Xtol & Ilfosol

P

Perks

Established
Local time
8:13 AM
Joined
Jun 25, 2015
Messages
92
Can anyone comment on the comparison of these developers?

I note that Ilford considers them equivalents. However Ilford does not give times for pushing HP5 (my go-to) beyond 800.

I am very happy with xtol, but one can't help but wonder...

Cheers,
Andrew
 
I’ve used XTOL and Ilfosol 3 a far bit over the past 18months. I prefer Ilfosol for a few reasons. Firstly it’s a liquid and secondly I seem to get better grain , sharpness and contrast with it. I’ve pushed HP5 to 1600 (19mins 1:9, 20c) with good results.
 
I should add that with HP5 rated anywhere between 400-1600 on the whole Ilfosol 3 developed images had a bit more bite. Grain was remarkably well controlled even at 1600. I probably need to try a few more HP5 at 1600 to be sure I’m happy to use Ilfosol rather than DDX. I’m wanting to limit how many developers I have on the go at any one time. Ilfosol is rapidly becoming my first choice as it handles the films I use ( HP5, FP4, Delta 100 and P30) with ease.
 
Thanks ACullen.
That's all good news. I have been very happy with XTOL with hp5 at box speed very sharp and grain is fine. But feel it does lack something at 1600. Grain ia fine but ot so much the tones.
This is at 1:1.

I have just been wodering if the Ilford films would pair better with the Ilford developers
 
Perks said:
Can anyone comment on the comparison of these developers?

I note that Ilford considers them equivalents. However Ilford does not give times for pushing HP5 (my go-to) beyond 800.

I am very happy with xtol, but one can't help but wonder...

Cheers,
Andrew
Click to expand...


Hi Andrew -

I'm not sure if there is any value in adhering to the word of commerce and marketing.

X-Tol is a two part-powder developer, with push-processing (compensation) and ascorbic acid (vitamin C) shifts in tonal scale in the development curve. It can be used (recycled) for subsequent development.

Ilfosol is a convenient and expensive short half-life prepared liquid with limited push-processing capability. Its one shot developer properties render it very expensive to use for bulk processing. Its short half-life requires pumping an inert oxygen free gas into half-used bottles, or decanting into smaller bottles to exclude oxygen. It's a great developer for the photographer in a rush; for showing students how to start development.

The (now ancient) Ilford charts document the limitations of the fine grain rendition of Ilfosol:

http://www.interfoto.fi/ilfordphoto/pdf/kemiat/chemical_overview.pdf

If you scroll down to compare Ilfosol with its two part powder developer, Microphen, you will see that Microphen offers push development and higher image quality (fine grain). DDX and Perceptol, also offer higher image quality (measured by fine grain) due to their chemical properties. Perceptol is a poor choice for push processing (due to its speed loss from its metol content and fine grained bias towards slow film development). DDX is less sharp than Ilfosol and offers a viable alternative for you to push the HP5+ if you wish to avoid the powder developer types of Xtol or Microphen.

Where Ilfosol is valued, relates to its acutance (perceived sharpness) and quick one-shot usage. I've stopped using it mostly due to finding that I prefer to mix my own developers, or use Ilford Microphen for push-processing: you can push Ilford Delta 3200 to 12,800 speed this way and HP5+ will push comfortably to 1600.

Since you use Ilford HP5+, I'd recommend switching over to Ilford Microphen if you enjoy Ilford film: a 1 litre stock solution made up by dissolving Part A and Part B, keeps well as a stock for a year at least; it is used in dilution and can be topped up (add 10% fresh stock after developing a roll of film) for at least 5x 35mm rolls. In this respect, your economic basis supports Ilford and enables more HP5+.


Kind regards,
RJ
 
Thanks also RJ for that thoughtful response,

The data sheet suggests Hp5 can gain speed. Does that mean one has to shoot above 400 or correspondingly cut times?
Also, does it have any particular tonal characteristics

Also, if
 
I started life with Ilfosol 3/HP5 and then moved to XTOL. Mostly for the cost, but also the practicality (supply and storage mainly, I was burning through those expensive little bottles of Ilfosol.)

XTOL is good, very convenient but I did find, exactly like ACullen above, that I much preferred the results from the HP5+ and Ilfosol combo.

If there's an Ilfosol-3 equivalent that's cheaper/more convenient out there, would love to hear of it.
 
Would anyone like to comment on the tonality of these two?
For exampke, feel I noticed a shift upward in the midtones moving from D76 to xtol
 
Perks said:
Thanks also RJ for that thoughtful response,

The data sheet suggests Hp5 can gain speed. Does that mean one has to shoot above 400 or correspondingly cut times?
Also, does it have any particular tonal characteristics
Click to expand...

Hi Andrew,

Gaining speed - compensating or push processing - is a function of the developer and method of development and the latitude of the film emulsion. Perhaps our ideas of what constitutes a push rated film, lies more the film's capacity to tolerate less exposure at the imaging stage, as well as sub-optimal developer conditions termed "push processing".

Have a look at the data sheet here for Ilfosol & Microphen:

http://monochrome.me.uk/upload/HP5_Plus.pdf

You can see HP5+ is listed for pushing by Ilfosol up to ISO 1600.
In contrast, Microphen times are scheduled for up to ISO 3200 exposure, simply due to its chemical composition, it is superior for push-processing than Ilfosol, which can be used, due to the HP5+' forgiving latitude and tolerance for underexposure by up to two stops. This is true for colour negative film, as it is for black and white film, commercially processed. A commercial lab may not render development in a specific named compensating developer and instead, merely cook the film for more time in a stock developer like D76 or ID11 to push the development curve towards overcooked but tolerable (imagewise).

The times are given in the data sheet increase rather than cut development times for push processing. Study Page 7 & 8 for the contrast curves for Ilfosol & Microphen for HP5+: the contrast curve for Ilfosol is flatter in comparison at any given time (alongside standard ID11): this translates as a muddy low contrast appearance of the negative, the more the development time increases.

Microphen's push-development curve shows a higher contrast response as development times are "pushed". You can see how dramatic the upsweep of the development curve is. This data is predictable from the chemical structure of Microphen, just as Ilfosol's weakness in push-development is predictable.

The tonal characteristics are a product of the push-development curve: high(er) dynamic contrast range, without blocking up the highlights. The mid-tones are richer when the correct push-developer is selected for pushing the HP5+ greyscale beyond its box speed.

In your comparison between Xtol and D76, leading to a superior tonal range with Xtol, this again is predictable from the action of Metol on silver halide grain in development. Developers like Perceptol (metol containing) and I presume, Xtol (I do not use Kodak developer anymore and can't recall accurately sorry), dissolve the silve halide crystals to produce "fine grain". This metol dissolving action, leads to delicate modulation of tonal differences acros the densities of silver halide, leading to an exquisite smoothness of tone and transition across tones. The downside is the loss of acutance (or sharpness, and distinction of the silver crystals as separate, boundaried) and thus, the role of the photographer to work out his own preference for his own developer workflow and imaging aesthetic.

Kind regards,

RJ
 
Many thanks again,
I now have a greater understanding od theose characteristic curves.

I can see I am going to have try both ILFOSOL and Microphen.
 
Hi Andrew -

You're welcome!

If you're curious, there are other choices which you've not mentioned which are worth exploring.

Paterson FX39 has a remarkable combination of being a liquid high image quality high acutance and compensating developer all in one. I love this developer with Fuji Acros and Ilford FP4+ as well as Rollei IR400 Infrared film. The original red bottle (provenance - UK) was discontinued when Paterson UK closed their doors. It is now available under the Adox brand which I've not yet tried - I'm still on the red bottle FX39 - although it has been discontinued many years ago.

Kind regards
RJ
 
Ilfosol is a convenient and expensive short half-life prepared

The (now ancient) Ilford charts document the limitations of the fine grain rendition of Ilfosol:

http://www.interfoto.fi/ilfordphoto/pdf/kemiat/chemical_overview.pdf




Kind regards,
RJ[/QUOTE]

Thanks for this link although I note refers to Ilfosol S and not the current Ilfosol 3. I used the former a great deal in the 80s and can confirm your comments regarding short half life. It turned brown quickly where as Ilfosol 3 doesn’t. Results look similar to me perhaps with less grain in the newer preparation. I’m not clear how close they are chemically. The one I’m probably going to try next is LC29 to see how that fairs as an all rounder .
 
RJ- said:
Hi Andrew -

You're welcome!

If you're curious, there are other choices which you've not mentioned which are worth exploring.

Paterson FX39 has a remarkable combination of being a liquid high image quality high acutance and compensating developer all in one. I love this developer with Fuji Acros and Ilford FP4+ as well as Rollei IR400 Infrared film. The original red bottle (provenance - UK) was discontinued when Paterson UK closed their doors. It is now available under the Adox brand which I've not yet tried - I'm still on the red bottle FX39 - although it has been discontinued many years ago.

Kind regards
RJ
Click to expand...

Well, there you go, I had no idea you were here!
 
Hi,

That's right. Ilford tried to deal with the backlash of frustrated Ilfosol users who infrequently developed film.

Essentially, Ilfosol' composition relies on a ratio of phenidone: glycine within a pH buffered 7-10 medium. By altering the buffer, for example - by adding ascorbic acid, you can alter half-life ... but at the cost of tonal shift in range, base density. The shift from S to 3 is not a tonal range improvement: it did indeed tackle the student frustrations of expired developer and wastage.

LC29 was developed for economy based principles for the infrequent film developer as well as being packaged and sized in trendy white hipster style flasks :)

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/734/product_id/545/

Kind regards,

RJ
 
Freakscene said:
Well, there you go, I had no idea you were here!
Click to expand...


I took a sabbatical ... and got carried away for about 10 years.
What's your excuse? :)

When I came back, I realised all my posts were deleted and the ownership of rangefinderforum taken over.

RJ
 
RJ- said:
Hi Andrew -

You're welcome!

If you're curious, there are other choices which you've not mentioned which are worth exploring.

Paterson FX39 has a remarkable combination of being a liquid high image quality high acutance and compensating developer all in one. I love this developer with Fuji Acros and Ilford Fp4...

Kind regards
RJ
Click to expand...

That's very interesting and something i'll look into.
A local supplier has the Paterson brand version.

I am still using only Rodinal for FP4 and slower but have some Neofin blue I mean to try next.

Cheers,
Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom