D76 or XTOL. Why?

D76 or XTOL. Why?

  • D76

    Votes: 160 44.1%

  • XTOL

    Votes: 203 55.9%
  • Total voters
    363
Pete B said:
I think he means that the D76 pack contains different chemical powders which may separate out slightly in transport so that if you take a small sample from the D76 pack, the different constituents may be present in the wrong proportion.
Click to expand...

In theory, yes. In real life pro labs have been parting out D-76 and directly related developers (ID-11, Agfa 44, Orwo F19) by the ton, without adverse effects - the components in it are quite evenly distributed by weight and volume, it is none of the developers where you might miss some magic speck of catalyte that changes its entire behaviour. Knead the bag or stir the powder, rather than shaking it (shaking may separate components by specific weight rather than mix them), and it will be mixed well enough to part out.
 
sem said:
XTOL I mix it up with a little rodinal.
Click to expand...

What for? The operating range for either, by pH, would be very different - Xtol has a near-neutral working point around pH 8, where Rodinal is at pH 11 even at 1:50. In small amounts, the p-Aminophenole from the Rodinal will do nothing, as it needs a high pH, and once the added Rodinal gets past the Xtol buffering, you'll inactivate the Phenidone (which requires a low pH) and and end up with a p-Aminophenole/Ascorbate developer of somewhat undefined concentration and properties. If you really want something like that, mix it from scratch.
 
sevo said:
What for? The operating range for either, by pH, would be very different - Xtol has a near-neutral working point around pH 8, where Rodinal is at pH 11 even at 1:50. In small amounts, the p-Aminophenole from the Rodinal will do nothing, as it needs a high pH, and once the added Rodinal gets past the Xtol buffering, you'll inactivate the Phenidone (which requires a low pH) and and end up with a p-Aminophenole/Ascorbate developer of somewhat undefined concentration and properties. If you really want something like that, mix it from scratch.
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks for the detailed explanation. Guess I'll stop doing that too. Could be a case of confirmation bias but I always thought the Rodinal will bring up the grain just a little bit
 
sevo said:
What for? The operating range for either, by pH, would be very different - Xtol has a near-neutral working point around pH 8, where Rodinal is at pH 11 even at 1:50. In small amounts, the p-Aminophenole from the Rodinal will do nothing, as it needs a high pH, and once the added Rodinal gets past the Xtol buffering, you'll inactivate the Phenidone (which requires a low pH) and and end up with a p-Aminophenole/Ascorbate developer of somewhat undefined concentration and properties. If you really want something like that, mix it from scratch.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip! In my eyes XTOL seems to be a little flat. Since I mixed 1/100 with rodinal it seems to get better with a bit more black. Used it only with Trix.
So I better stopp doing this.
 
Again and again and again: "XTOL is flat."

My opinion: people who are used to slower developers (Rodinal, especially, yields ⅔ to a full stop slower EI than XTOL) are effectively pulling their film with XTOL -- developing at something like ~N –1 compared to what they are used to -- and not realizing it. IOW, they're equating a longer tonal scale with "flatness".

So if you're used to metering your film at E.I. 400 in Rodinal, consider using E.I. 640 or even 800 in XTOL. Etc.

XTOL 1+1 is pretty close to D-76 or ID-11 in most respects. Perhaps ¼ to ⅓ stop faster, all else being equal.
 
I can mix D76 at 50 cents a liter, a liter or less at a time if I desire. I have scales and know how to preserve powder chemicals.

Tried Xtol many times. It works fine when it works, but never tells me when it is tired.
 
I made the switch to Xtol many years ago from ID-11 (the Ilford variant of D-76) and I have not regretted it. Previously I was using T-Max.
As we all know, at the end it is a matter of taste, I am satisfied with the results I get with 1+1 dilution with the Ilford films, Xtol gives balanced results with fine grain and extended tonality
Xtol is not the most reliable developer when it comes to the storage properties but it has always worked flawlessy when used within 4 months from preparation
And it is much more eco-friendly than other developers
 
D-76 is from 1927. Xtol has been recently developed and on the market since 1995.
Xtol gives more speed, finer grain, less toxidity and depending how you dilute and agitate you won't get flat negatives. For a 1 ltr. packing you can use the Fomadon Excel W27 equivalent. The only disadvantage is the life span which is limited for all Ascorbic Acid type developers.
I am printing via an enlarger. The difference with D-76 is visible, especially on grain in 35mm. In sharpness it is very close. When I want maximum sharpness I am using slower speed films with R09/Rodinal or Beutler/FX-1. But in R09/Rodinal you will loose film speed. Acros 100 in R09 1+50 E.I.64 in Xtol 1+1 E.I. 100. Further in 35mm R09/Rodinal is limited for slow and medium speed film because it is not a fine grain type developer at all. My favorite was Efke 25 E.I.25 in R09/Rodinal or Beutler. So every developer has its own application and of course a matter of taste.
 
I can mix D76 from scratch and know exactly how it works and how long it lasts. I can make 16 oz to 5 gallons and it is dirt cheap.

Extol never worked for me and I ruined some really wonderful landscapes that can not be repeated. Fresh mixed developer that worked with the first rolls.
 
I prefer D-76 too. I mix it at home and I can vary it to get the result I want. Also, due to using it for some time I know what to expect from it in relation to the age of the stock solution.
 
What? Where's the "neither" button? :D
OK, OK, Xtol, but only because I know it... but your poll seems rather limiting...
 
HC-110 doesn't give full box speed because it is containing Benzotriazole which suppresses the base-fog but it costs film speed. Further it is an easy type developer when diluting directy from the thick (sirup) concentrate. It is working like D-76/ID-11 with a little bit more grain.
 
I have just recently become comfortable that I can do what I want with D-76.

I'll be darned if I intend to try another developer until I get the printing part figured out!
 
D-76/ID-11/Fomadon P W37 are good general purpose film developers. But it is a powder package like Xtol and a lot of people do not want to work with that. So in this way Rollei Supergrain, HC-110 etc. are valid alternatives.

For Ascorbic Acid types there was FX-50 (Paterson, G. Crawley) , now only Ilfosol-3 of PC-TEA (P. Gainer) for liquid developers.
And Ilfosol (-S/-3) is known for the short life span.
So PC-TEA is a very handy type alternative (life span 2-3 years). "Made in Ukraine", distributed by Fotohuis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom