D76 vs. Xtol for Tri-X

[custom film holders for fl]

When I started developing my own film years ago, I used the D76 and

Tri-X combo. Later, I moved on to the Tmax and Delta films with

Xtol. I am now thinking about going back to Tri-X film for some

lower light people type photography. Which of these developers would

best with this film? I love Xtol with the T-grained emulsions but

have no idea if there is an advantage or disadvantage when using it

with Tri-X. It would be nice if I could stick with one developer,

Xtol, since I have lots of it already but I am willing to change if

there is a good reason. If anyone has experience comparing the two,

I would appreciate knowing your impressions.

 

Thanks in advance.

[mike dixon]

I don't have experience with TriX and Xtol, but I do have experience with PanF+ and HP5+ (as well as Delta films) in Xtol and D76. The negs developed in Xtol have slightly finer grain and much nicer tonality than the ones developed in D76. [Xtol was diluted 1:2; D76 was diluted 1:1.]

[jimvanson]

Doug...I prefer the look of D76 & TriX (although I'm sure your aware there are so many things that can influence that look). Having said that I use XTOL (1+3) and TriX because of storage, film speed, economy and at least a dozen other reasons. Bottom line? One great film, two great developers.

[classcamera]

As stated elsewhere in this forum,

 

<P>

Give shooting Tri-X at 200 and developing it for 12 minutes in PMK a try.

I also like Micordol 1/3 for Tri-X, but usually I will shoot at 100 and pull it for 25-30%. <P>

PMK give similar grain to D-76, but with much better highlights and shadow detail. Microdol gives very fine grain, but has somewhat less cntrast than D-76. I really think that just about any developer will give good results, if you adapt your process around it.

[lex_jenkins]

I have a ton of experience with Tri-X pan in various developers, mostly HC-110 and D-76/ID-11, more recently with Rodinal, Xtol and Diafine.

 

First, it's hard to mess up Tri-X. Just as Kodachrome loves every skin tone on earth, Tri-X just doesn't seem to dislike any developer. It does get along a little better with some developers but not to the extent that it would deliberately hurt the feelings of its cousins. (Yikes, I've known people to anthropomorphize cameras but now I'm doing it to films and developers - somebody take me out and shoot me...)

 

D-76/ID-11 (I respect Mark Hansen's opinions regarding differences between this two but I just haven't *seen* the differences in my work) deliver full tonality and fine grain at some cost to apparent sharpness when used straight. At 1:1 there seems to be a negligible reduction in fine gradation but an increase in apparent sharpness due to slightly increased grain and acutance. I like the results I get from either 1:0 or 1:1 with Tri-X rated slightly below EI 400 and processed for slightly less than the recommended time, assuming normal to high contrast circumstances.

 

Some community labs and newspaper labs I worked in required using D-76 straight, recycling and replenishing it for economy. For that reason, and the inevitable unpredicatable results, I began using my own HC-110 in one-shot fashion. Far more predictable and much snappier contrast. Better sharpness due to increased bit acceptable grain and enhanced acutance. That, unfortunately, was *not* a good thing for newspaper work since large expanses of black make for smudgy reading. But my prints looked better than those of my cohorts.

 

Back to Xtol...

 

I have very limited experience with this developer and that only very suspect. I got one of those 1-liter packets that turned out to be defective (one of the parts, A, I think, was gummy). In any dilution other than 1:0 the negatives were nearly blank. At 1:0 the negs were quite thin but still printable.

 

In fact the best set of Tri-X negs I got from this admittedly bad batch of Xtol required maximum magenta filtration from my Durst dichro head (130M) to print well, but the tonality and contrast were excellent. Surprisingly, apparent grain in print did not increase to an unacceptable level, which is the usual consequence of cranking up the magenta filtration. That speaks very well for Xtol as a fine grain developer. And the fact that the negs printed just as I envisioned the original scene (exposed at EI 400), despite being thin, speaks very well for Xtol as a full speed developer. For that reason I plan to try it again in a fresh package.

 

However, I can't see myself switching to Xtol as my primary developer for Tri-X anytime soon. For one thing it's up against some tough competitors that have proven themselves to me over 30+ years. To make matters worse for Xtol's prospects I'm currently infatuated with Diafine for Tri-X, at least as a speed developer for when I need to shoot at EI 1200-1600. So Xtol would be relegated to a background role as an experimental developer and it would have to prove its worth to me consistently for about a year.

 

I've attached a sample from that roll of Tri-X in Xtol mentioned above. While it may appear unremarkable consider, again, that the negs were so thin they required full magenta filtration, equivalent to Grade 5, to print well. They also scanned very well. And what you see in the photo is exactly what I saw under the available light when I took the shot.<div></div>

[25asa]

I wish I could give plenty of info on this, but I haven't done a current comparison. In my school days Ive developed Tri X (a few rolls since we mainly used Tmax or Ilford) in D-76 on 35mm. Lately I had a 120 roll of the old Tri-X developed in Xtol at a comercial lab. The results were very good. Good rich negs with lots of contrast and fine grain. My old 35mm negs in D76 also were rich in contrast as well, so to me the two developers seem failry close. I haven't done home developing for years, so I havent had access to D76 lately.

 

To me I think the comparison needs a proper test, but from what Ive seen the 2 developers are closely the same in results.

 

I have attached 3 photos Ive shot on 6x7 with old Tri-X developed in Xtol. You can make a opinion yourself on these.<div></div>

[25asa]

Heres the second photo. I love this old shop. Has many old momentos from the past there. Perfect for picture opportunities.

[25asa]

Third Photo. Slightly overcast day.

[25asa]

Closeup of first pix. Sorry my scanner isn't a film scanner so the resolution doesn't go right down the the grain level. Its too fuzzy. But you may see some grain in this shot.

[mark_sampson]

With Tri-X Pan- XTOL diluted 1:1 or 1:2 gives better results than D-76 1:1. Higher sharpness, longer scale, grain less apparent. The differences are not enormous but are visible. The improvements were enougfh to make me change over- and I dislike making process changes. FWIW, I get EI 250 out of XTOL 1:2, EI 200 for D-76 1:1.

[PaulWhiting]

Hello all,

 

Jumping in this good thread a little late, but here's my 2 cents: I use D-76 1:3 (yup, 3!) for 13' at 68 deg and Tri-X at around 200. Read about this a long time ago, was called the "English dilution" for some reason. Works well for me, very smooth in 35 mm, folks can't believe it's Tri-X. Now using it in 120 with good results also.

 

FWIW,

 

Paul