Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
Hello, so I've never tried stand development before, and obviously have no experience with Rodinal or any of the other similiar developers, but I just wondered if anybody here has ever tried stand development with XTOL before?
A quick bit of Googling suggests that a few people have tried it with some success with Ilford films (HP5 and FP4).
I also wonder what the benefits might be, if any, and how I would go about finding developing times and temp.?
It seems like it might be worth a shot or a roll anyway.
For the record I normally use HP5+ @ 1600 or 400 in XTOL 1.1.
Thanks for any input!
A quick bit of Googling suggests that a few people have tried it with some success with Ilford films (HP5 and FP4).
I also wonder what the benefits might be, if any, and how I would go about finding developing times and temp.?
It seems like it might be worth a shot or a roll anyway.
For the record I normally use HP5+ @ 1600 or 400 in XTOL 1.1.
Thanks for any input!
Svitantti
Well-known
Stand develop has a principle of exhausting the developer agents completely out of the "soup", so the time does not have to be accurate at all. It shouldn't matter much if you use 1 or 2 hours... More of a challenge could be finding suitable dilution for Xtol stand. Did you find tips while googling? I would be interested to try this sometime too, as Xtol is my main developer.
The benefits of stand processing are the acutance or sharpness effect and compensating development. It means when you do not agitate, the edge sharpness will grow. The grain probably gets a bit more visible too. The shadows will also develop relatively more, because in the highlight parts of the film, the developer will exhaust faster, stopping the development there, while the shadows will keep developing. This is especially nice if you are not that careful at exposing and still want maximum shadow detail and tonal range.
The benefits of stand processing are the acutance or sharpness effect and compensating development. It means when you do not agitate, the edge sharpness will grow. The grain probably gets a bit more visible too. The shadows will also develop relatively more, because in the highlight parts of the film, the developer will exhaust faster, stopping the development there, while the shadows will keep developing. This is especially nice if you are not that careful at exposing and still want maximum shadow detail and tonal range.
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
Hi Svitantti, I was just typing XTOL into google when I noticed stand development in the suggestion bar and had a bit of a peak. I didn't actually know that it was possible with regular chemistry, but then I wouldn't being that I know nothing of stand development anyway.
This principally is what I found http://leica-users.org/v18/msg11869.html
Looks interesting, the chap there seems to specify 90minutes for HP5+ @ 3200 diluted 1.3. I'm not sure however what I should try for HP5, or TRI-X even, rated @ 1600..
Also does one need to pay extra attention to temperature, and should it be adjusted for stand development?
Thanks for your input by the way.
This principally is what I found http://leica-users.org/v18/msg11869.html
Looks interesting, the chap there seems to specify 90minutes for HP5+ @ 3200 diluted 1.3. I'm not sure however what I should try for HP5, or TRI-X even, rated @ 1600..
Also does one need to pay extra attention to temperature, and should it be adjusted for stand development?
Thanks for your input by the way.
Svitantti
Well-known
No I dont think temperature is too critical, if it is in certain tolerances (maybe around 20-25 Celsius). I also think it doesn't really matter which ASA you use for the film, as the development will actually stop in the end because there is no developer left in the solution. At least this is the principle of stand development in general.
I think 60 minutes should do the same as 90 min, at least I think I've read that in most cases the developer usually exhausts in 45 minutes or so. Anyway, not sure with Xtol and could depend on the dilution and exposure of the film. Anyway 1 or 1,5 hours shouldn't make much difference.
I am no expert on stand processes anyway, but have been reading about them. Just tried it once recently with Rodinal, but it should work with most developers I guess.
I think 60 minutes should do the same as 90 min, at least I think I've read that in most cases the developer usually exhausts in 45 minutes or so. Anyway, not sure with Xtol and could depend on the dilution and exposure of the film. Anyway 1 or 1,5 hours shouldn't make much difference.
I am no expert on stand processes anyway, but have been reading about them. Just tried it once recently with Rodinal, but it should work with most developers I guess.
Matt(1pt4)
Established
I've done a fair amount of stand development with Rodinal, and I've also used highly diluted Xtol, although not for stand development. Getting even development with Xtol diluted 1+3 has been a bit dodgy in my experience. I can't imagine that a standing routine matters.
I think Anchell and Troop mention that xtol doesn't produce restrainers as development time increases, which might mean that you wouldn't get as much of a compensation effect with dilute xtol as you would with dilute Rodinal. You probably also wouldn't get much of an adjaceny effect either.
If you want to give it a try, temperature should be pretty much irrelevant as long as it is above 68F. Use at least 100ml of xtol per roll. Agitate for 1 min, then let stand for 60. That might get you to 1600 with Tri-X, but I'd bet 800 would be closer to the mark for HP5.
I think Anchell and Troop mention that xtol doesn't produce restrainers as development time increases, which might mean that you wouldn't get as much of a compensation effect with dilute xtol as you would with dilute Rodinal. You probably also wouldn't get much of an adjaceny effect either.
If you want to give it a try, temperature should be pretty much irrelevant as long as it is above 68F. Use at least 100ml of xtol per roll. Agitate for 1 min, then let stand for 60. That might get you to 1600 with Tri-X, but I'd bet 800 would be closer to the mark for HP5.
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
Ok, thanks for the info.
Could anybody recommend a dilution for XTOL with a roll of Tri-X exposed @ 1600? Would 1:3 be a good place to start?
From what I understand, XTOL can be slightly unpredictable diluted 1:3 or higher, though I believe that this was mostly due to an early packaging problem. Still, I've never used it with a dilution that high before. Usually either 1.1 or Stock.
Also, does one just need to agitate the film for the first 60s or is agitation intermittent?
I understand that this might not work out at all, but it's a roll (that I think) I can spare to experimentation and it seems like it always worth trying to better understand ones chemicals.
Thanks for any help.
Could anybody recommend a dilution for XTOL with a roll of Tri-X exposed @ 1600? Would 1:3 be a good place to start?
From what I understand, XTOL can be slightly unpredictable diluted 1:3 or higher, though I believe that this was mostly due to an early packaging problem. Still, I've never used it with a dilution that high before. Usually either 1.1 or Stock.
Also, does one just need to agitate the film for the first 60s or is agitation intermittent?
I understand that this might not work out at all, but it's a roll (that I think) I can spare to experimentation and it seems like it always worth trying to better understand ones chemicals.
Thanks for any help.
venchka
Veteran
Reading the linked article from 2000 and knowing a bit about Xtol........
I would start at 1:10. My customary HP5+ & Xtol habit is 1:3, continuous agitation, 10 minutes, 68F.
Personally, give Xtol a try at 1:3 with conventional agitation. It is VERY nice that way.
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/
http://wwwfr.kodak.com/AT/plugins/acrobat/de/professional/xtolEntwickler.pdf
Rodinal stand development is very nice also.
I would start at 1:10. My customary HP5+ & Xtol habit is 1:3, continuous agitation, 10 minutes, 68F.
Personally, give Xtol a try at 1:3 with conventional agitation. It is VERY nice that way.
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/
http://wwwfr.kodak.com/AT/plugins/acrobat/de/professional/xtolEntwickler.pdf
Rodinal stand development is very nice also.
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
Thanks for the links, I have read them before, though both obviously offer no information in regard to stand development, being that it's hardly a conventional process for such a developer.
So you reckon 1:10 (for Tri-X), presumably at 20C/68F, what kind of time and what cycle of agitation should I follow?
I will give Rodinal a go at some point as well, but to be honest I've been satisfied with XTOL and will continue to use it.
Thanks again.
So you reckon 1:10 (for Tri-X), presumably at 20C/68F, what kind of time and what cycle of agitation should I follow?
I will give Rodinal a go at some point as well, but to be honest I've been satisfied with XTOL and will continue to use it.
Thanks again.
Last edited:
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
Svitantti
Well-known
Kodak used to warn people of using Xtol diluted more than 1+2 (or 1+1?), but as many, I have also used it 1+3 with success. Sharp and nice grain with Tmax p3200.
I guess 1+10 is worth trying, but it could be a good idea to do it with some not very important photos in case some of Kodak's warning is true
. I also think, or would guess that the dilution should be higher than just 1+3, which still goes nicely with normal agitation.
I guess 1+10 is worth trying, but it could be a good idea to do it with some not very important photos in case some of Kodak's warning is true
. I also think, or would guess that the dilution should be higher than just 1+3, which still goes nicely with normal agitation.
venchka
Veteran
RE: Links. I knew that.
The person who tried 1:3 in that old Leica Users Group post got very very dense negatives with 1:3 and 2-3 stops underexposed. That's why I said 1:10, 100ml Xtol + 1 liter water and box speed. Depending on what you get, go more or less dilution.
One more time: Rodinal 1:100, stand. Xtol 1:3, normal.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
The person who tried 1:3 in that old Leica Users Group post got very very dense negatives with 1:3 and 2-3 stops underexposed. That's why I said 1:10, 100ml Xtol + 1 liter water and box speed. Depending on what you get, go more or less dilution.
One more time: Rodinal 1:100, stand. Xtol 1:3, normal.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
Okay, I guess it's kind of a pointless experiment anyway.
I'm quite content with my current process (XTOL 1.1 and Stock), I wasn't asking for information regarding standard processing, even if using a higher dilution, but purely for user experience with regard to Stand Development.
Thanks all the same.
I'm quite content with my current process (XTOL 1.1 and Stock), I wasn't asking for information regarding standard processing, even if using a higher dilution, but purely for user experience with regard to Stand Development.
Thanks all the same.
venchka
Veteran
Did you search here for stand development information? There is a lot.
All I can suggest, if you really want to know, is conduct your own experiments and report back. Follow the same procedures as outlined for Rodinal. Substitute Xtol and your own dilution. I do know that Xtol 1:3 is very active. Letting film sit in it for an extended period will lead to overdevelopment. That's why I pulled 1:10 out of the air. Even that may be too strong.
I would also suggest Xtol 1:3 with normal agitation. Too many people use it with fantastic results to overlook it.
All I can suggest, if you really want to know, is conduct your own experiments and report back. Follow the same procedures as outlined for Rodinal. Substitute Xtol and your own dilution. I do know that Xtol 1:3 is very active. Letting film sit in it for an extended period will lead to overdevelopment. That's why I pulled 1:10 out of the air. Even that may be too strong.
I would also suggest Xtol 1:3 with normal agitation. Too many people use it with fantastic results to overlook it.
