XTOL and scanning issues

[Teus]

My chemistry is fresh, my quantities are right and my temperatures are monitored pretty well. My camera's have been checked, but my non-TTL exposure isn't too great (yet). I'm mostly developing in XTOL 1:1, this has been going well with classic grain film, but T-grain film results are too contrasty with contrasty Leica glass. I'm now trying to develop in XTOL 1:3 but it didn't really give the results I expected. I think XTOL starts losing shadow detail again, from dilutions higher than 1:1. Negatives are rather grainier than smooth at stock/1:1 dilution but that's still OK with me.

With TMAX400, 13.5 minutes as listed on massive dev chart, is too short. Massive underdevelopment when exposed properly, I need to scan +1 or +2

Tri-x is mediocre. some results in this directory. Exposure is a compromise to keep the center, focused part reasonably exposed.

Delta 100 works out better. Probably my exposures are a bit off, with my incident meter I tend to expose more for the highlights. When I scan a shot +0.5, they are excellent. When I scan an overexposed shot -1 or -2, I can easily bring down the dark and mid tones, but the highlights stay blown.

Maybe you people can give me some advice to get my tonality right. Remember, I only scan my photos, don't print. Maybe I'll like the Paterson FX-39 better, since it's designed for T-grain film and lower contrast.
equipment: M2, 50 tabbed Summicron, 35 ZM T* in some shots, Sekonic L-308B

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

What kind of development times are you using? What's your agitation like?

In my experience Xtol usually gives me low contrast images, but I believe its largely due to the way I process my films with low agitation. Development times also varies from person to person.

 

[Teus]

5-6 agitations, about ten seconds every minute

 

[Svitantti]

Exposure and developing time determine the contrast, not dilution (unless dev. time is constant). By diluting more and developing longer you can achieve the same contrast.

If your negatives have too much contrast, develop less. It's that simple.

The rest could be scanning issues, which is a complicated topic.

 

[maddoc]

5-6 agitations, about ten seconds every minute

I have used XTOL a lot and found it to be best in 1+3 dilution, longer dev times (up to 18 minutes depending on the film) and less agitation. My standard is gentile agitation for the first 30 seconds and then one inversion per minute.

 

[Teus]

alright, I will try developing a bit longer and agitating much less. next to dilution, agitation is probably the only other thing I can do.

 

[Matt(1pt4)]

I'd start by using stock xtol, with the times and temps given in the Kodak tech pub. Dilutions greater than 1:1 and less agitation will get you a slight compensating effect, but you run the risk of uneven development.

If following the instructions doesn't give you good results, I start looking to your scanning workflow. Choice of scanner and scanning software can make more difference than how you develop.

 

[Svitantti]

Xtol at stock is expensive and will work as fine-grain developer. It will not give all the shadow detail as would 1+1 or more diluted.

Judging from experiences of many users, theres no risk of uneven development even for 1+3, which Kodak does not recommend because they had problems with 1 liter packages. So even 1+3 is actually safe if you buy fresh Xtol in 5 liter packages.

Actually stock xtol will give you shorter times which has more risk of uneven development, especially if you do not agitate enough.

 

[Teus]

Choice of scanner and scanning software can make more difference than how you develop.

It's a minolta scan dual III, maybe I can buy another scanner, but I don't feel that's really needed. Not spending money on a high-end scanner.

also: what happens exactly when you agitate less and how does it affect development time?
does it keep the highlights from blowing and develop the shadows/midtones normally, or does reduced agitation really demand longer development?
Please let me know if you know a rule of thumb for calculating times with reduced agitation..

 

[aizan]

tmax: increase development time.
tri-x: increase exposure and reduce development.
delta 100: increase exposure, improve metering technique.

first make sure your negatives are well exposed (especially the shadows), then adjust development time to accommodate the dynamic range of your scanner. last, adjust dilution and agitation to fine tune your tonal range, if necessary.

 

[mh2000]

Tmax likes vigorous agitation, I do more like 5 full inversions every 30 seconds... for Delta I've found it does better in scanning if underdeveloped a bit... TX, I've never gotten good scans... boohoo 🙁

 

[Svitantti]

You dont need a new scanner, but who knows, maybe you should improve your scanning workflow. This is complicated and depends on hardware and software and image processing after the scanning software, so it is not easy to tell you exactly what to do. Most often the photos are not completely ready after scanning them and you need to learn at least some basics on how to improve the results in your photo editing software.

Less agitation means that the same developer stuff sticks on the film. This means often that the stuff gets all used from highlights and the shadows develop relatively more. Also the acutance (edge sharpness) grows, when less agitation is used. The developer also means much in for acutance. Dilutet Xtol at about 1+3 or Rodinal at 1+50 etc. will give a lot more of it than stock Xtol.

So less agitation is used for compensating development and acutance.

More agitation is used to not make the grain so noticeable and to improve contrast. It works much like developing longer or at higher temperature, but the side effect is edge sharpness.

 

[Teus]

my scanning is good. it's just that the dynamics of the film are way exceeding the dynamics of my scanner. I've just tried finetuning Vuescan, it works better than the standard minolta software but doesn't do miracles. main problem are the blown highlights. if an image is underexposed, I scan scan +0.5 or +1 and get away with it. but often higlights blow, when I scan for the highlights often I still don't get the detail back and lose the shadows entirely.

 

[Svitantti]

I've never scanned negatives with any adjustments and it has worked fine. I scan with a Scan Dual IV. I dont think the difference is that big.

A negative should have dynamic range much smaller than such scanner, which is designed to work even with slide films. Of course if the highlights are blown on the film, it is impossible or difficult to scan them either.

What you could try for those highlights is adding contrast with some kind of mask in your photo editing software, after the scanning.

 

[dfoo]

Its almost impossible to blow highlights on film.

 

[Keith]

The best scanning results I've had by far have been with Xtol and Neopan 400. I'm currently using Tri-X and D76 and have not managed to fine tune the process to my satisfaction at all in 100ft of the Kodak film. I think my V700 struggles with 35mm to be honest and eventually hope to switch to a Nikon for 35mm and use the Epson solely for MF and LF where it seems to have more conistency.

 

[dfoo]

The nikon is better for 35mm... but you pay the price of all that dust and scratches you didn't know you had becoming very apparent.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

If your negatives are too contrasty and you want a tweak: develop 10 percent less and have look. If still too contrasty, reduce another 10%. Local water can have a great effect on your development times.

However, if you want to be systematic about it, do a film speed test (bracket exposure 3 stops +/- around your suggested metered values) with a grey card. Develop as you normally do, contact print for your first true black (sproket holes disappear) and then evaluate to see what exposure really should be for your other choices. Just lurching in one direction is not really going to solve your problem. You need to figure out where the weak link in your exposure chain is. Luckily, the sensitivity of your film is, or should be, constant. Only vary one of your other variables at a time (time, temperature, exposure compensation etc.) until you find the culprit.

Ben Marks

 

[mh2000]

the crappy curve tool and settings in vuescan don't make it easier, but if you expand your range you will get everything off the negative. Use the curve but put the triangles way outside what the histogram shows and you will recover the highlights that you are clipping now. As long as you get everything from your scan you can expand in photoshop after the scan (use 16-bit tiffs for save).

 

[venchka]

I am totally sold on Xtol 1:3 and Ilford HP5+. 120 and 4x5. I did develop a few sheets of Delta 100 in Xtol 1:3. The jury is still out on that combination. The negatives are ok. Maybe it's me. I like the HP5+ better.