Xtol Stand Development with Tri-X 320

[sheldonnalos]

I'd like to try stand development with X-tol and Tri-X 320 on my 4x5 negs. I've

been developing at 1+1 dilution in developing tubes that I rotate for

continuous agitation. I'm having a hard time keeping the contrast in check -

highlights come up fast with the continuous rotary agitation.

 

I'm thinking that stand development in dilute Xtol (1+2 or 1+3) will help this

out with a bit of a compensating effect. It would also have the benefit of not

having to sit by the sink constantly rotating the tubes by hand. ;-)

 

Am I on the right track by going to stand development, or should I focus more

on adjusting contrast through reduced development time? Also, any suggestions

on a starting development time for Tri-X 320 exposed at the rated ISO?

 

Thanks!

[lex_jenkins]

The compensating effect ranks among the more debatable aspects of b&w darkroom work. Some say they've tested for the effect and found no evidence of it. Others say they're seeing a difference that shows in print, whether or not it can be measured.

 

Either way, I doubt that you'd see any difference diluting Xtol to only 1+2 or 1+3 or that stand development would be particularly effective at those dilutions.

 

If you're interested in stand development I'd suggest Rodinal if you can find any (a similar developer is available from other sources, including JandC Photo). Many of us have gotten good results with highly dilute Rodinal, 1+200 or 1+300 (sometimes expressed as 1:200 and 1:300, which technically is a different dilution but hardly matters in such dilute solutions). I usually use the 1+200 dilution for two hours, no agitation after an initial 30-60 second agitation. I've also tried Ilfosol-S for stand development but fog and grain increased significantly compared with Rodinal.

 

If you prefer to use Xtol I'd suggest sticking with conventional times and agitation techniques.

[mikeseb]

I'd agree with most of what Lex told you; I've used Xtol with a variety of emulsions and

dilutions and although the grain and perceived sharpness both increase with dilution, I

can't swear that I've noted a compensating effect. And there's a limit to the

underdevelopment you can get away with without harming midtones as well.

 

Another couple of suggestions: stand development with a pyro developer might be of

some use to control contrast--lots of threads here and on APUG.org on pyrogallol and

pyrocatechol developers.

 

Another method which I've used is divided development, using D76 or its variants. Lots of

info out there on this subject also. I've noticed a definite improvement in contrast control

with divided D-76. It's simple and cheap to mix--which in fact you can say about all

homebrewed developers.

 

In "divided" development, the developing agents--metol, hydroquinone, etc--go in the

first bath but without the alkali necessary to activate development, which goes into the

second bath. The film is soaked in bath 1 and the emulsion takes up the developing

agents, then goes into bath 2 where development actually begins using only the agents

absorbed in bath 1.

 

The highlight areas, dense with exposed silver in the negative, develop most quickly so

that the developing agent there exhausts itself before it does so in less densely exposed

midtone and shadow areas. Result is that highlight areas are naturally "restrained". I've

found that for very contrasty scenes this is my method of choice when I want to preserve

highlight detail.

 

Simple and easy. Time and temperature, within broad ranges, is not critical with this

method for obvious reasons. Works in tanks, manual drums, or (my way) in a Jobo.

 

A book which belongs in every B&W darkroom is "The Film Development Cookbook" by

Anchell and Troop. It explains this, and other aspects of B&W development, beautifully.

[pete_andrews10]

Development time will control contrast, regardless of what agitation method is used. You simply need to adjust the development time, or the temperature, to compensate for using continuous agitation. Although, IME the effect of continuous agitation is not the big deal that most people seem to make of it.

 

I regularly use a Jobo rotary processor for sheet film, and various SS tanks with inversion agitation for roll and 35mm film, and find the results from both methods are almost identical.

 

Stand development is only really necessary for exceptionally contrasty subjects, or where you want to emphasise the "edge effect" to increase sharpness. Besides, stand development always carries a risk of uneven development or streamer marks.

 

IMHO the most reliable method of controlling extreme contrast is to use a two-bath developer, or a standard developer alternated with a standing water bath. In either case, getting the timings of the baths right is a tricky business, needing a fair amount of trial and error.

 

If I were you Sheldon, I'd just persevere with standard development, and cut back on the time or temperature. Alternatively, try a developer that doesn't give such a long straight-line portion to the H&D curve, like D-76 for instance.

 

BTW, you are using a pre soak before the rotary development, aren't you Sheldon? Also,check that your hand isn't warming up the developer during the rolling process. I suggest you pour the developer into a measuring cylinder at the end of development, instead of throwing it away, so you can check if the temperature has risen during processing. Just one degree Celsius rise in temperature has about the same effect as increasing the development time by 10%!

[sheldonnalos]

Thanks guys, I guess I'll perservere with standard development and carefully watching time/temp to control contrast.

[jay_de_fehr]

Hi Sheldon.

 

Pete's advice is very good, and I would only add that there is an effective range of agitation frequencies between constant and stand development, the latter of which is very risky unless using one of a very few developers suitable to that purpose. Contrast is easily controlled by the usual development variables, but characteristic curve shapes are far less flexible, and TXP's upswept curve can be a challenge to manage. Using a pyro developer and printing on VC paper can provide the compensating effect you seem to want, and one like 510-Pyro can be used for reduced agitation development for enhanced local contrast and apparent sharpness; a killer combo. Good luck.

 

Jay