Xtol: experiences and issues

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know the web is full of wisdom regarding B&W development, but I learned from the "I like film (open thread)" thread that there is tons of film expertise in this forum, and I thought of tapping into it.

When I shoot on film (only B&W, colour works for me digitally), I need a reasonably fast film, say 320-500 ISO. I tested a few known suspects and ended up with Delta 400. But I still need to fully settle, as I still have to try 5222 for stills photography, a film I used for music videos back in the 90ies and really liked.

My goals are high speed, high resolution, fine grain, and high acuteness/sharpness. High speed and fine grain are somewhat of a paradox, but with enough exposure and the right developer, there's some leeway for optimisation. I learned somewhere that Xtol should tick my boxes, and it delivers. I started using it replenished, but after half a year, I ran into the infamous Xtol sudden death issue. But I liked it a lot. It delivers sharp, fine-grained negatives. And it's relatively environment-friendly.

Now I use Xtol diluted in 1+1 with even better results in terms of sharpness and speed. Grain is a tad more pronounced. 

What are your experiences? Could you tell me what your goals are for B&W developers?

Below is an image I shot recently on Delta 400 at 320 ISO bathed in Xtol 1+1, scanned with my mirrorless Leica and converted/graded in C1. Please click to enlarge it to 2,4k. I would like to know whether one can achieve with Delta 400 better results in terms of resolution or whether I reached the usual ballpark. Shot at f8 with a 50mm Summicron R lens.

Thanks.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Tom R]

Perhaps Ilford DD-X might satisfy your requirements? I mention it because Delta is Ilford's reply to Kodaks "TMax" --ie., "T"-grained emulsions.

If "grain" is a big concern, you could also try Clayton F76+, which is a PQ developer that was formulated to work with "T"-grained films, which I think includes Ilford's Delta offerings.

I've used Claytons for processing Kodak's TMax films with excellent results (or, "excellent" for my requirements), and I see that numerous development times/dilutions are provided for Delta 400 with F76+ (the Clayton product), as well as Ilfords DD-X and others ... .,

[williamj]

I’ve have used undiluted XTOL for years. It gives similar results to D76 undiluted but is more skin and environmentally friendly. I have not experienced XTOL sudden death. I make a 5 litre amount and store it in 5 x 1 litre wine bottles filled up to the lid. The wine bottles have Stelvin screw caps. I use 1 litre for 15 rolls. XTOL stored this way lasted for 3 years until it was all used up. I top up the bottle with plain water after each use. If significant air gets in XTOL can die.
I find that as the bottle is used the pictures improve and I was tempted to go to a replenished system but it was too much faffing around and then a waxy deposit developed in the solution so I cancelled that experiment. 
When XTOL came in 1 litre packs it was more likely to undergo sudden death but Kodak cancelled the small pack. Since it can last for a long time in air tight fully filled containers I have no worries about making enough for 75 rolls. I hope this was of some use. Cheers. 

[hansvons]

@Tom R, @williamj I apprechiate you input a lot. What resolution, in your experience, is possible in 35mm? Is the image above basically the limit, or do you get significantly better results in sharpness and resolution off Xtol and Delta 400? 

Have you ever used 1+1 or 1+2 solutions? And if so, do you see any benefits or downsides?

4 hours ago, williamj said:

The wine bottles have Stelvin screw caps. I use 1 litre for 15 rolls

How do you make that happen if you don't replenish? With 1+1, I get eight rolls. 

Fotoimpex sells 1-litre packages of their Xtol version as ADOX XT-3, which I find much more accessible to mix than Kodak's original powder. 

Thanks again!

 

 

 

[williamj]

Thanks hansvons, I'll try to be as succinct as possible. In a separate post later I'll try to post some pictures but I'll need time to organise and LUF doesn't allow full resolution pictures so I'll post blow ups of scans.

0. I mainly use Kodak film so the pictures I'll post will be from T-Max 100, T-Max 400 and original FUJI ACROS, no Delta 400, sorry. I do use Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ so I'm not anti-Ilford, on the contrary I use Ilford Rapid Fixer. However, my main stock is 400TX and full strength XTOL gives a nice subtle grain.

