Extolling Xtol

I've used Xtol straight and diluted 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 with great results, it's become my most used developer. I like the tones and detail I get out of it, but as you can see not everyone agrees. Lately I have started using the stock dillutiion with great results, fine grain and still sharp.

Todd
 
Todd.Hanz said:
...Lately I have started using the stock dillutiion with great results, fine grain and still sharp.

Todd

Todd, please explain stock dilution? I always liked your pyro MF work as well.

OK, Kodak fixed the 1 liter packaging. However, they also stopped making the 1 liter pcakages. That isn't internet rumor. If you find them, I guess they work ok. Otherwise, buy the 5 liter package and a lot of Schlitz Malt Liquor. :D
 
Trius said:
I liked the results I got from DD-X and Pan F+. Unfortunately, I wasn't doing enough processing for a long time and the stock went stale. Well, it went brown at least, and I don't trust it. I have about 6 bottles of Rodinal left, which is a LOT of capacity.

I'm moving away from DD-X for the same reason; I always seem to throw a third or more of the bottle away!

Is Rodinal a reasonable next choice? I can't be doing with powdered chemistry; my life is hectic enough already. I'm not scared of grain and like sharpness, so it would seem obvious. Is it as long-lived as they say?

Cheers
Jamie
 
Haha....I'm glad to see my Schlitz idea getting some play here Venchka.

For what it's worth, there's also 22oz bottles of Coors Light with screw caps, but I would sadly prefer the Bull to that beer-flavored water. Now if I could find regular Coors in those bottles, it would be a different story.

22oz might also be a more useful size since it's a little over a half liter, where the 32oz bottle holds just under a liter. I guess it depends on how much developer you tend to use at one go.

Regarding the 22oz bottle though.....I wonder how much .15 liters of air would degrade your developer. If it's drastic, what about using one of those wine bottle stoppers that you attach a vaccuum pump to to remove excess air from the bottle?
 
Don`t buy i liter pack anywhere anytime. They are out of date and all were produced before Kodak started dating the 5 liter with a two year shelf life and stopped producing 1 liter.

It may look fine, disolve ok, and work fine right away, but it dies inside a week and continues to look fine.

Been there-done that. Also had conversation with Kodak over it. They claim there is no home method to check activity either and I agree. I have sent so much of this stuff back to Kodak for replacemnt for various reasons, I won`t ever buy it again.
 
How about the 5 liter package?

How about the 5 liter package?

Ronald M said:
...I have sent so much of this stuff back to Kodak for replacemnt for various reasons, I won`t ever buy it again.

Does that apply to the current dated 5 liter packs also? Or are you just talking about the old 1 liter stuff?
 
I 've been using Xtol alongside D76 for the last couple months. I have promised myself these are the last developers to try before I make up mind on which ones to use.

For the price, I think Xtol is really good. It seems (almost) as good as DDX and it works very well with HP5, TriX and Neopan 400 which I use most of the time. But I can see where the criticism for the tonality is coming from. At times it looks quite harsh and the highlights seem to be on steroids. I find D-76 more interesting tonaly-wise, lending photos a kind of patina that sometimes is more appealing, but that's a personal preference really. Then again, Xtol seems better suited for pushing. As for the lesser impact of Xtol on the environment, I think it is very real, very important advantage and I 'd be willing to trade a more desired 'look' of the resulting prints for it. So, yes, Xtol is a good developer choice for me.

The Xtol/Rodinal recipe by Robert is great, I have tried it on two rolls so far with very nice results. From the little I 've seen I think Rodinal influences the end result more than Xtol. I wonder though how much one can push a film with this developer combo. I plan to find out shortly ;)
 
I'm with Chris- never liked XTOL for roll films. This is my developer of choice for 810 and 1114 films and sometimes with 45, mainly for the low toxics, but with 35mm especially I've always found it falls short of what I want. Poor shadow details, compared with HC-110, Microphen, ID-11. This seems more of a problem with enlarged negs than with contact prints, but perhaps there is some other difference in the sheet vs roll film emulsions?
 
Ronald M said:
They claim there is no home method to check activity either and I agree.

One test for activity that I've seen described by Ron Mowrey is to use a dropper to place a drop or a fixed number of drops of known working developer on a piece of film that has been exposed to light and time how long it takes to turn black. Do the same with the same developer of unknown potency and the same film and see if it turns black in the same time. The film should be exposed enough that it should turn black, but shouldn't be exposed so long that it might be solarized--i.e. it shouldn't be film that was left out on a desk for a week. Note that the film for the test doesn't need to be the film you're processing.

I don't see why this test wouldn't work with Xtol.

I do a much less formal test with my Acufine tank to be sure it hasn't crashed, if I haven't used it for a while. I'll develop a strip of exposed film in it in the light, and if it turns black in about 30 sec, it's okay, because if it's bad, it won't do anything no matter how long you leave it there.
 
jamiewakeham said:
I'm moving away from DD-X for the same reason; I always seem to throw a third or more of the bottle away!

Is Rodinal a reasonable next choice? I can't be doing with powdered chemistry; my life is hectic enough already. I'm not scared of grain and like sharpness, so it would seem obvious. Is it as long-lived as they say?

Cheers
Jamie
Rodinal is a different animal, and while The Church of Rodinal enjoys a lot of rabid followers (I'm a follower, but not rabid), those who aren't converts object to the grain. Un-modified Rodinal contains little if any silver solvent, so the film grain is just THERE ... i.e., it's not nicely rounded off when sodium sulfite is present in the developer. The result is very sharp, high acutance grain, and tonality (given the right dilution, time, agitation, etc.) is quite wonderful.

The current knock against Rodinal from those who don't like it comes, I think, from the fact that most people have never printed Rodinal negs with a real enlarger using a cold light/diffusion light source. They have only seen Rodinal-souped shots on the web, not on real paper, and perhaps badly Photoshopped at that.

That said, I think Honus' work with Rodinal-Xtol is tantalizingly good from a technical point-of-view, and improves the grain characteristics without losing acutance and tonality; hence I am determined to try my hand. Aside from that he is a wonderful photographer who could make a good image from film & water from Love Canal. Can't wait to see how Alkis (Telenous) fares with a Rodinal-Xtol marriage.

Earl
 
Trius said:
I liked the results I got from DD-X and Pan F+. Unfortunately, I wasn't doing enough processing for a long time and the stock went stale. Well, it went brown at least, and I don't trust it. I have about 6 bottles of Rodinal left, which is a LOT of capacity.

how long did it take to go bad? ilford says:

"ILFOTEC DD-X
24 months in full tightly capped bottles.
6 months in half full tightly capped bottles."
 
Sam: It was over 6 months. I had used some (1:4) for a roll or two, and didn't get back to it for quite some time, having not done much at all, and having acquired the Rodinal in the meantime.
 
Come'on that problem was oslved in 2000.... I do not think the packages are old enough.
In case they are have no fear, mix them using distilled water and no problem there
The cause was iron in the water killing the developer.

Anyway when in doubt, put your devloper in a cup/beaker and drop a piece of leader
It should turn dark gray in about 1/5th of the time... otherwise dump the developer and get a new batch.... no harm done to your film

eli griggs said:
I was in my local Wolf Camera not long ago and they still had a box full of the one liter packages out for sale and no larger packages in evidence. If I had not read an earlier warning I would have bought several as they were on sale. So be careful shopping as not everyone has taken them off their shelves.

Eli


DDX lasts quite a long time.
I used to buy the 1l bottles and "break it" into Nalgene 200ml containers full to the brim. The rest stayed in the ilford bottle and was used first.
I can testify 6 months of activity without problems.


Originally Posted by Trius
I liked the results I got from DD-X and Pan F+. Unfortunately, I wasn't doing enough processing for a long time and the stock went stale. Well, it went brown at least, and I don't trust it. I have about 6 bottles of Rodinal left, which is a LOT of capacity.
 
Last edited:
I just developed some TriX in some 6 months old stock, diluted to 1+1 and it was fine. Stock was a touch yellow, but having done a film leader test knew it was good. The negs are FINE, despite the dev being in a half full 1 gallon container at 23 degs C for an age. I am now a firm believer in film leader tests. Yellowing does not necessarily mean it is off!!!! The negs are spot on using the same times as per fresh dev. This is a great dev, but it is all about taste!

