Xtol and Tmax 100 Q

[DNG]

OK,
I just ordered my BW developing gear from B&H, along with 4x TMax 100...

Now the Question..
What is the difference between the using Xtol "Straight" or at different dilution as recommended by the Master Developer App.??

Like: Dynamic Range, Micro Contrast sharpness, Highlight detail, Shadow detail....

I shot a lot between 1pm and 4pm, so bright sun, deep shadows, bright highlights some times.

I am thinking of using ISO 50 with Xtol. But, I don't why, except maybe I think it will give better highlight detail.

Thanks ahead of time.

 

[Freakscene]

You'll see more edge effect, better compensation and slightly higher speed (shadow contrast) with dilution. Grain will be slightly less fine. There is a lot written about the "solvent effect" of sulfite, but I see little information to really support its existence, so I am hesitant to say exactly _why_ these things occur, but I have definitely developed enough film in Xtol to confidently say that this is what you will see.

Long Xtol rant by me: http://leica-users.org/v35/msg07982.html

How a developer works is affected by the chemistry in the emulsion. Xtol 1+3 works well but with with TMY it is important to follow Kodak's instructions to use 100 mL of stock per roll whatever the dilution. You may need to develop 2 rolls in a 4 roll tank.

I found that, while it worked fine for most films, there was not enough Xtol in a 4 roll, 1 L tank at 1+3 (so therefore 62.5 mL stock / roll) with 4 rolls of TMX to develop them adequately. I didn't try 1+2 but 1+1 worked fine.

Marty

 

[Roger Hicks]

100% endorsement of Marty's observations, though in my experience the compensation effect is pretty marginal.

It's intriguing how often theory and practice agree...

Cheers,

R.

 

[semilog]

Roger and Marty -- in practice, do we see substantial compensation effects with XTOL and films like ACROS that incorporate a lot of accelerants?

 

[Freakscene]

Roger and Marty -- in practice, do we see substantial compensation effects with XTOL and films like ACROS that incorporate a lot of accelerants?

Sort-of. Well, as much as with any other comparable film, but to some extent what matters is how long you develop it for and how you agitate. it depends what you call "substantial".

Ascorbates are have development by-products that are acidic. These act as development inhibitors. But you need to give them a chance. In high concentration and/or high agitation environments you swamp any local effects with concentration and/or move fresh developer into that area of the film. My standard process with most of my standard films (neither Acros nor TMX are one of my standard films - I mostly use Plus-X, Tri-X and Neopan 400) and Xtol is to use relatively infrequent, gentle agitation, and high or very high dilution. I use 1+3 as standard and if i need low contrast I go to 1+4 or 1+5 with appropriate volumes and times. With these I can show sensitometrically that there is compensation occurring by changes in the curve shape.

The problem with Acros and TMX is that they need more concentrated developer to work, because the emulsions seem, for want of a better term, like they "need" a lot of developer to be effectively developed to normal contrast. So you get _some_ compensation, and again I can show this sensitometrically, but it is not as much as for other films that you can develop more easily at higher dilution.

The compensation in either film type may not make as much difference in prints or scans, which I have not tried to quantify. I mostly use Xtol because it is sharp, fine grained, economical, reliable and available. I could just as easily use D76, which has a much less lofty reputation but works perfectly well.

How much this has to do with the incorporated development accelerants I do not know, since we cannot obtain Acros without the accelerants to test (and film doesn't work like that anyway).

If you want a real compensating effect, develop Acros in Xtol 1+1 for 70-80% of your normal developing time, then tip it out, replace with Xtol 1+4, agitate for 30s and let it stand for 10-20 minutes. This works, but is a pain, and it is harder to tell if you get "compensation" or just increased film base + fog density because the curve shape becomes really oddly flattened.

I am increasingly trying to ignore *why* things happen and just going with what works, but it isn't in my nature.

Marty

 

[Thomas-Paris]

How a developer works is affected by the chemistry in the emulsion. Xtol 1+3 works well but with with TMY it is important to follow Kodak's instructions to use 100 mL of stock per roll whatever the dilution. You may need to develop 2 rolls in a 4 roll tank.

I agree completely that it's important to follow Kodak's instructions regarding the minimum quantity of developer. However, the German language Xtol developer document ("XTOL Entwickler - Informationen für Professionals und Amateure", no publication number) claims 70 mL is the minimum stock per 36-frame 135 roll of film. My suspicion is that 70 mL is in fact the minimum, but they rounded it up to 100 to compensate for sloppiness.

I've had no problems diluting 80 mL Xtol + 240 mL water for a 1:3 dilution, but I'm very anal about the preparation and storage of my Xtol.

As for the original question, I would not shoot 100 TMX at EI 50. To my tastes, the result is gray and boring with no advantage over properly exposed TMX. The nice thing about the combination of 100 TMX and diluted Xtol (1:1 but a bit more so at 1:3) is that you get increased true speed. Put another way, if you expose for the highlights, you still retain detail in the shadows.

I would try the following: expose for the highlights, rating the film at EI 100. Or expose for the shadows, rating the film at EI 200. Develop at the normal time (eg, 8-1/2 min at 21 C / 70 F). The result should give you normal contrast, good highlight detail, and still retain shadow detail, as though the film were 100 in the highlights and 200 in the shadows.

 

[JayGannon]

I find myself using 1+2 a lot recently, nice amount of contrast and manageable times when developing a lot of rolls.

 

[Freakscene]

I agree completely that it's important to follow Kodak's instructions regarding the minimum quantity of developer. However, the German language Xtol developer document ("XTOL Entwickler - Informationen für Professionals und Amateure", no publication number) claims 70 mL is the minimum stock per 36-frame 135 roll of film. My suspicion is that 70 mL is in fact the minimum, but they rounded it up to 100 to compensate for sloppiness.

I've had no problems diluting 80 mL Xtol + 240 mL water for a 1:3 dilution, but I'm very anal about the preparation and storage of my Xtol.

The German publication was published prior to the problems with dilute Xtol becoming apparent, and the water used by Kodak for the original experiments was slightly alkaline and biased the results of their tests. "The Genesis of Xtol," by Dick Dickerson and Silvia Zawadski (Photo Techniques Magazine, Vol. 20, No. 5, 1999, p. 62).

Kodak have specifically said that TMX was the main film of theirs that was problematic with less than 100 mL of Xtol stock. I use Milli-Q water and store very carefully. I have measured significant changes in density between using 65 and 100 mL of Xtol stock / 135 roll for TMX. And all you need at 65 mL/roll is about 0.3 milligrams of iron and you get almost no development.

It may work for you, but test extensively before committing the method to important shots. Don't be surprised if something goes wrong unexpectedly because of something beyond your control. One major problem is that unless you can manufacture or test your own demineralised water you don't know for sure what you're mixing your developer with.

Marty

 

[Thomas-Paris]

The German publication was published prior to the problems with dilute Xtol becoming apparent, and the water used by Kodak for the original experiments was slightly alkaline and biased the results of their tests. "The Genesis of Xtol," by Dick Dickerson and Silvia Zawadski (Photo Techniques Magazine, Vol. 20, No. 5, 1999, p. 62).

Kodak have specifically said that TMX was the main film of theirs that was problematic with less than 100 mL of Xtol stock. I use Milli-Q water and store very carefully. I have measured significant changes in density between using 65 and 100 mL of Xtol stock / 135 roll for TMX. And all you need at 65 mL/roll is about 0.3 milligrams of iron and you get almost no development.

It may work for you, but test extensively before committing the method to important shots. Don't be surprised if something goes wrong unexpectedly because of something beyond your control. One major problem is that unless you can manufacture or test your own demineralised water you don't know for sure what you're mixing your developer with.

Marty

Thanks for the warning. The only reason I go as low as 80 mL per film is to maximize the number of films I can do at once at 1:3. I've checked my demineralized water, and it's pH 7,9-8 so that might explain why I was okay. But even so, I guess I'll be a little more patient now, because the last thing I want is to lose 4 rolls of film just trying to save a half an hour.

 

[Freakscene]

Thanks for the warning. The only reason I go as low as 80 mL per film is to maximize the number of films I can do at once at 1:3. I've checked my demineralized water, and it's pH 7,9-8 so that might explain why I was okay. But even so, I guess I'll be a little more patient now, because the last thing I want is to lose 4 rolls of film just trying to save a half an hour.

7.9!!! Amazing. It should be marketed as alkaline water. That will really help accelerate things. Just a guess, but there may be some bicarbonate but without any divalent transition metal cations. Carbonate concentrations in air-equilibrated environments don't usually get that high, but anything is possible. Calcium and magnesium do not catalyse the oxidation of ascorbate like the transition metals do and the alkali will accelerate development. But if you get any iron, in particular, you will experience problems.

Your water may have been filtered and demineralised by resin exchange. Some of these processes work by ion exchange and the resin gets soaked in solutions between runs. It leaves the water very low in minerals, but the ones that remain are of a very narrow range of (normally fairly inert) ones.

The Milli-Q system I use produces water of pH 7.0 with a resistance of 18 million ohms per cm at 25C - it needs to be fed pretty decent water that has already been substantially demineralised.

But if your water works for you then stick at it, possibly keeping the 100 mL/roll caution from Kodak in mind. But the worst thing is to change when things are working and end up making things worse.

Marty

 

[venchka]

I've thrown several different emulsions in Xtol 1:3 with continuous rotary agitation. I liked them all. New Tmax 400 (TMY-2), HP5+ and Arista-EDU Ultra 200 (Fomapan 200) are favorites. I use the German information for starting times & adjust a little for personal taste and hardware variations.

That said, and I have 2 5 liter bags of Xtol waiting for mixing, I may switch to Pyrocat-MC 2 bath developing. I have a severe seasonal temperature control problem here in Houston. The Pyrocat-MC as a 2 bath developer promises freedom from temperature variation and the ability to process multiple emulsions in the same tank at the same time.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=67154

 

[DNG]

WOW, Lots of info....
In Sum:

1. Use ISO 100 TMX
2. Use Stock Xtol preferred method, (try 1:1, 1:2 or 1:3 with bottled water)
3. Low agitation (first 5/sec, than 5/sec per every 2/min, as a starting point?)
4. Use 100ml per roll (I have a 2 roll tank, process one roll at a time)

I just doubled the typical agitation of most recommendations in spec sheets (5/sec every 1/min)


Plus-X/Acros, may be a better film for Xtol.

I just ordered 4 rolls of TMX 100, so this will be first run though.
I'll try to find Plus-X at a not so local camera shop next. Non of the local places carry Plus-X or Acros anymore... though a few months back, I could get Acros and or Plus-X at a local food/general merchandise store. and at Walgreen's or CVS.

 

[DNG]

I've thrown several different emulsions in Xtol 1:3 with continuous rotary agitation. I liked them all. New Tmax 400 (TMY-2), HP5+ and Arista-EDU Ultra 200 (Fomapan 200) are favorites. I use the German information for starting times & adjust a little for personal taste and hardware variations.

That said, and I have 2 5 liter bags of Xtol waiting for mixing, I may switch to Pyrocat-MC 2 bath developing. I have a severe seasonal temperature control problem here in Houston. The Pyrocat-MC as a 2 bath developer promises freedom from temperature variation and the ability to process multiple emulsions in the same tank at the same time.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=67154

Ummm

Continuous Agitation also works....
So many working techniques....
I have my work cut for me to find what works for me.
I'll have to keep notes on each roll to find my ideal "soup/agitation" formula. Since, I'll be scanning, that may make a difference also in negative density.

 

[venchka]

I deviate from your summary in every respect. It's too bad. I get results like this......

Arista Premium 100 (Kodak Plus-X). Xtol 1:3. Rotary agitation.

Ahhhhhhhh...while I was typing your were catching on.

 

[semilog]

This is a GREAT thread. Thanks to everyone and especially to Marty for the excellent, informative posts.

 

[DNG]

I deviate from your summary in every respect. It's too bad. I get results like this......

Arista Premium 100 (Kodak Plus-X). Xtol 1:3. Rotary agitation.

Ahhhhhhhh...while I was typing your were catching on.

I like Plus-X, I used Microdol-X 1:3 in the day, But, I saw Xtol was a sharper developer, So, I'll try Xtol. I will get some Plus-X and try 1:3 also. I just bought TMX 100 that's all.

I guess the TMX emulsions a bit different than Plus-X?...
It has been a long time since souping B&W film. TMX came out many years later after not developing film.

Nice tones, not too contrasty... good for scanning..

 

[venchka]

I loved Plus-X back in the Land Before Time. I still love Plus-X. Tmax 100 is nice. I don't hate it. I just LOVE Plus-X.

 

[semilog]

...(neither Acros nor TMX are one of my standard films - I mostly use Plus-X, Tri-X and Neopan 400)

Would it be out of line to ask what drives your film choices?

 

[Freakscene]

Would it be out of line to ask what drives your film choices?

Out of line? Of course not. As long as the tone remains civil, nothing is out of line, from anyone.

Honestly, two main things: availability and ability to match tonality. For a while I was visiting Japan for work a lot. I used Neopan F (ISO 32), Neopan 400 and Neopan 1600. Around the time that Fuji pulled Neopan F, I stopped going there and I started ordering film from Freestyle. I ordered Plus-X, Tri-X and TMZ because I knew them and because of how much I LOVE the tonality of Plus-X. I can also make wet prints that have what I call a 'familial look' - they look like the same film but of different speeds. TMZ looks a lot like old (like 40 years ago - and shot and developed then, not last century film found and shot now) Tri-X and new Tri-X is nicely inbetween Plus-X and TMZ.

I really like Acros, TMX, TMY and other films, but I just stick with what I'm used to if it works. And at least for now, Kodak seems like a solid deal for those films, although I fear for Plus-X.

I did quality control for a local lab for a few years until recently when it shut down; I have developed almost every B&W film made in the last 50 years and know how to develop them at least well. I never saw anything that was so amazing I had to switch to it.

Marty

 

[Freakscene]

I like Plus-X, I used Microdol-X 1:3 in the day, But, I saw Xtol was a sharper developer, So, I'll try Xtol. I will get some Plus-X and try 1:3 also. I just bought TMX 100 that's all.

I guess the TMX emulsions a bit different than Plus-X?...
It has been a long time since souping B&W film. TMX came out many years later after not developing film.

Nice tones, not too contrasty... good for scanning..

TMX is very different to Plus-X, but what I wrote above is about COMPENSATION. If you pick your light, expose well and know how to develop (mainly get your time right) none of that matters at all. If your scene has a 16 or 20 stop range, or you mess up the exposure on what you know is a great shot, those histrionics help.

I have developed a lot of rolls in Xtol stock replenished in a gas bubble agitated large tank dip-and-dunk system, by rotary development using the increasing time and reusing 5L of stock method or dilute, in small tanks at all sorts of dilutions and with all sorts of manual agitation.

Xtol, to me eye, is a great all round developer that improves most films.

Just to emphasize: the conditions I described above are to improve the balance of highlights and shadows when you need it. There is no 'right' way to use Xtol.

Marty