Tri-X in XTOL vs TMAX

Z

Znerken

Established
Local time
4:37 PM
Joined
Oct 10, 2015
Messages
52
What will be the difference? I push my tri-x to 1600 and over develop, because that's how I like it to look. What will be the difference between TMAX and XTOL developer? Will the grain be bigger or smaller with TMAX?

I have until now always had my film developed at a lab, with XTOL. Now I am going to start develop myself, but would like a fluid developer. I scan my images.

Thanks everyone.
 
The very best way is to run a test.

My experience is Xtol is fine grained. TMax is kind of a punched up developer I did not like.

I see no reason to buy a liquid developer. Seems good in theory, in practice age is questionable. Decant to small one time use bottles or add marbles to bring up levels.

Xtol is a pain as it comes only in 5 quart packs. No you can not mix partials. There is no way to tell when it is bad except to ruin a roll ( per Kodak when I asked about home test). Yes I did ruin a roll with a batch one week old.

I have no idea if TMax turns brown when bad.

I mix D76 from raw chemicals I know are fresh and never had a problem.
 
XTOL is pretty straight-forward to me. I divide into smaller brown glass bottles where it keeps 6 months. After this, I either discard or do a clip test. Since scanning tends to accentuate grain for me I am okay with the 1+1 dilution. Wet prints look very good too with this dilution.

If you got good negatives from the lab, stick with XTOL. Otherwise, do a test to see which developer you like.
 
But when I look at comparisons of the two I can't see that TMAX has more grain? The comparison is done on ISO 400 of tri-x though.

I know it's best to compare the two, but I'm going to start with buying one, and since it's my first time purchasing chemicals I would really love to simplify.
 
znapper said:
The only thing I've ever heard again and again when it comes to tri-x and pusing, is XTol.
Click to expand...

Well, let me add DD-X to the short list. I have used it for developing at box speed, and up to a two-stop push. The concentrate lasts a long time and I like the tonality. I reach for it before the T-Max. It may not be as fine grain as XTOL (which I also use); but after I finish the present batch of XTOL, I'm swearing off the stuff for reasons mentioned above. It's too much of a pain!

I would say, first try DD-X for pushing before buying any T-Max. If you don't like the results, we will talk some more.
 
I've actually tried DDX, but I liked XTOL better.


Besides, according to this it looks like TMAX is more fine grained:

From a post at photo.net 10 years ago. David Carper was an employee of Ilford back then.

"David Carper , Oct 24, 2004; 11:53 p.m. DD-X is the most similar ILFORD developer to T-Max, but it is still quite different. Speed is similar, with both giving about an extra stop. DD-X is sharper, but T-Max is finer grained (although you won't see a lot of difference until you start pushing). IIRC, DD-X times are a little longer, which should help you be more consistent with it.
David Carper"
 
Not related to pushing per say, but I quit developing Tri-X in TMax. I didn't like to tonality but can't really describe why, the negs were just so underwhelming. Switching over to D76 or ID11 and it was a different ballgame. So much better.

For pushing, I've used HP5 at 1600 in stock ID11 and liked the results.
 
Nice.
To me, the tmax has a more linear contrast curve and finer grain then the xtol. The xtol appears to have brighter whites and darker blacks though, with more separation through the midtones. Mind you, you could probably tune the development so the results change completely!
Which do you prefer?
 
michaelwj said:
Nice.
To me, the tmax has a more linear contrast curve and finer grain then the xtol. The xtol appears to have brighter whites and darker blacks though, with more separation through the midtones. Mind you, you could probably tune the development so the results change completely!
Which do you prefer?
Click to expand...

I agree with you.

I would love to have a similar comparison when tri-x is pushed to 1600. I hope t-max is better even at pushing.

For me, when I push film, I am after gritty photos with high contrast, and until now x-tol has really given me that. But since I scan my images, I know most of it are done in post, since I scan as flat as possible. At the same time, I don't want the grain to be too big, like it becomes with tri-x 400 EI 1600 in Rodinal 1:50.

These two images are my first development in t-max with tri-x 1600. They are both pretty grainy, especially the first one, but I think that is because it's way too underexposed. These images are not any good technically, I just hasted through a roll so I could test develop.


n0ddsT8.jpg

wtVtyfW.jpg
 
Znerken said:
I agree with you.

I would love to have a similar comparison when tri-x is pushed to 1600. I hope t-max is better even at pushing.

For me, when I push film, I am after gritty photos with high contrast, and until now x-tol has really given me that. But since I scan my images, I know most of it are done in post, since I scan as flat as possible. At the same time, I don't want the grain to be too big, like it becomes with tri-x 400 EI 1600 in Rodinal 1:50.
Click to expand...

I think the best way would be to do the side by side test with the lights turned down. You'll know soon enough.
 
I don't shoot BW film often, I mostly push BW film when I just can't be bothered to do (good) metering, I always develop to manufacturers recommended times as I don't keep notes.

So you probably get the idea how representative my results are for the Tri-X + T-Max combination, but since I just recently developed Tri-X @1600 in T-Max...








(1L of working T-Max (1:4) was probably half a year old and used 3 or 4 times before...)
 
brbo said:
I don't shoot BW film often, I mostly push BW film when I just can't be bothered to do (good) metering, I always develop to manufacturers recommended times as I don't keep notes.

So you probably get the idea how representative my results are for the Tri-X + T-Max combination, but since I just recently developed Tri-X @1600 in T-Max...
Click to expand...


Cool, but how did you find the result? I think it looks plenty good enough and really compares to x-tol in my mind.

Guess you used 8:45 as development time then?
 
Znerken said:
Cool, but how did you find the result? I think it looks plenty good enough and really compares to x-tol in my mind.

Guess you used 8:45 as development time then?
Click to expand...

If Kodak's technical data sheet for Tri-X says 8:45 at 20deg for iso1600, that's what I used.

As I said, I rarely shoot BW and really can't compare developers on such a small sample. And exposures I do on pushed film are mostly based on the famous(?) "wide open slowest shutter speed I can handhold" rule rather than metered properly.
 
Ronald M said:
There is no way to tell when it is bad except to ruin a roll ( per Kodak when I asked about home test).
Click to expand...

Of course, this is not true and it gets not any truer by repeating it in every thread that mentions Xtol.
As with any developer you can simply do a clip test.
 
You can always bend a film to your liking when developing, but the chart is overall correct in the sense that you can have 2 out of 3, but not all three at maximum.

The exposing, developing, scanning, printing is a chain that must be considered as a whole. Add to this the human factor and different ways of seeing and you got an internet forum. :)

EDIT: Oh yes, true to form - someone will probably chime in and say that their magic potion XYZ makes perfect negatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom