GarageBoy
Well-known
So, after spending some time reading about the differences (hey, if I'm going to spend time and mix another batch of something, I might as well look into alternatives), the general consensus is that XTOL gives finer grain, and a slight increase in shadow detail. Also, instead of an upswept curve, it gives more of a highlight preserving/compressing S curve. Lots of people have claimed that the midtones are flat in XTOL negs; is this due to poor processing, or a nature of XTOL?
Seems to me that the S curve would expand midtones a little bit
Thanks
Seems to me that the S curve would expand midtones a little bit
Thanks
teddy
Jose Morales
I find XTOL very clinical, sharp, and very high contrast. Maybe the high contrast is what make the mid tones flat. Highlights are well... high.
The blacks on the image below are dark, because I like to represent the blacks as they were.
Posing while I test my "new" Elmar.
Leica M3, 1961 ELMAR 135/4 wide open at F4, TMAX 100, Xtol 1:1.
Scanned with an Epson 3170, Lightroom adjustments - very minor.
rolfe
Well-known
This is a complicated question, but consider this. Kodak invented Xtol because the company considered it an improvement over existing developers. It was a clean sheet invention, not just a derivative of existing formulas. Generally, developers are like punching a pillow -- you improve one quality but degrade another. Get finer grain, get reduced film speed, etc. Xtol improved on the punching bag in that it gives full box speed, finer grain, good tonality, and good environmental qualities. It is a better mousetrap. Having said that, many photographers are going for a specific look -- take the Tri-X look for example. Many feel that D76 gives Tri-X a better "classic look" than Xtol does. I have a feeling that it is really that D76 gives a slightly slower true speed to Tri-X, which moves the mid-tones down the slope a bit. IMHO, that is why some say D76 gives somewhat "gutsier" midtones than Xtol does. I think that if you dial in Xtol, you can get the exact same midtone rendition with better grain rendition. Then again, some like that Tri-X grain, so as always it is up to you...
traveler_101
American abroad
You inadvertently stepped your foot right into a big pile of doodoo . . . Don't feel bad I did the same when I was trying to figure this out.
I didn't like XTOL as much--much flatter results, even with high contrast lens. Oh and what pita with preparation: XTOL suffers from "sudden death" and to lower your chances of this happening you have to use distilled water in mixing it; D-76, I use tap water and there is no "sudden death." Then thee is the size of the package 5 litters for XTOL; D-76 is 3.8 litters--a little a bit more manageable.
The big advantage of XTOL is that it is safe, not harmful to the environment--and I think it was for this reason and not to make a better product that Kodak developed it. So its eco-friendly, developed by a female scientist and new.
XTOL versus D-76 is perhaps a reflection of a generation gap. It also can bring out some strong feelings. i'm battening down the hatches expecting a storm now.
I didn't like XTOL as much--much flatter results, even with high contrast lens. Oh and what pita with preparation: XTOL suffers from "sudden death" and to lower your chances of this happening you have to use distilled water in mixing it; D-76, I use tap water and there is no "sudden death." Then thee is the size of the package 5 litters for XTOL; D-76 is 3.8 litters--a little a bit more manageable.
The big advantage of XTOL is that it is safe, not harmful to the environment--and I think it was for this reason and not to make a better product that Kodak developed it. So its eco-friendly, developed by a female scientist and new.
XTOL versus D-76 is perhaps a reflection of a generation gap. It also can bring out some strong feelings. i'm battening down the hatches expecting a storm now.
rolfe
Well-known
I generally agree with the above, except that the "sudden death" thing has been largely debunked. People who experienced this in the early days of Xtol were working with the 1 liter kits, which have been discontinued. D76 has the advantage that when it starts to go bad, it turns color. Xtol does not. I've always mixed Xtol with tap water and developed hundreds of rolls with it. With the current five liter kit, I think there is no danger. I toss it after 6 months, but others have used it up to a year when split into five one liter bottles. Having said that, I generally use Xtol with TMY or other new generation films and prefer the look of HC110 or Rodinal with old generation films. Slow films like APX-100 in the case of Rodinal. These comments are mainly specifc to 35mm -- with medium format, the choice of deveoper is much less of an issue.
Fotohuis
Well-known
You can use Fomadon Excel W27 instead of Xtol and it has almost exactly the same parameters and is sold in the 1 ltr. package, more to manage in 35mm and small developer tank systems. (250ml)
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
1. I've used several tens of gallons of the stuff over the last few years and have never seen "sudden death." I mix 5 L at a time and decant it into 500 ml bottles.
2. Higher contrast than XTOL? The sensitometry says no. However, XTOL does produce a bit more real film speed than D76, so you may need to develop for a bit less time to get equivalent contrast.
3. If XTOL produces flatter midtones versus D-76? I haven't seen it, and the sensitometry others have published does not support the idea.
2. Higher contrast than XTOL? The sensitometry says no. However, XTOL does produce a bit more real film speed than D76, so you may need to develop for a bit less time to get equivalent contrast.
3. If XTOL produces flatter midtones versus D-76? I haven't seen it, and the sensitometry others have published does not support the idea.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I cut my teeth on D-76 and now use XTOL exclusively. There are slight differences but the tonality is equivalent -- far closer than some would have you believe. XTOL gives finer grain and is more environmentally benign.
Newlyweds by Semilog, on Flickr
sweeping up by Semilog, on Flickr
Fotohuis
Well-known
Ascorbic Acid type developers like Xtol, ilfosol, Fomadon Excel, FX-50 have all a more limited life span. The biggest problem was in the past the Xtol 1 ltr. Packing which was not done well. But I think Kodak stopped already this packing 10 years ago.
Fotohuis
Well-known
Xtol is on the market (at least in Europe) since 1995, D-76 is from 1927 so not any info for environmental reasons on that time era at all.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Right. Like D-76, ID-11, etc., they are susceptible to oxidation. Thus, storage in a container with no air space or with inert gas in the bottle is a good idea for all of them -- which is why I make a batch and decant it into 500 mL bottles with tightly fitting caps.
GarageBoy
Well-known
Is dusting gas considered inert enough?
I really want to give XTOL a try, as I'd like to push some TMAX 400 in it, as well
My main film is probably gonna be TMAX400 once I burn through this Neopan 400/DD-X combo
(Unless I should give XTOL Neopan 400 a try as well)
I really want to give XTOL a try, as I'd like to push some TMAX 400 in it, as well
My main film is probably gonna be TMAX400 once I burn through this Neopan 400/DD-X combo
(Unless I should give XTOL Neopan 400 a try as well)
Freakscene
Obscure member
http://leica-users.org/v35/msg07982.html
Xtol can suddenly lose activity. You can mitigate by using good water, excluding air and using promptly. Most of the observed differences between d76 and Xtol result from d76 requiring a slight push to get good densities at box speeds for most films and most users not diluting Xtol enough. Sensitometry shows the curves are very similar.
Marty
Xtol can suddenly lose activity. You can mitigate by using good water, excluding air and using promptly. Most of the observed differences between d76 and Xtol result from d76 requiring a slight push to get good densities at box speeds for most films and most users not diluting Xtol enough. Sensitometry shows the curves are very similar.
Marty
Fotohuis
Well-known
Xtol is very sensitive for metal ions. Kodak added EDTA to catch this problem to a certain amount. So indeed good destilled water or R.O. water is important for the stock solution. Further you have more possibilities to prevent oxydation of every developer. You can resize the bottles, use Vacuvin (R), use Protectan (from Tetenal) a mixure of Argon and Butane gas or squeeze the PET bottles when using this type of high density and very low diffusion plastic bottles.
Because glas has zero diffusion I am using this for my stock Xtol in combination of Protectan. When the 2x 2,5 ltr. bottles are getting more empty I resize to a 1 ltr. glas bottle once, also with Protectan.
But as above indicated problem, you have more possibilities to prolong the lifespan of any developer.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Worth noting that at pH ~8, EDTA binds divalent metals very tightly, under typical conditions leaving free Fe2+ concentrations of around 10E-13 M so long as the iron ion is not in excess over the EDTA. You can do calculations for sample values here: http://www.stanford.edu/~cpatton/webmaxcS.htm
Typical values in tap water for iron and calcium are 0.001 M. Iron is a vastly more active redox catalyst, through the Fenton pathway, than calcium.
EDTA is often used at 0.02 to 0.05 M.
Metals in the water are likely to be a problem only if your tap water has unusually high metal salt concentrations. Still, distilled, deionized, or RO water won't hurt anything and use of "good" water should increase batch-to-batch consistency of your developer.
Perhaps Kodak should have added some citrate to the formula to provide additional metal buffering capacity?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I think that's exactly right.
traveler_101
American abroad
Despite what some of you are saying, there are still issues with XTOL in terms of its sensitivity to metal ions requiring distilled water. That may or may not be an issue for you; it was for me so I dropped it. I don't mind having my developer go bad, but I would like to see some evidence of the problem.
Robert's point about FOMA Excel coming in one litter packages is important, it makes using XTOL easier for smaller jobs.
And I will say that Semilog's shots came out nice in XTOL.
Freakscene
Obscure member
The EDTA in Xtol, however, seems to be added at a concentration to deal with the average divalent cation contamination in photo grade sodium sulfite, not to deal with those cations in water. Xtol also contains sodium hexametaphosphate and tetrasodium pyrophosphate which also sequester divalent cations.
Adelaide tap water kills Xtol quickly, but we do have unusually high metal concentrations.
Part of the difficulty, I think, is that oxidation is accelerated by the presence of particulates and other compounds in water. Organic compounds, including tannins, that are found in a lot of water supplies also create substantial effects on Xtol's activity.
The alkali in Xtol is a borate-boric acid buffer; adding citrate would change the pH too much. Using SHMP was clever to maintain the pH in the desired range. The very clever aspect of the buffer is that stock Xtol has a pH of ~8.2, but at 1+3 the pH is ~8.5. This helps boost activity at dilution. If you mix Xtol using the patent formula, the pH is 8.3-8.4 for the stock, because the buffer isn't fully described in the patent. You need to add boric acid to bring the pH down to ~8.2.
Leica 80/1.4. Fuji Neopan 400 in Xtol 1+3. Rachel.
Marty
GarageBoy
Well-known
That's a beautiful sample image- going to play around some XTOL, once I blow through my TMAX/DDX
Turtle
Veteran
Agreed on all points.
Xtol is genuinely excellent. I preferred it 1+1 and 1+2.
I never experienced sudden death in a good five years of use, even with stock that was nine months old. 3 month old partial bottles.... fine. I prob developed 500 rolls and found it supremely reliable.
D76 cycles in terms of activity due to ph changes, so perhaps less predictable than Xtol.
Xtol is genuinely excellent. I preferred it 1+1 and 1+2.
I never experienced sudden death in a good five years of use, even with stock that was nine months old. 3 month old partial bottles.... fine. I prob developed 500 rolls and found it supremely reliable.
D76 cycles in terms of activity due to ph changes, so perhaps less predictable than Xtol.