Differences - Kodak D76 and Xtol Developers (Sharpness vs Grain)

Between the two developers, D76 and Xtol, which produces a sharper image, which produces finer grain.

 

I'm trying to decide how to develop Kodak Tri-X 400 ISO once I get my darkroom set up again.

 

Back in 1975, when I had a nice darkroom, I think I used Microdol-X. I know such things are subjective, but I seem to remember it was really sharp but grainy.

 

Nowadays, I hear a lot about D-76, Xtol, HC110, Rodinal, etc., but I haven't found any side by side comparisons of the first 2.

 

Thanks for your replies.

My experience with XTOL is somewhat limited, while I've used a lot of D76.

 

Comparing similarly exposed Tri-X, my OPINION is that XTOL is very, very slightly sharper and D76 gives somewhat finer grain. I'd put D76 1:1 and straight XTOL about equal on both fronts(with XTOL giving a tiny bit less contrast).

 

The difference with a film like Tri-X is so subtle, though, that I don't get too caught up on that difference.

Choosing a B&W Film Developer | La Vida Leica!

You can compare film/developer combinations here.

Thanks for the links! It looks like I'll start with Xtol instead of D76.

You can compare film/developer combinations here.

 

Great link.

You can compare film/developer combinations here.

A great link indeed.

And one that basically shows it doesn't matter a damn which commercial developer you use!

 

I think it illustrates very well that even if the H&D curves look practically identical, the tonality can be quite different, and vice versa. Basically, just use what developer is most convenient and economical for your usage, because you'll see next to no difference between them..... just stay away from Caffenol unless you like excessive contrast and grain.:eek:

A great link indeed.

And one that basically shows it doesn't matter a damn which commercial developer you use!

 

I think it illustrates very well that even if the H&D curves look practically identical, the tonality can be quite different, and vice versa. Basically, just use what developer is most convenient and economical for your usage, because you'll see next to no difference between them..... just stay away from Caffenol unless you like excessive contrast and grain.:eek:

 

You may want to look at the link again...there is a huge difference between developers for grain, contrast, highlight and shadow rentention. Not sure what link you just viewed...but the link he shared showed a large difference between them and that it does indeed matter which developer you ise.

.there is a huge difference between developers for grain, contrast, highlight and shadow rentention.

 

- Where are you looking? The chosen film certainly makes a big and very noticeable difference, but not the developer. Not in that tiny blown up section of a toy bird anyway. There's nothing there that couldn't be influenced by a slight exposure or development time change, and the grain size varies barely noticeably, apart from, as previously remarked, in the case of Caffenol. But I think we can dismiss the Caffenol result, since its more of a sloppy recipe than a chemical formula.

 

The obviously posterised shadow regions also make me suspect that a good deal of tonality has been lost/altered in digital scanning for the web.

Edited February 4, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

Of course Rodeo...no differences at all. Get your eyes checked.

I notice you've only compared the Atomal with the gritty Caffenol (which I specifically excluded) or the nearly-as-gritty Rodinal/Adonal. This is the chemical equivalent of pixel-peeping, which does nothing to improve anyone's picture-making skills.

 

The granularity of the developers actually asked about - D-76 and Xtol - is so similar that they're practically indistinguishable, and the same goes for HC-110 and Tmax.

 

What we can't see from that tiny cropped comparison is the effect on film speed and overall tonality. The scanned crops simply don't reflect the difference in the H&D curves, and in fact in some cases contradict the loss of speed shown in the curves.

 

Yes, Atomal gives finer grain, but at what cost? If it halves the effective film speed, then nothing is gained over using a slower film and a 'normal' developer.

 

There is no Holy Grail of film+developer combination; and the sooner someone realises that, the sooner they can get down to the real heart of photography - improving their eye for a picture.

 

And equally, you might want to get your critical thinking skills checked David.

I notice you've only compared the Atomal with the gritty Caffenol (which I specifically excluded) or the nearly-as-gritty Rodinal/Adonal. This is the chemical equivalent of pixel-peeping, which does nothing to improve anyone's picture-making skills.

 

The granularity of the developers actually asked about - D-76 and Xtol - is so similar that they're practically indistinguishable, and the same goes for HC-110 and Tmax.

 

What we can't see from that tiny cropped comparison is the effect on film speed and overall tonality. The scanned crops simply don't reflect the difference in the H&D curves, and in fact in some cases contradict the loss of speed shown in the curves.

 

Yes, Atomal gives finer grain, but at what cost? If it halves the effective film speed, then nothing is gained over using a slower film and a 'normal' developer.

 

There is no Holy Grail of film+developer combination; and the sooner someone realises that, the sooner they can get down to the real heart of photography - improving their eye for a picture.

 

And equally, you might want to get your critical thinking skills checked David.

 

Nope...you are wrong. I compared a number of developers in the screenshots...not just caffenol. I included Caffenol, Atomal, FX39 and Adonal. The same differences exist when using TMax, D76 and others....as is plainly evident for all to see. This confirms there is a difference between them and that you were mistaken claiming otherwise. I'm not the one with critical thinking issues...and the samples prove that. If there are any issues I can find...there are two...one...your eyesight is poor...and second...you don't seem to like it when someone points out you are wrong.

Between the two developers, D76 and Xtol, which produces a sharper image, which produces finer grain.

...

Thanks for your replies.

 

Used a little D-76 and Xtol with HP5+ (which is like tri-x in many regards): xtol stock burns highlights, only xtol 1+1 for me. xtol 1+1 pretty much the same grain as D76 stock. Imho the difference in tonality is more noticeable then in grain sharpness.

Used a little D-76 and Xtol with HP5+ (which is like tri-x in many regards): xtol stock burns highlights, only xtol 1+1 for me. xtol 1+1 pretty much the same grain as D76 stock. Imho the difference in tonality is more noticeable then in grain sharpness.

 

Agreed. To me the tonality is the most important. I like large grain for some of my work but with specific contrast and tonality.

Why are these the only two developers under consideration? What is the goal for the images in question? What size prints will be made?

These tests are only valid if you develop the films to exactly the same gamma. Then the exposure has to be in the same place on the curves. The closer the test is controlled, the less variation you'll see between different developers. What [uSER=2403817]@rodeo_joe|1[/uSER] says is quite true and holds up even at a low level when you compare various developing agents used on formulating developers. It's not that the difference is zero, but there are way more important things to think about in making an image. Now, don't get me wrong. I love formulating and testing oddball developers, but the choice of developer alone has never had a make-or-break effect on my images.