Ilford equivalent of XTOL

S

Stelios

Guest
I remember the days when I'd shoot TriX at 2000ASA and process with Xtol (stock or 1+1, can't remember at the moment). I have switched to Rodinal for some time now and have stopped push processing TriX. I'd like to get back to shooting at 2000 some times and would like to process it in Ilford chemicals (it's easier for me to find, I hate having to mix 5L of Xtol). I know Ilford is proposing Ilfotec DD-X as their Xtol equivalent, but would like to have some real user opinions.
Xtol kept grain to reasonable size and gave nice tonality as far as I remember. I'd prefer a liquid developer to powder, but I wouldn't be absolute about it.

ps Stand development is out of the question for now. I don't have the patience/time anymore.
 
DD-X is the equivalent -- very good for pushing, but gives very nice grain and shadow detail however you rate your film.

I'm a Rodinal person myself, but use DD-X for certain films or for pushing films.
 
From what I read on APUG, Xtol and DD-X are both full-speed developers. Chemically, I believe they are different.

Jim B.
 
Thanks. I am not looking for a similar formula, just for similar results.
 
Ilford Microphen comes pretty close to xtol it's speed enhancing, rather fine grained and with good tonality but different formulation then Xtol. I personally prefer Microphen to xtol because of the better pushing capabilities, iin my opionion they look pretty similar.
 
Dear Stelios,

Microphen for absolute maximum true ISO, DD-X for convenience and a miniscule drop in true ISO compared with Microphen. I'd back either DD-X or Microphen as having a higher true film speed than Xtol. A higher true film speed means you have to push less, of course.

Cheers,

R.
 
A direct replacement for Xtol (Kodak, 5 ltrs.) is the Fomadon Excel W27 1 ltr. packing from Foma. You can take over the Xtol data for almost 1:1. More practical and cheap too.
 
DDX would be the best bet. Although it gives the same speed as Xtol 1+1 or 1+2, it has a bit more grain and a bit a more sparkle (sometimes). I consider the two functionally interchangeable and forget which I used the moment the negs hit the sleeves.
 
I've always found Microdol-X (edit Microphen) to give grain I liked better when pushing than DD-X did- though I never went as far with the push as you are going.
 
Last edited:
sepiareverb said:
I've always found Microdol-X to give grain I liked better when pushing than DD-X did- though I never went as far with the push as you are going.
Click to expand...

But Microdol loses shadow speed, unless used at 1:3. It's one of the last I'd use for pushing. Microphen is the best I've used for pushing. I also like D-DX, though it's less of a push developer. And I've used T-Max, but I don't feel I've had enough experience with it yet to make any obsevations.
 
Rob-F said:
But Microdol loses shadow speed, unless used at 1:3. It's one of the last I'd use for pushing. Microphen is the best I've used for pushing. I also like D-DX, though it's less of a push developer. And I've used T-Max, but I don't feel I've had enough experience with it yet to make any obsevations.
Click to expand...

Hah! I indeed meant Microphen. I've just been discussing with an old friend the Microdol-X/Perceptol switch a bunch lately and have Microdol on the brain.:eek: I'll fix my post above. Thanks.
 
Thanks for all the answers! I shall give Microphen or DD-X (whichever I find easier to get hold of) a go. From the sound of it Microphen should be the one to use. I'll shoot a test roll hopefully this week.

Cheers!
 
I'm a Kodak fanboy myself when it comes to films, but with developers I inexplicably find myself going back to Microphen all the time.
 
I have found Xtol and DD X work the same or very similar on Delta 400. The others I have tried are poor by comparison unless you like big grain.

Delta 100 works fine in D76 which is why I use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom