D76 or XTOL. Why?

D76 or XTOL. Why?

  • D76

    Votes: 160 44.1%

  • XTOL

    Votes: 203 55.9%
  • Total voters
    363
Its not silly at all. The increased ease of mixing is a big deal for me too, esp if mixing it up in kabul. I don't have to worry about getting lumps to dissolve etc and the resultant Xtol stock is very stable. I just used some that was 12 months old and it was fine. I tested on a film leader and it seemed nice and active so just went for it. It was quite yellow and so I expected it to be dead, but far from it.

When I have the time I might try some D76 again and see what I think of the tonality differences, but for me the additional speed of Xtol was quite a big deal when I adopted it about five years ago. Compared to Xtol 1+2, I think D76 1+1 is more than 1/3 stop behind.
 
Trius said:
NO president has ever been elected having first proved they can run a country.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't forget about Grover Cleveland!

On topic, I used D-76 quite a bit in my youth, but have been exclusively Xtol for the last few years. I chose it initially because I have kids and wanted something innocuous, but have found it reliable. Reliability is everything to me; I can adjust exposure and development for an image as long as the developer doesn't introduce other variables. I use it solely as a 1:1 single-shot developer, stored in brown glass until needed. I can't comment on replenishment.
 
I read the thread in APUG regarding Xtol replenished and started down that path with excellent looking contact sheets (will start to print tommorrow). Appears more consistent than what I was getting with HC 110 or Rodinal.

Took a risk and developed 70 rolls this way at once; I mixed up 2 packages of Xtol (10 liters!) and used 7 liters at one setting.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I'v tried Xtol and prefer D76. Xtol does give finer grain but I have never liked its tonality, and I really tried to like it because of the finer grain and the less toxic formula. Just couldn't make it work for me as well as D76. I use Rodinal a lot and Tmax Developer too, and prefer both of them to Xtol as well.
Click to expand...

yeah, exactly. dreadful stuff, Xtol.
 
I haven't used D76 in ages. I migrated to HC-110 and FG-7, then lots of Rodinal and some XTol.

Xtol 1:1

2622044453_2cf407fcdf_o.jpg


XTol straight ... pretty sure I technically knackered the development on this one

2916327771_5949126e70_z.jpg
 
Today I asked this in another thread, but it really should go here:

anyone that can share their M.O. on using D76 to push Tri-X exposed at 800 for one stop? I'm interested in times, movement and temperatures since it will be my maiden voyage with the combo!
 
Pablito said:
yeah, exactly. dreadful stuff, Xtol.
Click to expand...

Rather silly to condemn a developer in such broad strokes. It might not work for yor films, or your subjects, or your development regime. But those are precisely the details that matter.









Top three: Neopan ACROS in XTOL 1+1. Bottom: TMAX400-2 in XTOL 1+1.
 
Last edited:
I've just switched from Xtol (which—incidently— I bought for its versatility and convenience as well as its supposed safety) to D76 (which I prefer for its smoother midtones and contrast with my prefered film: HP5+).

Could the chemists amongst us spell out the relative dangers of the two specific developers in question? Obviously I'm not going to start drinking the stuff but it would be nice to have an informed opinion nonetheless.
 
Chris101 said:
Warning: optional science lesson:

Organic compounds with a benzene ring structure in them are called aromatic compounds. Not all of them smell, but the name began before organic chemists knew that much, and it remains in common use today. A benzene ring is six carbon atoms bonded together into a six membered ring. There is a hydrogen attached to each carbon. Think of a hexagonal shaped ferris wheel.

(I would bet that more that most organic compounds that are of commercial interest today are aromatic compounds.)

If a single hydrogen on a benzene ring is replaced by a nitrogen with two attached hydrogens (an 'amine' group), it is called aminobenzene, or by its common name, aniline. A benzene ring with a hydrogen replaced by an oxygen and a single hydrogen (a 'hydroxy' group) attached is called phenol. A benzene ring with two things attached opposite each other is referred to as being 'para' substituted. So a benzene ring with a hydroxy group attached opposite of an amine group can be called either para-aminophenol, or para-hydroxyaniline. In practice, one can drop positional prefixes, such as para, so long as all the compounds under discussion are para substituted. So calling the compound either aminophenol, or hydroxyaniline are both correct.

The hydrochloride part of the name, means that it crystallized from a hydrochloric acid solution, and that a single molecule of hydrochloric acid remains attached to the hydroxyaniline molecule in the solid, crystalline form. In Rodinal solution however, the hydrochloric acid is removed and neutralized by the KOH. In practice, the HCl is inconsequential, and only affects the weight of the hydroxyaniline used in formulation.
[/URL].
Click to expand...

Chris101: Thanks for the lesson. The last time I took organic chemistry, I was 18. That was about 52 years ago. I followed you up to the part I put into bold, which i didn't follow. I wonder: can you make some sketches of the chemical structures you mentioned? Thanks!
 
^--- What do you mean by "smoother midtones"? Less grain? Less tonal separation?
Click to expand...

Actually I think what I mean is more of a natural distribution of midtones with D76. I found Xtol could look a little flat with all the middle values "bunched up" together rather than there being a smooth transition from dark to light. I think that also gives less—or less noticable—grain too. Of course with enough post-processing or different developing routines you could probably even out the differences: I'm talking about pretty subtle variations.
 
Interesting. What films are you using? Most of my work is with TMAX 400 and ACROS, with some Neopan 400 as well. I'm happiest with XTOL at 1+1.
 
HP5 and occasionally Tri-X in both developers 1+1. I usually rate both films at 200 and sometimes 1600 in low light. I haven't tried the D76 for 1600 but I always loved the Xtol for that.
 
johnamazement said:
Actually I think what I mean is more of a natural distribution of midtones with D76. I found Xtol could look a little flat with all the middle values "bunched up" together rather than there being a smooth transition from dark to light. I think that also gives less—or less noticable—grain too. Of course with enough post-processing or different developing routines you could probably even out the differences: I'm talking about pretty subtle variations.
Click to expand...

Odd since XTOL tends to produce an 'S' shaped film curve that maximizes mid-tone contrast.
 
Odd since XTOL tends to produce an 'S' shaped film curve that maximizes mid-tone contrast.
Click to expand...
I find that D76 gives a more pronounced S curve but that may be down to processing technique or developing times: it's early days. But I like it so I'm sticking with it for now!
 
Been switching back and forth between D-76H and Xtol. Several years ago, I had used Xtol replenished in a Kodak hard rubber tank and was always satisfied. Now I'm back to that and find it consistent and it works with a mix of lighting on the same roll of Tri-X - clear, contrasty autumn light and this past weekend's snowstorm. The D-76H also works just fine, but I use it 1:3 and the times are longer. So far, I can't choose between them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom