XTOL and scanning issues

Tri-X and Tmax in XTOL are some of the grayest/flattest images I've scanned.

The histogram looks like a long plateau from pure black to pure white. The images in your directory have blocked up shadows, which is not an Xtol trait. Your scanning method or settings are off.

I have developed Xtol stock, 1:1 and 1+3 and it always gives me nice gray results that I can work with in software to punch up the contrast nicely or keep it natural.

I'd suggest studying your scanner software to learn how to tweak the curves, adjust the histogram and all that good stuff. I'm using a cheap Epson 3170 that's slowly dying and it still works well.

I develop at 20C inversions for the first 30 seconds and do 4 inversions on the minute during developing.

Here's some Tmax in xtol: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luketrash/2913497623/

Here's a bunch of my TX in xtol: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=tx+xtol&w=82088782@N00&s=int


Finally, this may have no relevance to your issue, but here's a tutorial I wrote about how I adjust my Epson scanner to get the most detail and appropriate contrast for my images: http://www.lukehealey.com/epson_tips/
 
My results with T-Max films are similar. I agree that it's easier to get good results with the Ilford Delta films. Delta 100 is excellent for sharpness, but I really like the tonality I get with Delta 400; whether with XTOL, or even with other developers. I find XTOL works well with Tri-X; not so well with HP-5, unless the subject is contrasty.

Not sure why Svitantti feels that stock XTOL is expensive At $10 to $11 USD for 5 liters, it seems about as cheap as anything.
 
dfoo said:
Its almost impossible to blow highlights on film.
Click to expand...

That is not my experience! Send me some undeveloped film and I'll develop it and blow the highlights for you! All I have to do is increase the developing time. This works really well with T-Max films, when trying tho increase its rather flattish contrast; but I can do it with most film!
 
luketrash said:
Here's a bunch of my TX in xtol: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=tx+xtol&w=82088782@N00&s=int
Click to expand...
wonderful tonality.
I'll further explore scanning, I'm now fiddling with Vuescan and Silverlight. Still, pretty hard to preserve the highlights on a shot that's been overexposed by +-2 stops. with a lot of trouble I can get the faces right, but shadow/midtone detail is a mess.

can somebody tell me what happens when you develop less longer, or agitate less.. does the film become slightly underdeveloped, and you need to adjust this by scanning?
 
I remember fiddling with Vuescan a few years ago. The tools to fine-tune exposure and the likes are still fuzzy, but now I see a use for different scanning software. The difference is clear and very impressive. Looks like the standard scanning software is too contrasty so scans looks sharper and less grainy.

tech bits: TMAX P3200, TMAX dev 1+4, Nikon FM on monopod with Nikkor 180/2.8 ED

scanning.jpg
 
Left ones look nice for a starting point. I'd probably end up in a very different result than the ones at right. I'd use Photoshop, not Vuescan for the rest... But there are many ways to reach same results and people have different taste.
 
Some comments also on earlier posts:

- The film type does not determine how well photos can be scanned. It is rather a function of exposure and development. The contrast and density are tha qualities that affect scanning.
Of course it is a matter of personal preference, which film you like the most. This has nothing to do with scanning, though.
- Slow speed films generally have more contrast than faster ones. Fast films also have some more latitude because of this.
- Xtol with Trix or any film will produce as contrasty negs as you will develop them 🙂. If they seem gray, develop more (longer/agitate more/warmer/less dilution).
- Blowing highlights is nowhere near impossible, especially with T-grain films overdeveloped. It is very hard with color negs though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom