Would we agree about Xtol... ?

[Juan Valdenebro]

Would we agree about Xtol being the best possible developer in my case?

My case:
Only ISO400 film, and only at EI640, and in 35mm only.

I have tested several developers for this precise case, with TX, HP5+ and TMY. With some rudeness I can say TX is slower -in practice- than HP5+ and TMY, and HP5+ is grainier than TMY-2, so basically TMY-2 is the best ISO400 film.

So, not at EI200 for ultrafine grain development, nor at EI1600 for speed enhancing developers, but precisely at EI640 (very mild push), I've got the best results, for wet printing, using standard developers... D-76 1+1 is the one I've used the most. But I think Xtol, being a little sharper and a bit faster, and also controlling grain very well, seems the best possible option... Would you agree?

I like the tone of TMY-2 in FX-39 II very much, but grain is very present in 35mm, although beautiful in medium format...

Would you say there's a better developer, for 35mm ISO400 at EI640, than Xtol?

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I would agree that's it's been unavailable for what seems like years now.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Well, it's available under other names...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Comparison of developers with Tmax film.
https://lavidaleica.com/content/choosing-bw-film-developer

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thank you, Alan.
It's surprising they compare DD-X to both Xtol and TMaxDev...
Xtol and TMaxDev are different IMO.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is a slight speed boost with XTOL but I have never seen it nor utilized it. I have used Tri-X [and all other films] at box speed with replenished XTOL.

 

[removed account4]

Hi Juan
You will find different opinions I guess. There are people who seem to be Xtol spokespeople here. They believe the developer is the best thing that was ever invented and they get great results. You will also find other people who never really warmed-up to Xtol. They might suggest you use another developer, any other developer ( that doesn't have vitamin c ) for the most part all developers are similar but Vit c developers seem to be lower contrast developers.
If you haven't used it much ( Xtol) or at all, I would not process anything of importance in it unless you have used it ( or any developer for that matter ) often and know what to expect.

its a shame to take advice from excited people, get very excited oneself and have things not work out with film that "mattered"...
If it was me I'd suggest you use and live with something you are used to the results so you don't have to deal with a learning curve. but that's just me...

Best of luck !
John

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

In general I use ISO400 film at EI250-320 for D-76, but at EI200 for Perceptol, and at box speed for Xtol: so going to 640 can make more sense with Xtol... At least that's what I imagine... That, and better shadows for sure... Tri-X is great but it "feels" slower because TMY has a straighter curve in the shadows.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi Juan
You will find different opinions I guess. There are people who seem to be Xtol spokespeople here. They believe the developer is the best thing that was ever invented and they get great results. You will also find other people who never really warmed-up to Xtol and would suggest you use another developer, any other developer that doesn't have vitamin c because for the most part they are all similar and Vit c developers seem to be low contrast developers.
If you haven't used it much or at all I would not process anything of importance in it unless you have used it ( or any developer for that matter ). its a shame to take advice, get very excited and have it not work out with film that "mattered"

Best of luck !
John

Hello John,
I used Xtol twice in the past. I was going to test it precisely for EI640, but my recent bag for that was bad, underdeveloping, so I decided to wait.
I imagine that slight flatness for soft light can be of help in my case because of the mild push...
But I wonder what will be better for 35mm thinking of stock, diluted or replenished developer, and considering TMY and no other films.

 

[Paul Howell]

I tired Xtol when it was first release and experience sudden death, then Kodak stopped offering in 1 liter and gallon sizes. The few rolls and some 4X5 that I developed in Xtol were fine, much like D76 nice balance of grain, speed, and acuity, but not that much different from D76, Clayton F76+, and not as good as Tmax or DDX when used with Tmax 400. Fact is that there are so many fine developers I don't see one as clear winner, deciding which one is very fuzzy.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Would we agree about Xtol being the best possible developer in my case?

My case:
Only ISO400 film, and only at EI640, and in 35mm only.

I have tested several developers for this precise case, with TX, HP5+ and TMY. With some rudeness I can say TX is slower -in practice- than HP5+ and TMY, and HP5+ is grainier than TMY-2, so basically TMY-2 is the best ISO400 film.

So, not at EI200 for ultrafine grain development, nor at EI1600 for speed enhancing developers, but precisely at EI640 (very mild push), I've got the best results, for wet printing, using standard developers... D-76 1+1 is the one I've used the most. But I think Xtol, being a little sharper and a bit faster, and also controlling grain very well, seems the best possible option... Would you agree?

