D76 or XTOL. Why?

D76 or XTOL. Why?

  • D76

    Votes: 160 44.1%

  • XTOL

    Votes: 203 55.9%
  • Total voters
    363
Keith said:
Then again ... the US pres gets voted in without having to really prove that he can actually run the country! 😀
Click to expand...

More than one got in without proving anything other than age.The only constitutional requirements are age 35 and be natural born citizen. One can not prove natural born and has a social security number registered to someone born in Conn. in 1894. That makes him 102. Yes place and date are coded into the number.

I get totally disgusted at the speeches some give and they clearly have no understanding of economics or needs of the people. Their only purpose is to stay in office.

And his opponent could not run the country and has history to prove it.

To be in congress, you need to need be 35 or 30, that`s all. And that is all some of them have, age.
 
I can make D76 and it works perfectly, around $1 a liter. Turns amber when it goes bad.

Why do I need to make a whole gallon just to develop a few rolls?
 
Al Kaplan said:
Keith, D-96 is the suggested soup for Eastman Double-X Negative 5222. Some folks here use the stuff.
Click to expand...

I use D76 and D23 and prefer either of them to Xtol.

For users of EK 222, the formulas for D76 and D96 are very close. There are slightly higher amounts of each chemical in D96 as opposed to the amounts in D76 and the addition of a small amount of Potassium Bromide.

I suspect that D96 is recommended for cinema b&w film because it is a little more potent and will last for at least 100 feet of film (a standard length on a reel) before needing replenishment. Beyond that I would doubt that users of EK 5222 will see much difference between the two in real life developing.
 
I used to use a lot of Xtol, then tried ID-11 (D-76) 1:1 and fell in love with the sharpness. Xtol produces less grain by "mushing" it. When I enlarge a MF neg up to 16x20 I can clearly see the difference. ID-11 is definetly grainier, but also sharper IMO. I'll take sharpness over finer grain any day.
 
brian steinberger said:
I used to use a lot of Xtol, then tried ID-11 (D-76) 1:1 and fell in love with the sharpness. Xtol produces less grain by "mushing" it. When I enlarge a MF neg up to 16x20 I can clearly see the difference. ID-11 is definetly grainier, but also sharper IMO. I'll take sharpness over finer grain any day.
Click to expand...

XTOL seems plenty sharp to me and one must keep in mind that it is environmentally benign - a nice feature I think. I use it with Fomapan 200 and it is very good. Much depends, however, on the film you are using? I prefer D-76 with Tri-X absolutely. On the other hand a grainy film like Fomapan 400 could use some grain suppression. I thought D76 was just fair with it and am hoping to get better results with XTOL.
 
brian steinberger said:
I used to use a lot of Xtol, then tried ID-11 (D-76) 1:1 and fell in love with the sharpness. Xtol produces less grain by "mushing" it. When I enlarge a MF neg up to 16x20 I can clearly see the difference. ID-11 is definetly grainier, but also sharper IMO. I'll take sharpness over finer grain any day.
Click to expand...

It's always struck me as strange that Kodak claims that stock Xtol is slightly sharper than stock D76. Maybe D76 just seems sharper but isn't from a scientific point of view? Or maybe D76 sharpens up more when diluted?
 
I'm finding at the moment that XTOL stock appears sharper than ID-11 stock, with lots of crisp, fine detail in the negatives. I prefer the tonality of stock XTOL as well. I have tried XTOL at up to 1+3 dilutions as well as ID-11, but I think XTOL is delivering very high sharpness and very pleasant tones at full strength. XTOL is also very consistent in its keeping qualities. After mixing the 5 litre bag I pour it into 15 300ml bottles, which keep for months in my darkroom.
 
D76 give more pointilistic grain. XTOL gives a smoother look and pushes better. HC-110 is somewhere in between. Selectol is closer to XTOL. Microdol-X smooths grain and cuts sharpness. Acufine nets a speed gain and tonally is close to XTOL. Diafine produces D76' look at pushed XTOL speeds. Rodinal at normal dilution nets very high detail with very large grain; Rodinal at 1:100 dilution nets superb tonality at slightly reduced film speeds with very long development times. ...

Why limit the poll to just D76 and XTOL?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom