Xtol

part 2

A
part 2

  • 2
  • 0
  • 89
Sonatas XII-32 (Homes)

A
Sonatas XII-32 (Homes)

  • 0
  • 1
  • 138
Thirsty

D
Thirsty

  • 4
  • 0
  • 1K
Cowboying up in Kiowa.

Cowboying up in Kiowa.

  • 3
  • 0
  • 1K
Cowboying up in Kiowa.

Cowboying up in Kiowa.

  • 8
  • 3
  • 2K

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,393
Messages
2,790,959
Members
99,890
Latest member
moenich
Recent bookmarks
0

jim appleyard

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
2,414
Format
Multi Format
Do you guys mind if I get back to the original question? I haven't used a lot of XTOL, but enough to say that it didn't go bad on me, but I tend to go thru devs fairly fast. I can't say that is any better or any worse than other devs. I'm not sure I could tell the difference between an 11x14 print made from XTOL, HC-110 or D-76. HC-110 gets the nod for longevity and convenience.

Try it. See what happens.
 

Ryuji

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
1,415
Location
Boston, MA
Format
Multi Format
I don't know what you do to your film or enlarger, but to me, a film, say HP5 Plus in 35mm format, developed in XTOL and HC-110 has a huge difference when I enlarge to 11x14. From medium format, I enlarge to 20x20 or sometimes 22x22 inch and it would be same thing (same magnification).

To me, HC-110 is the least favorite of these. It gives the lowest speed and largest grain, except for some films which give you metallic or plastic bag look.

(About the grain sizes, I looked at grains using a high magnification oil immersion microscope.)
 

Harry Lime

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
495
Format
35mm RF
o.k, how here is a simple question. Can someone describe the appearance of their xtol negs? In particular the density outside of the image area. Is it rather clear around the sprocket holes, like what you get with Rodinal or DDX or does it remain relatively dense?

thanks

Harry Lime
 

sanking

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2003
Messages
5,437
Location
Greenville,
Format
Large Format
What? All decent developers should give clear areas around the sprocket holes!!!

35mm films have more B+F than sheet films, but visually they should appear very clear.

Sandy






Harry Lime said:
o.k, how here is a simple question. Can someone describe the appearance of their xtol negs? In particular the density outside of the image area. Is it rather clear around the sprocket holes, like what you get with Rodinal or DDX or does it remain relatively dense?

thanks

Harry Lime
 

Early Riser

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,718
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
When X-tol first came out I had all sorts of consistency problems with it. Kodak seems to have sorted them out. As a general purpose developer I consider x-tol to be excellent. Depending on the film it usually gives excellent film speed, and fine grain. There are some films where it really shines such as Ilford Delta 100. If Ilford comes out with a 25 speed Delta film, X-tol will be the first dev I reach for.

I have not had any problems with storage life or "sudden death" with x-tol in years, then again I never use developer more than 4 months old anyway. For those who use d-76, they should know that d-76 changes after about 2 weeks and T-max films will become far contrastier, so I never use d-76 that is more than 2 weeks old.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom