xtol, is it worth it?

I am about to do some film testing to tune things up for the spring "campaign" and I am considering testing Xtol. My current primary film is TMX in 4x5 processed in HC110. I use a Jobo Atl 1000. I am very happy with what I am getting, and the quick route would be to work out some times for TMX 120 and just go out and shoot, but the idea that something better might be out there sometimes eats at me and I wonder.

Should I try Xtol? I have followed the threads on Xtol and I am at once encouraged and repulsed. This is like bringing another player into training camp just to push a veteran, but I don't want to waste time either. Any advice?

You will probably get more no's than yes's...but it sounds like Xtol

is always going to be bouncing around in your brain till you try it.

You only live once....try it amd see.

Ansel Adams mentioned in The Negative, something along the lines of,

perhaps the differences in developers is not as significant as we

sometimes make it seem.

<p>

Anchell in Troop said, of 2-bath or divided developers, these are

ideal for people who want quality negatives but don't want to obsess

about developers.

<p>

If you have a process you are happy with, stick with it.

<p>

If you want to play around just for the fun of it, try Xtol. It's

cheap, and you can see for yourself. Just test it out before you use

it on important work.

<p>

Me, I tried it, but decided to stick to 2-bath for now. It solves a

problem I am prone to: over developing and over agitating.

Xtol is a very nice developer, IF you can live with the idea that one

of these days you will pull your negatives from the developer to find

them with no image on them. It may not happen soon, but with so many

having had 'the dreaded Xtol failure', your chances of it happening

one day are pretty good.

If that isn't a worry, go ahead & use it.

... one of these days you will pull your negatives from the developer

to find them with no image on them... If that isn't a worry...

If that isn't a worry!!? what am i taking pictures for? I think I

already have plenty of options for failure without adding another one.

Is that dreaded failure for real? and what is the cause? Thanks for

the input, you are really helping me make up my mind. I need a system

that I can count on. Maybe I'll test one of the oldest developers

(rodinal) instead of one of the newest.

As one poster responded in another thread, whats wrong with putting

the film leader in a beaker and trying the developer out?

<p>

I have decided to head down the XTOL path; (I currently have an xtol

question up in Photonet to discover more about it before proceeding)

From reading everything I can find, it seems the trouble is worth it.

Low toxicity, excellent imaging capabilities, long shelf life. I

recieved a response over in the film and

developing forum to another post, and the guy said he uses it as 75F

and never had a problem. Go Figure. The one thing I'm trying to find

out is the sensitivity to agitation and the apparent need for more

than 100ml of undiluted developer, although some use a litle over a

100ml with a increase in developing time. With the responses I've read

to how

good it is with Tmax films, what would it hurt to try it with some

back yard shots?

I used Xtol off an on for a while at various dilutions, often at 75F but sometimes lower, with never a single problem. The only reason I stopped using it is that imho other developers work better with the films I use.

<p>

I always mixed it with distilled water, decanted it into measured amounts into smaller containers for dump-it-in dilution, and stored those in a refrigerator.

<p>

All that aside...I presume you shoot two sheets of each shot? If not, perhaps you should just to avoid that giant hair that always shows up on the most important neg. And if you do that, if you encounter the "dreaded Xtol failure" you'll have a second neg to develop in something else.

Erik,

<p>

I use xtol when I don't feel like dealing with PMK. I have run into

the "dreaded Xtol failure" on a couple occasions: when I accidently

used a package that had been caked, when the stock was too old, and

when using a too dilute solution. Kodak has changed their

recommondations on dilution and I suspect that overdilution led to a

lot of the complaints especially with T grain films. All my problems

were with TMY and APX 100. Use it 1+3 on FP4 and its fantastic, use

it 1+3 on TMY and its a dog. Someone above stated that it was

sensitive to agitation. I couldn't agree more. Sometimes I forget

that I can't agitate it like PMK and I get something that would work

better as a shingle than a negative. If you're looking for something

different to try Rodinal and TMAX is pretty sweet.

<p>

It would be interesting to find literature from the 30's when several

new developers were issued and see how well they were received. I

also wonder if Ansel would have used HC110 if he didn't get it free

from Kodak.

<p>

Happy experimenting

I don't shoot two sheets of film on each subject most of the time so

holding one back 'just in case my developer dies' isn't an option.

Even if it is, working with a product that can fail at any time

without warning is a lot like having a prostitute for a

girlfriend...one day you will have a very unpleasant surprise.

Too many have had 'the dreaded Xtol failure' for it to be ignored.

many are careful workers with good darkroom habits. It 'just

happens'... no warning and no reason. It is not with old developer,

at least not in my darkroom. I process enough film that a gallon of

developer is never on the shelf for more than two weeks at the most.

If I come back from a trip, I dump the old and mix new & then process

the next day. I have never met anyone who has had the same experience

with Rodinol, HC110, D76 or other developers commonly in use.

Steve Anchell in his 'cookbooks' recommends 250mm or more stock for

each 8x10 film unit each time you use it.

If you want to try Xtol... fine. It is a very nice developer. In head

to head testing using 8x10 Delta 400 and FP4plus, Xtol gave a bit

more shadow detail than ID11 or Rodinol, using all three at stock,

1:1 and 1:3. But no matter how good it looks, I can't use a product

that may give clear negatives with absolutely NO warning.

<p>

My theory, and I emphasize that it is only a personal theory, is that

some of the ingredients present in very small quantities are not

mixed in completely and are missing or in very low percentage in some

of the one and five litre packages. (I have used mainly the 5 litre

packages).

<p>

This, coupled with Xtols' sensitivity to iron, calcium, hard water

and chorine make it a poor choice when using the more dilute

concentrations, even when sufficient stock is used for the negatives

being developed. As for those who have never had Xtol failure. I have

never been bitten by a rattlesnake... but that doesn't mean it does

not happen.

I just don't understand all the fears and apprehension about Xtol. I

have used it exclusively for over three years and processed in excess

of 1000 rolls with it. I have only had one failure and it was my

fault. I have had to take several 1 liter packages back to the

dealer. I just can't imagine using anything else with 35mm. It is

magic with Ilford Delta films. I mix the stock solution with

distilled water, dilute with distilled water and use distilled water

for the stop bath. Practice using distilled water, mainain at least

100ml of stock solution for each roll of film developed and discard

after use and you will be shocked at the quality negatives that you

get. There is no risk here.

<p>I am intrigued by the lure of Xtol. Over the past week I have

helped my son with a school project in "product evaluation". With a

little nudge on my part I talked my son into evaluating negative

developers. So we bought the smallest sizes of Rodinal, Ilford

Ilfosol S, Ilford Perceptol, and Kodak Xtol. We then went on a

Saturday shoot and made four duplicate negatives of two different

scenes. We followed up by developing each pair of negatives, which

were HP5 Plus (by strictly following the manufactures directions) in

a different developer. I use a Unicolor 8x10 drum to do this. <p>

<p> The results are quite dramatic. Rodinal (my previous favorite)

easily surpassed Ilfosol S and Perceptol in both shadow density and

ease of printing. Much to my surprise though is that Xtol was even

substantially better that Rodinal for shadow detail and also printed

out quite easily to about a Grade 2 ½ paper. <p>

<p>I now feel like I did years ago with my first girlfriend. I really

want to go down to the rink and play hockey with the guys (Rodinal)

but am now being constantly lured to the movies by my new girlfriend

(Xtol).<p>

<p> Would it be possible to set up a survey and find out how many

people have had the Xtol failure versus those who have not ? Also

perhaps somebody might actually know of what causes the failure and

help us to avoid the problem<p>

<br>Tempted but cautious !<br>

<br>

GreyWolf

I did four 8x10 Tri-x with XTOL in the JOBO today (at 68 degrees),

then a 35mm roll of HP4+ by hand with the same stuff; Got the usual

beatiful results as I have for over three years of using exclusively

XTOL. Use good water (my city water seems to agree with it), make

sure it is mixed thoroughly and completely dissolved before use. The

negs should be dry by now, think I'll go print.

Xtol seems to be quite a topic for conversation. I have a basic

question: When it works as it's supposed to, what is the advantage

of it over tried and true products? I have been happy with TRIX and

HC110 for 20 years. What does Xtol deliver when all goes according

to plan? Finer grain? Smoother gradation? Enhanced film speed?

Something else? Some people seem very enthusiastic about it, I was

just wondering why before I get more curious about it and possibly

try it.

Reported benefits: higher film speed (1/2 to 2/3 stop) and slightly

finer grain; lower toxcicity, less environmental impact.

I'd like to thank everyone for their input, it's great to have such a

resource out there to draw upon. Also I'd like to report that I spent

the weekend answering my own question by running some tests. I tested

TMX (120 format) in HC 110 (1:50), xtol (1:1), and rodinal (1:75). I

made some prints and I found some interesting things. The xtol does

give more film speed, looks to be about a 1/2 stop. Xtol does give a

finer grained image, a good bit better than the other two. It also

gives better shadow and midtone seperation, very nice looking I think.

Much better than HC 110. Rodinal does seem to have the edge on

highlight seperation. The Rodinal images show the most grain, however,

but not really so much more than HC 110. I also noticed the brown

color of the silver image on the Xtol negs that was reported in

previous threads. I doubt that has any effect on printing. Reminds me

of lith film developed in Dektol, sort of warm in color. Over all I

found that xtol and rodinal make excellent negs that can produce very

handsome prints. I am less happy about the negs produced in my old

standby HC 110. It is interesting how much you can learn by

comparing images of the same subject produced in different ways.

So, so far, yes it is worth it. I will take the warnings to heart and

procede with caution.

thanks again for all of your reponses!

Interesting. No one who compared a bunch of developers used the

universal standard: D-76 1:1. Hmmm.....

Hasn't anyone had a "failure" with another type of developer?

<p>

BTW, I use XTOL at 25C. Mainly because liquids left standing out in

my apartment tend to be around 23C so my Jobo can maintain 25C without

the the temp running away. Had been using 1:1, but development times

are going to get short for contracted development, so have begun

characterizing 1:2 (just about the time someone pointed out that Kodak

removed 1:2 from their literature!). We'll see what happens.

I have had 3 Xtol failures over about 3 years - possibly all of them

in the last year and a half. I liked Xtol. I don't like playing

Russian Roulette with my film. I have gone back to an old standby,

Ilford ID-11 @ 1:1. The results have been excellent. Are they better

than Xtol? I can't say for sure. Am I happy with them? You bet, and

I'm not worried about a failure. Agitation is not such an issue as it

is with Xtol either. To those who've never had a problem with Xtol -

great. But there seems to be enough of us who have that I just can't

accept that there's nothing to it.

I too experienced the XTol failure (1 litre package,was caked, but I

didn't knew about the consequeces of that at the time). I find myself

using the "ancient" stuff more and more, not only developers

(Rodinal, D76), but films too (Plus-X,FP4,HP5,Tri-X). When you're

shooting LF, you can enjoy the wonderful tonality and processing

tolerance these products offer,without noticing the larger grain.