XTOL Dilution Rationale Question

<p>I apologize for the dumb question, but I'm just learning about B&W development and I have a few questions about XTOL...<br>

Specifically, could someone help me understand the rationale behind which dilution ratio to choose? ie: stock, 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, etc.<br>

I just purchased some XTOL from the local pro shop and I have a few rolls to develop so, I'd like to make an informed decision on which dilution to choose. The film I will be developing is as follows: Fuji Across - 135, Delta 100 - 135, Tmax 400 - 120.<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Michael, do you know about the Massive Development Chart at DigitalTruth.com? It has the development times for a lot of films in a lot of developers. The dilution has slightly different effects on the film, but ratios like 1:3 give you more economy, but take longer to develop the film (times are longer). I don't know if that explains anything about rationale's...</p>

<p>According to Anchell and Troop, XTOL is a solvent developer. What that means is that when used at stock or low dilution, the grains are disolved resulting in finer grain and at higher dilutions the solvent effect is reduced and edge effects (sharpness increasing effects due to developer depletion) appear. So the first thing I'd recommend doing, is take two rolls of exactly the same images and develop one in XTOL stock and the other in XTOL 1:3.</p>

<p>One thought that has crossed my mind recently is that in the digital age, increasing sharpness during development may be a lot less interesting than it was in the projection printing age, since scans can easily be sharpened after the fact. So I'd think (and I realize that thinking is often a bad idea), that the solvent effect would improve retention of fine detail.</p>

<p>FWIW, when I was in high school, I shot a lot of Plus-X developed in Microdol X 1:3 and was very happy with it. Those negatives disappeared, and recently I shot a couple of rolls of Plus-X and TMX100 (in my Mamiya 7) and had them developed at a _serious_ pro lab. The TMX100 negatives were a joy to work with (scan), but the Plus-X ones were yucky. Fortunately, my high-school negatives reappeared, and they are as nice as I remembered them*. So it seems that it's still necessary to do one's own developing.</p>

<p>*: Really lousy photos, but it's fun playing with images from the 70s. Here's my cat, nuked by the monster flash I had (this is a crop from about 1.4x1.4 inches from a 120 neg, click original to see a much larger version.)<br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/116458416/large">http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/116458416/large</a></p>

 

<p>Also with more dilution with developers that are supposed fine grain the more you dilute it the less fine grain it becomes but the sharper the image becomes. this is because you reduce the amount of grain edge dissolving agent. A.K.A know as the difference between using D-76 straight and 1-1. Then again other developers the more you dilute them and the longer you go allow you more tonal range by reducing contrast across the whole negative by allowing the high contrast areas to develop slower as the low contrast areas stay up along with them. this is how you can use Rodinal at 1-300 for an hor or 2 to develop Microfilm or Litho film to gray tones.</p>

<p>Depending on your format and enlargement size the only rationale for diluting from stock might simply be the consistency of one shot processing (no replenishment or time extensions as more rolls are developed). In other words, if you often enlarge 35mm to 5X7 (as I do) you may be hard pressed to see any difference.</p>

<p>I am a long time XTOL user and I speak from a lot of experience with the developer. Yes, there are some quantifiable differences in image quality when the developer is used at different dilutions, but they are subtle and not something you're likely to notice unless you make a controlled comparison test. </p>

<p>If you use the developer as straight stock solution, it can be reused and replenished. I've read reports from other users of the developer that this is really the way to go, but it doesn't work for me. Keeping track of the amount of use and maintaining a strict replenishment schedule isn't complicated, but it is a bit more trouble than I care to undertake. Instead, I use the developer 1+1 for almost everything. This way, I realize some economy and I'm assured of a consistent result. Using higher dilutions doesn't really save anything since you need a certain amount of stock solution for each roll developed regardless of dilution. Kodak says at least 100 ml. I think it's closer to 150 ml. if you want to play it safe. If there is a grain penalty to be paid for this practice, I haven't seen it. Sharpness is good, and the tonal range can be controlled by altering development time and agitation techniques.</p>

<p>Most films from the major, and even some minor, manufacturers will list development times for the developer both straight and diluted. I strongly recommend that you start there if you have the data. These numbers will almost undoubtedly be derived from the manufacturer's tests, and will almost certainly be more reliable than any anecdotal reports you're likely to read on this or any other public forum. If there are no times for the developer at 1+1 listed, a good starting point is to take the stock solution times and multiply it by 1.4. If there is no data at all for the film you want to use, then take the development times for D-76 as your starting point. Make your adjustments from there.</p>