I like the tone of TMY-2 in FX-39 II very much, but grain is very present in 35mm, although beautiful in medium format...

Would you say there's a better developer, for 35mm ISO400 at EI640, than Xtol?

I generally agree with you about Xtol. I've processed *a lot* of film in replenished Xtol and it's pretty awesome. However, I've been using Ilford replenished DD lately due to XTOL being hard to get, and questionable reliability, and have to say, it's also pretty awesome, especially with Ilford films. Kodak films aren't bad, but for some reason, with Ilford films, it seems to just have a quality about it that I can't really put my finger on or explain, but when looking at a print or high quality scan, it just has a look to it, similar to how replenished Xtol has a look to it.

 

[Danner]

I use XTOL, pretty much exclusively for 20 years, and agree it is the best, IMHO. Well, except that Alaris seems to have discontinued it. So, let's call it ECO-Pro.

 

[removed account4]

Hello John,
I used Xtol twice in the past. I was going to test it precisely for EI640, but my recent bag for that was bad, underdeveloping, so I decided to wait.
I imagine that slight flatness for soft light can be of help in my case because of the mild push...
But I wonder what will be better for 35mm thinking of stock, diluted or replenished developer, and considering TMY and no other films.

hope it works for you !
I wouldn't touch that stuff with a 10 foot pole. LOL
but if you can get it to do what you want,, have fun..

 

[Pat Erson]

I would agree with XTOL or D-76 being the best possible developers in any case.

Certainly... but HQ beats ascorbic acid.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

What about the speed of Xtol... ?
Tone is my priority as I am pushing a little bit, so if 1+2 is really faster than stock or replenished, I'll prefer 1+2, even if it's just a third of a stop or half a stop faster.

 

[cliveh]

Sliced bread is the best thing since D76.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

The differences in speed between stock and 1+3, if any, are negligible.

This might be a good time to say that this applies pretty well to general purpose developers. In terms of real emulsion speed, changing the dilution of a developer will not give anywhere near the speed differences often talked about. Even 1/3 stop would represent a fairly extreme case, and that certainly will not happen with XTOL etc. Small fraction of a stop at best, and easily within the margin of measurement error.

Thank you, Michael, for both answers.
What you say reflects what I've seen: I have not found different speeds for D-76 dilutions, but diluted Perceptol is clearly faster than stock.
Then if speed is the same, I'll decide, for Xtol, based just on what dilution looks better in 35mm format at 640...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Once I saw wet prints from Xtol Stock, 1+1 and 1+2 for the same scene, and sharpness seemed to be the same too...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

And in my own tests solvency surprised me too: Xtol is solvent always, at least up to 1+2 and 1+3.
Possibly all those things make it a good option for mild pushing in 35mm.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Once I saw wet prints from Xtol Stock, 1+1 and 1+2 for the same scene, and sharpness seemed to be the same too...

The sharpness would not change, the tonality may be different. I use replenished XTOL for better tonality. I have never paid attention to speed changes because I shoot at box speed with or without adjustment for filters and Zone System.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hello Sirius,
Would you say tonality is better both for soft light scenes and for direct sunlight with Xtol-R?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

What's your opinion, Michael, on some developers being better for soft light when used Stock, because -as some people say- highlights have more bite, in a way that can't be imitated with simple longer development or more intense agitation?
Another myth?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Adrian, I remember you not being impressed with DD-X, which supposedly is a consumer version of DD.
What changed?

DD-X isn't replenished. It's very close to DD chemically speaking, but not quite the same. Also, I used DD-X at a lower temperature and did inversion agitation. I'm running DD at 24C with continuous agitation with replenishment. That's a totally different beast, much like stock X-TOL at 20C and inversion agitation isn't the same as replenished XTOL at 24C and continuous agitation.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

The differences in speed between stock and 1+3, if any, are negligible.

This might be a good time to say that this applies pretty well to general purpose developers. In terms of real emulsion speed, changing the dilution of a developer will not give anywhere near the speed differences often talked about. Even 1/3 stop would represent a fairly extreme case, and that certainly will not happen with XTOL etc. Small fraction of a stop at best, and easily within the margin of measurement error.

I would agree with that. I have a fairly precise way to measure what's going on with a film, and the best I can get is +- 2/10s of a stop, which is just over a 1/3 stop total. The average guy with an old camera and lens will likely be +-1/3 of a stop, or worse, +-1/2 stop.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

That sounds really interesting... There's so much to test with a developer...