtol 1+2 and it makes great negatives. never had a failure..not ever
if you don't use it don't knock it....I'll match my prints with anyone here...

Click to expand...

Hey, Peter, you have a lot of nerve trying to inject reason/rationality into the perpetual XTOL-bashing nonsense. Next thing you know, you'll explain why some of the mythology is dead wrong. Something ought to be done about you!

Sal Santamaura said:

Hey, Peter, you have a lot of nerve trying to inject reason/rationality into the perpetual XTOL-bashing nonsense. Next thing you know, you'll explain why some of the mythology is dead wrong. Something ought to be done about you!

Click to expand...

....As you mentioned " dead wrong "
I am missing a new discussion aboud
SUDDEN DEATH (last is from 2006)

Should we start it.....


with regards

trendland said:

...I am missing a new discussion aboud SUDDEN DEATH...Should we start it...

Click to expand...

No need to "start it." The "discussion" never stopped. See post #22 in this very thread.

Xtol is an excellent developer. There's no question about it. It would still be my main developer if I hadn't got hooked on Pyrocat-HD.

Sal Santamaura said:

No need to "start it." The "discussion" never stopped. See post #22 in this very thread.

Click to expand...

Lets have a look on it first in 2031 !

with compliments

Sal Santamaura said:

No need to "start it." The "discussion" never stopped. See post #22 in this very thread.

Click to expand...

Oh well...

I've used Xtol and it didn't die on me. Actually, it worked flawlessly and produced some of the best negatives I've ever processed. Mine was mixed with deionised water and the same stock solution worked fine, even after more than a year, in full, tightly capped bottles. IMHO it is the best all around developer I've used. I'd still use it, but nowadays I mix everything from scratch. There aren't any shops nearby, so I'd rather not have to order my chemicals and just mix whatever quantity I'll need.

Now, I never said that Xtol failures are a very common phenomenon, but I did say that there had been several cases early when this product was introduced, and that's what prompted Kodak to drop their recommendation for the 1+2 and 1+3 dilutions. They also dropped the 1l packages which might have been the cause of many, but not all of the dead developer cases. Meanwhile, the sudden death cases are very, very rare nowadays, but not unheard of. I remember APUG users complaining about dead developer after 2006.

So tell me, what's wrong with post #22?

I used Xtol at 1+2 and 1+3 often. The trick is to make sure that you have enough stock solution in the mix. For 8x10 film, 100ml stock did the trick for me. Never had failure.

Anon Ymous said:

Oh well...

I've used Xtol and it didn't die on me. Actually, it worked flawlessly and produced some of the best negatives I've ever processed. Mine was mixed with deionised water and the same stock solution worked fine, even after more than a year, in full, tightly capped bottles. IMHO it is the best all around developer I've used. I'd still use it, but nowadays I mix everything from scratch. There aren't any shops nearby, so I'd rather not have to order my chemicals and just mix whatever quantity I'll need.

Now, I never said that Xtol failures are a very common phenomenon, but I did say that there had been several cases early when this product was introduced, and that's what prompted Kodak to drop their recommendation for the 1+2 and 1+3 dilutions. They also dropped the 1l packages which might have been the cause of many, but not all of the dead developer cases. Meanwhile, the sudden death cases are very, very rare nowadays, but not unheard of. I remember APUG users complaining about dead developer after 2006.

So tell me, what's wrong with post #22?

Click to expand...

Sorry I am not able to identify post 22 - have had just a short look to find it but it seams to go about a problem wich you have obviously got managed with deionised water.

Hope stronly it goes not about the treat I just like too - with the storage of Xtol for 12 years. That could be a misunderstanding.

But suddden death was a problem with xtol at the beginning. So one do not have to discus the use of deionised water - just have to buy it.

I personaly have 20 L at home.

with compliments

Sal Santamaura said:

Hey, Peter, you have a lot of nerve trying to inject reason/rationality into the perpetual XTOL-bashing nonsense. Next thing you know, you'll explain why some of the mythology is dead wrong. Something ought to be done about you!

Click to expand...

Sal you are so right..off to the whipping post now

Anon Ymous said:

...So tell me, what's wrong with post #22?

Click to expand...

It's not your post specifically that's a problem, it's the endless mention of 'XTOL sudden death' by many instead of information on how to mix and use XTOL properly.

We've been over this countless times. Mix stock solution using distilled water. Store in single-dose size glass bottles with proper caps (I use teflon-lined ones on amber boston rounds). Ensure a minimum of 100ml stock per 80 square inches of film. Filter stock solution through a coffee filter at time of use. Dilute using distilled water at any ratio one likes. Obtain perfect results for at least a year after mixing.

That's what should be repeated endlessly. Instead of posts which can lead readers to conclude avoiding XTOL is wise.

Peter Schrager said:

Sal you are so right..off to the whipping post now

Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the line of a ride on the rail while dressed in tar and feathers.

Gerald C Koch said:

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.

Click to expand...

Is that what we called "clumps" of grain in the old days. I don't believe that the "clumps" have changed as much as what we call them today........Regards! (the smaller the "clumps" the "finer" the grain)

I had the sudden death of Xtol in the small packs early on. It was real, and it wasn't fun.

I later had some almost totally blank negatives from Xtol from a 5L package. I had mixed it with distilled water and stored it tightly capped and not for long, so I don't know why, or care, as I simply quit using it. I'm sure they fixed it and I'm sure it's explainable and so on.

More important to me was that, when it worked, it was good but didn't seem particularly spectacular. In fact I slightly preferred my D76 1+1 negatives so I just stopped using it.

Of course I obviously didn't know what I was doing and Xtol cures everything up to and including the heartbreak of psoriasis. (There's an old reference for the other old farts.)

The original question has long since been answered.