BTW, my Xtol came from a 5litre packet.
 
Yeah, I still don't get the negative comments on the 1 liter packages. At a 1:1 dilution you should have 2 liters of developer. The bag only cost me $3 and doesn't it take around 300 ml (.3L) for one roll of 35mm and around 500 ml (.5L) for two rolls or one roll of 120. That's 4 rolls of 120 or 8 rolls of 35mm to use it up. Is it really all that difficult to wait until you have the film needed to use up the stock?

Besides, again, the bag only cost $3. Even if I only get 2 rolls developed and it goes off prematurely, I don't think I will have lost very much. I'd be a lot more concerned if the shelf life issue had been for the 5 liter package. It seems to me a foolish thing to worry over & create hysteria over.
 
blw said:
....the bag only cost $3. Even if I only get 2 rolls developed and it goes off prematurely, I don't think I will have lost very much.

Except for the rolls of film you just ruined which told you it's gone off, and the time you used for the shooting of those films, and the subjects you took....

Seems like a huge waste of time, film and perhaps lost opportunity since you either can never shoot what you shot on those rolls again, or you go back and try to do it all over again. For what? To save a few dollars on developer? :eek:

Not worth it to me by a long shot.
 
I just ordered the Kentmere version of Xtol through Freestyle, along with some other items. I'll give it a whirl with Rodinal, as well as "bare naked".
 
Taking a risk to get a shot is one thing, risking ruined film to save a buck is something else altogether.

While there are plenty of folk here that willingly risk losing hard earned shots to questionable product, there are also those here who might not be aware that there's a very real potential problem with Xtol in 1 liter packages and would, if alerted to the possible destruction of their work, choose a more reliable alternative.

Passing along well founded warnings about a product that was found to be problematic is not spreading rumors, it's simply sharing necessary information.

What the informed person does with that information is his/her own business but at least they held their fate in their own hands and had the chance to take decisions in their own best interest.

Eli
 
I remember reading an article in PT magazine in the year 2000
"The Genesis of Xtol," by Dick Dickerson and Silvia Zawadski (Photo Techniques Magazine, Vol. 20, No. 5, 1999, p. 62 ff).
In there they said that the problem was a lack of sequestrant in the initial batches of dry Xtol, but that was solved right away. So for 6 or 7 years that should have been solved.

However a leaader test is a good idea for safety sake

I suggest the covington page oon Xtol, as good as the HC110 page.

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/
Covington Xtol page said:
Xtol's Controversial Start
Almost as soon as Xtol came out, photographers in Internet forums started reporting problems with it. It was hard to dissolve in water and would sometimes lose its strength suddenly without turning brown or giving any other warning.

Simultaneously, other photographers got excellent results and found that Xtol was everything Kodak claimed for it.

Users report that the failures are sudden. The developer does not gradually get weaker in storage. Instead, one day it works and the next day it doesn't. Further, most of the failure reports seem to involve Kodak T-Max 100 film.

By 2001, Kodak had tracked the problem to two sources.

(1) The small packets of powder, to make 1 liter of solution, were not adequately sealed to keep out air and humidity - or perhaps there was just too little powder in them, in proportion to the air that would inevitably get in. As a result, the powder would cake and become hard to dissolve, and the life of the developer would also be impaired.

(2) Xtol performed poorly at high dilutions (1:2, 1:3) in water of varying quality.

After making several attempts to improve the 1-liter packets, Kodak finally discontinued them altogether; the smallest size of Xtol that you can get is now 5 liters. Also, Kodak stopped publishing developing times for Xtol at dilutions higher than 1:1 (but see below).

Update: As of March 2002, Xtol is simply disappearing from the shelves of many camera stores that stock other darkroom supplies. Apparently, by discontinuing the 1-liter packet, Kodak effectively took Xtol out of the amateur and small-darkroom market; they continue to promote it in 5- and 50-liter packets for use in processing machines.
 
Back
Top Bottom