Mcary
Well-known
Besides for the lower price what are some of the benefits of using D76 1-1 vs Xtol 1-1 for processing Plus-X at 125 or 250, Tri-X 400-1600 and/or HP5 400-1600?
Thanks Mike
Thanks Mike
Pablito
coco frío
Huge benefit.
D-76 gives great results, X-tol gives flat, thin negs, albeit with slightly less grain.
D-76 gives great results, X-tol gives flat, thin negs, albeit with slightly less grain.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I don't know that there are any, unless D-76 is the look you are going for. It is a classic b&w developer with a rich history and pretty good flexibility. XTOL, in my experience, gives better speed and finer grain.
[Edit: got to disagree with Pablito: either is capable of great results if understood well and used accordingly. Sure, XTOL gives flat thin negatives . . . if you don't develop for enough time, your temperature or agitation are not well controlled, or there cr@p in your water supply that screws with the pH. Oh, wait... the same mis-use will produce sub-optimal results regardless of the developer you choose]
Ben
[Edit: got to disagree with Pablito: either is capable of great results if understood well and used accordingly. Sure, XTOL gives flat thin negatives . . . if you don't develop for enough time, your temperature or agitation are not well controlled, or there cr@p in your water supply that screws with the pH. Oh, wait... the same mis-use will produce sub-optimal results regardless of the developer you choose]
Ben
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I've only ever used D76 once (one packet) and never really liked it but I was starting off and had little concept of the subtilties of developing. Xtol is my main developer and Rodinal occasionally ... I think Xtol is a great developer and particularly good for pushing as it seems to minimise grain.
I would ike to try D76 again one day!
I would ike to try D76 again one day!
Freakscene
Obscure member
If you think Xtol gives flat thin negs you aren't developing for long enough, your water is bad or you're otherwise doing something else wrong. You can develop film for a CI of anywhere from 0.5-0.7 (corresponds to printing 'normally on grade 5+ to grade 0 paper).
The tonality of Plus-X or Tri-X in D76 tends to have very slightly more highlight contrast (but how you scan or print is most important here) than in Xtol. Some people like the slight increase in apparent sharpness you get from having more grain. These, combined, make these combinations look more 'classic'.
Packaged D76 you buy is usually D76d, where the alkali is a borax-boric acid buffer, instead of a plain borax alkali. You'll note interesting differences in the behaviour of 'D76' if you mix your own to the original formula. Formulae are here: http://www.jackspcs.com/d76.htm
Marty
The tonality of Plus-X or Tri-X in D76 tends to have very slightly more highlight contrast (but how you scan or print is most important here) than in Xtol. Some people like the slight increase in apparent sharpness you get from having more grain. These, combined, make these combinations look more 'classic'.
Packaged D76 you buy is usually D76d, where the alkali is a borax-boric acid buffer, instead of a plain borax alkali. You'll note interesting differences in the behaviour of 'D76' if you mix your own to the original formula. Formulae are here: http://www.jackspcs.com/d76.htm
Marty
filmfan
Well-known
I prefer D76 for my TX400. I use XTOL with TX400 when I push it to ISO 1600+.
dfoo
Well-known
I agree. If you develop the negatives improperly with XTOL you'll get bad negatives.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
That's true with any developer, but I have to say I have never really gotten good results with Xtol. The developer is ok, but I've always liked the look I get with D-76, Rodinal, and even Tmax Developer better. I use only distilled water for mixing my chemicals so water quality isn't my problem and I'm pretty sure my technique is fine. A lot of people like Xtol, but most have not done a lot of work with other developers to get a real feel for what else is possible. Xtol's sole advantage is its relatively low toxicity. Grain is finer than D76 and speed is 1/3 stop higher with some films, but those are overshadowed by crappy tonality. Flat midtone gradation, which is not fixed by increased developing time, because then it blows out highlights.
Ronald M
Veteran
I can mix my own D76 in quantities as small as 16 oz for around $3 per gallon, 75 cents a liter, from bulk chemicals.
I am familiar with the keeping properties, 6 months in a sealed glass bottle. I use 4 oz ones so they are one time use. I ran tests of a studio target weekly for 2 months and then monthly for 5 months, developed & printed. Slight changes occure after 6 months.
It turns color if it goes bad. Never suprised.
Got to buy Xtol in 5 liters. I am dependent on Kodak making it for me. It can go bad and you don`t know it until the film is ruined. There is no home test for activity level regardless of what some may say. Those test are crude at best and only show there is some activity left.
Xtol delivers a slightly better image compared to D76, not enough to use it.
More friendly to the environment.
I am familiar with the keeping properties, 6 months in a sealed glass bottle. I use 4 oz ones so they are one time use. I ran tests of a studio target weekly for 2 months and then monthly for 5 months, developed & printed. Slight changes occure after 6 months.
It turns color if it goes bad. Never suprised.
Got to buy Xtol in 5 liters. I am dependent on Kodak making it for me. It can go bad and you don`t know it until the film is ruined. There is no home test for activity level regardless of what some may say. Those test are crude at best and only show there is some activity left.
Xtol delivers a slightly better image compared to D76, not enough to use it.
More friendly to the environment.
Freakscene
Obscure member
I agree, except that I also think that most people who try Xtol don't give it its best chance to show what it can do - in my opinion, you need to use it at 1+3 or higher dilution, on the right films (ironically, and again in my opinion, it improves and changes the look of Kodak films much less than others) and experiment to get it right. I know you're a very careful worker Chris, so I'm not saying you haven't done that.
It's arguable that environmentally the most toxic component of these developers is the metaborate, making this a moot point, although everyone jumps up and down about the phenols (PQ, pyro etc). Xtol is certainly less toxic for the worker than phenol containing developers, but we shouldn't be exposing ourselves to photo chemicals anyway.
In the end photography is an aesthetic pursuit, and in aesthetics anything goes and the very best aesthetic reason for anything is "because I like it that way". My main reason for using Xtol is that the curve shapes it produces with my favourite films work very well on my favourite printing papers _and_ those same negs scan well. With curve manipulation in Photoshop how the relative contrast throughout the tonal range is placed means little, I can manipulate a good scan of any one film to look like any other. The hardest thing for me is getting negs that scan close to or the same as how they print on silver paper. I can do that more easily with an ascorbate developer than with D76 or other developers. I use Xtol a lot because it is the most easily available ascorbate developer.
In reference to my environmental comments above I am increasingly working with developers that do not contain any phenol or borates.
This is all just opinion. use whatever you like the look of. you're only constarained by that and the law. Film developer is not a moral choice, or a religion, even if some would like to make it seem that way.
Marty