4x5 tri-x, xtol, jobo experience???

[bruce watson]

I think I'm going to fold my HC110 tent, finally.

 

I've searched the archives and the 'net, and found little direct

comment on the combination of 4x5 tri-x, Xtol (any dilution), and Jobo

processing using an Expert 3010 drum.

 

I'd like to hear what those in the group with experience with this

combination have to say about processing difficulty, what dilutions

they use and why, what kinds of film speed (EI) they have and normal

development times, and how their negatives compare to "the way they

used to do it" - is using Xtol with Jobo giving you sharper negatives?

Better tone? Better control? In other words, why are you doing this as

opposed to something else?

[scott_jones2]

I use tri-x, xtol 1:1 68°, Jobo CPP-2 and the expert 3010 drum exclusively. I used to use HC-110. This developer has been the only one I have found that will let me develop 10 full 4x5 sheets with dilute developers within the published capacity figures by Kodak without using time compensation. That is, 1 liter of Xtol 1:1 will have enough capacity to do the job without extending times. 1 liter is the maximum amount of fluid recommended by JOBO so as to not overtax the motor. 1 liter of other devlopers never had enough capacity for ten sheets for me without significantly extended times. This was the first "plus" for me.

 

Secondly, the 1:1 dilution of Xtol is great in that it is known to increase film speed and indeed for me it brought my EI up from 160 to 320 after careful film speed testing in the classic way. I was delighted.

 

Thirdly, after much research I am convinced that this developer is much friendlier to the environment so that the waste I pour down the drain has less impact on the Earth, which pleased me greatly as well.

 

In all, I have no complaints at all, and am very pleased. The old 1 liter bag problem of Xtol spoilage has been solved completely so all the old threads about xtol failure no longer apply since that packaging style has been discontinued. As far as sharpness, tone and control are concerned, I see no problems. So in summary, I do it because of increased film speed, appropriate capacity for a full 10 sheets in this drum limited to liter of fluid, and less ecological impact. I can't imagine that you will have any problems...

 

Http://www.ScottJonesPhoto.com

[__jon__]

Hi Scott,

 

Have you tried any of the Xtol-like chemicals, such as Paterson's FX-50 or Mytol? I'd like to have a liquid as I like to do one shot with the developer. I'm using HC110, but it is a bit hot.

 

Nice website--good design and a personal philosophy in it; the TV series is great.

 

Thanks

[scott_jones2]

Hey, thanks so much! I had a lot of fun making the web site. As for the other developers I have not tried them. I too originally wanted to have everything as liquids, but after trying the Xtol and mixing it from powder, I didn't find that it was really any hassle and was careful about not inhaling any dust. A surgical mask helps. I then store the liquid in a series of 16oz amber bottles with Polyseal caps and that seems to keep everything nice and fresh and easily storable. Don't have a big half-full bottle sitting around oxidizing.

 

By the way for anyone interested, I have found the greatest company for glass bottles of all kinds with VERY low prices and most importantly no minimum order (which is rare in the bottle business) The prices are MUCH better than any photo retailer and their service has been really good. I have no connection with them. Their web site is: http://www.specialtybottle.com/

 

I provide this because so many people on this site have helped me find great resources out there that I NEVER would have heard about otherwise...

 

By the way, if you do order bottles be sure to ask for "polyseal caps". These are the most airtight and cost a few pennies extra.

[sal_santamaura]

Scott, it would be interesting to hear what processing times you end up with when "new" Tri-x comes into your Jobo/Xtol system. Though everything one reads on line says no Tri-x sheets have been produced in the new facility yet, Howard Bond's reciprocity article in the July/August issue of Photo Techniques claims that all the Kodak films he tested (including Tri-x) "...were made in their new facilities." Howard has presented very useful data, by the way.

 

Please post your results after 320TXP replaces "old" Tri-x, especially development time, EI and graininess comparisons. If Xtol 1:1 still works as well (with sufficiently long times to ensure even results) in this situation, six sheets of 5x7 in a 3006 drum would also be a good match, and I'll give moving to that format serious consideration. Thanks in advance.

[d_poinsett]

These days I'm using Xtol 1:1 in my 3010/CPA-2 and Tri-X is among the films I use. I just finished a batch of Tri-X a couple of days ago. As someone else commented, the Xtol is great for the 3010 because you can use manageable volumes. I always use 600 ml with 10 sheets although 500 ml would probably be fine. I use proprortionally less developer with fewer sheets down to the minimum Jobo recommended volumes.

 

I like that I do not have to pre-soak with Xtol. This gives shorter dev times overall and I suspect that it gives more even development. (I don't have any direct evidence but Ilford mentions it repeatedly.)

 

I have been shooting Tri-X at 250 ASA for development in Xtol with the 3010. Development time can be varied to give a contrast index from about 0.45 to 0.85. For a CI of 0.62, I develop for 8:00 minutes at 21 C with agitaion set to "F". Although my density range is always fine, sometimes the overall density is a bit high. I think I'm either metering the scene too hot, need to shoot at 320 ASA (for normal contrst range), or the Kodak recommended reciprocity is overstated.

 

The Xtol is giving me finer grain but with 4x5 negs grain is just not that much of an issue. I'm only set up for printing 16x20 and smaller (mostly 11x14). I have done experiments to try for more grain on 4x5s using other developers and although the addition grain is there in the neg, you can hardly see any difference in the print. Of course this is not the case with smaller film formats or larger prints.

 

There have been many comments on the net about Xtol failure. I have never experience it. Nevertheless, these stories have made me nervous enough to always test a snip of film if the stock solution has set around very long and I always use distilled water to mix the stock and working solutions. I'm in the middle a developing a huge batch of film right now (120+ sheets) and started with a 2-month old bottle of Xtol stock. It was about 1/4 full. No problems.