John Wiegerink said:

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.

Click to expand...

but you never really answered his question of what you DO mean by "Xtol-R" other than "not with added Rodinal."

I assume you mean replenished Xtol? First time I've seen it written that way too, but that makes sense.

trendland said:

....As you mentioned " dead wrong "
I am missing a new discussion aboud
SUDDEN DEATH (last is from 2006)

Should we start it.....


with regards

Click to expand...

sudden death ended a maybe 1 1/2 decades ago
it was due to a handful of different things that kodak fixed
( small bags, high dilution rates (kodak used to recommend), iron in the water &c )

people get great results from xtol !
my results were a-typical ( flat negatives ) but now i realize
it was probably because it is a vit c based developer, i get flat negatives with
caffenol c too, ... unless i add a few cc's of straight print developer to boost it.

you go peter !

Roger Cole said:

but you never really answered his question of what you DO mean by "Xtol-R" other than "not with added Rodinal."
I assume you mean replenished Xtol? First time I've seen it written that way too, but that makes sense.

Click to expand...

Come on Roger. Keep up and pay attention! XTOL-R has been short hand for replenished for ages.

Circus stunts like XTOL / Rodinal 1:1:100 stand development belong to the unwashed hipster groups on Flickr.

I'm about to embark on the XTOL-R journey using distilled water and mylar bags because:

1. I'm running out of HC-110 which is no longer available in retail shops in Australia. Freestyle and B & H will not ship liquids overseas.

2. D76 / ID 11 used one-shot (1:1) is expensive. Only 4 films per litre of stock. Using it stock and increasing dev times for up to 10 films per litre is not that much different to seasoning and replenishing XTOL. No retail replenisher available for D76. If I ever started scratch mixing developers then D76 would be a natural candidate. May get there yet.

3. I don't pray at the Church of Rodinal very often. This developer came out of the large format dry plate era when large enlargements were not required and in LF probably performs beautifully. I don't believe it belongs in the fast 35mm film world. I hate what it does to Tri-X and HP5 - OK for newsrooms of 40 years ago where papers were printed on a 130 dpi printing press. (Newspapers would have used a deep tank replenishment regime anyway. No time for one-shot small tank processing). I bought a bottle of Adox Adonal a couple of years back and used it on 35mm FP4 - ugly. I tried it on a roll of 35mm Pan F Plus last night and am undecided whether to persevere.

So long term for me at the moment in order of preference will be XTOL-R, (as long as it doesn't die prematurely), followed by D76 / ID11 maybe scratch mixed? Then there are also the pyrocat family of developers although careful handling need when mixing these.

pyrocat is easy to mix from scratch and is not that big a deal when it is diluted for use..wear gloves!! you should be wearing gloves when doing developing anyway! It also lasts a long time...I've worked with both Xtol and Pyrocat extensively for many years...
making your own developers is not hard at all..for pyrocat you will need a hot plate. if no one is selling it in AU then maybe consider making it and selling it to others...remember have fun!!
best, peter

Why would you need a hot plate? I've been mixing Pyrocat-HD from scratch without one for 15 years.

I never used a hot plate for pyro developers. Why would you use one unless your coffee or tea gets cold too soon?

My understanding is that Kodak removed the 1:2 and 1:3 dilution recommendations because people were not abiding by the 100ml stock solution per 8x10 film area guideline. At 300ml of solution per roll for the 1:2 dilution, that's 600ml of solution in a two reel tank -- you can see where the problem arose. In a JOBO, I've always used 1:1 as a one-shot with great results.

Sal Santamaura said:

We've been over this countless times. Mix stock solution using distilled water. Store in single-dose size glass bottles with proper caps (I use teflon-lined ones on amber boston rounds). Ensure a minimum of 100ml stock per 80 square inches of film. Filter stock solution through a coffee filter at time of use. Dilute using distilled water at any ratio one likes. Obtain perfect results for at least a year after mixing.

Click to expand...

hi sal:

while your post offers sound advice about the proper way of mixing Xtol, some of its users suffered from
sudden death and weren't using 1:L packaging, but they were mixing it
with distilled water and NOT diluting the developer down to 1:10. over the years,
I have posted details of my several years of using this developer and it was nothing but thin-film no matter
how i mixed it, what typie of water i mixed it with, dilutions used ( or straight ), agitation schemes, exposure
schemes. while your advice is sound for the lions share of xtol users and hopeful users
it doesn't cover all the bases. that said, if i had mixed some dektol, or sprint print developer or gaf universal
developer, or ansco 130 in with it, as i do at present with EVERY batch of caffenol C ( ascorbic acid like Xtol )
i use, i might be still using Xtol. while i agree, talk of sudden death is kind of out of place in 2017, it DID
happen and it DID happen to people ( me at least ) who mixed it carefully and correctly.
and as i have said in other threads where i recount my experience with the developer, i am happy others
have figured out a way to use it, use it well and enjoy the film they pull out of it,
but i will never use it again, nor recommend it to anyone and haven't for probably 15 years. i do like mixing
part A+B though, its fun watching the liquid that looks like "TANG: what astronauts drink"
become clear, its almost as much fun as pouring my pre-soak AH removal bath, all dark blue-black, ...
into my clear, spent dektol and watching the AHL disappear.

tokam said:

2. D76 / ID 11 used one-shot (1:1) is expensive. Only 4 films per litre of stock. Using it stock and increasing dev times for up to 10 films per litre is not that much different to seasoning and replenishing XTOL. No retail replenisher available for D76. If I ever started scratch mixing developers then D76 would be a natural candidate. May get there yet.

Click to expand...

Well, if you buy the ingredients yourself and mix it it comes out for about 20% of what you gotta pay Ilford/Kodak for it. It's really easy