1. How to get 15 rolls from 1 litre of XTOL. Undiluted XTOL is not discarded and is poured back into the bottle. Some liquid is lost because it is absorbed by the film. Also, as you reuse the liquid it absorbs the surfactant in the emulsion so after a few rolls it becomes a little frothy when you pour it back and so a little liquid is also lost. That's why you top up with a little water after each use. Don't worry that you might be diluting the XTOL, that's less important than keeping air out. After putting the cap back on I rinse the outside of the bottle otherwise you have a mess of XTOL drying on the outside. Once 15 rolls are developed the XTOL isn't exhausted but you need longer times to get the same level of development, so you can go past 15 rolls in a pinch. BTW the surfactant is why you do not need to presoak film before developing it.

2. What negatives am I trying to achieve. I want a general purpose negative of fine grain with a wide range of tones that can be used for different purposes. I started pre-digital so showing grain wasn't a big thing. It's now an aesthetic choice. XTOL is a solvent developer like D76 and does what I'm after. XTOL in a 1:1 dilution is not a solvent developer so it will show grain more clearly. This gives greater acutance at the expense of smoothness of transition between tones. I have used XTOL diluted 1:3 to develop Techpan but that's not relevant anymore.

3. Other reasons for not diluting XTOL or using developers that are made by diluting a stock solution. In Australia, in most places, you are not supposed to discard photographic chemicals down the sink. If I make 5 litres of XTOL then I only have to send 5 litres to hazard disposal. XTOL 1:1 means 10 litres and Rodinol and its substitutes at 1:50 dilution mean a lot more, especially when you count number of rolls developed.

4. The reason Kodak stopped the 1 litre XTOL packages is that some of the components are in a small amount and so there could inconsistencies in the amount in each package. This is what is thought led to sporadic XTOL failure. I therefore think that any 1 litre package of XTOL or XTOL like developer could suffer the same problem. I'm happy to talk about how I make up 5 litres of XTOL without using measuring cylinders, let me know.

5. Is this the finest option for film grain etc. I can't speak to that since I haven't tested every possible combination of film and developer and it's not my objective. There's a lot of black art in film development and wet printing and I am of the OPINION that if you know your materials well you can get a diversity of looks by altering what you do without going to the trouble of using a different developer or radically different film. I'm not saying you can turn 400TX into T-MAX 400, just to be clear. The important thing is to be consistent, keep records, and use your current results as feedback  for future actions. Once you've shot it, develop it right away and use the information for your next step. If you let the rolls pile up you're wasting information.

6. About me. I have been developing film since 1986. I am trained to work in a genetics laboratory where we moved colourless droplets from one small tube into another small tube using micropipettes. Photography was used to visualise some of our results. That gave me a basis for working with photographic images out of cameras. I've developed my own black and white off and on over that time, in the past developed large format X-Ray images in trays by inspection under red-light, and did E6 colour slides using a JOBO. I don't have a home darkroom and use a black bag and my laundry to develop film, with film drying hanging in the shower.

[250swb]

On 1/7/2023 at 5:26 PM, hansvons said:

 

My goals are high speed, high resolution, fine grain, and high acuteness/sharpness. High speed and fine grain are somewhat of a paradox, but with enough exposure and the right developer, there's some leeway for optimisation.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

From my point of view I wouldn't go into the no-mans-land of pushing boundaries and wanting fine grain from a grainy film. It's a kludge, unlike Tuco taking the parts from three or four different guns and making his perfect gun (The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly) those parts were meant to work together as designed from the factory. He was cutting out the variables while chewing a cigar, and too many unintended variables can change the grain structure in this twilight zone of taking materials to the edge of success, or failure.

I'm not saying it can't be done, Xtol for example is a very nice fine grain developer, but it's not bombproof in the same way a tripod and slow film is bombproof. If I choose a 400 ISO film for the speed I also am willing to expect some grain as the result, and if the grain is embraced you can do things to make it better, sharper, or more pronounced. But choose a fine grain slower film and it swings the other way, you can go all out to make it sharper and finer grain. Either approach pays off because you are treating fast or slow film well within it's comfort zone and the choice of developers expands, instead of the choice contracting until you end up teetering on the edge.

[williamj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here is a picture taken with T-Max 100 using an M3 with a Summitar lens, exposure 1/100 at f8 and hand held. Developed in XTOL. I agree with Steve that if you want something really fine grain go with a finer grain film. In the next post is a blow up of the picture showing the grain.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[williamj]

Here is a blow up of the picture showing the grain. The scan is from a Noritsu at 6000 x 4000 so 24 Mpx and it is blown up so that you can see the pixels. You'll see that the grain is small enough so that each pixel more or less accounts for a grain spot. That's my interpretation, check especially the light areas.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[williamj]

This time T-Max 400, exposure 1/500 f8, different day.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[williamj]

In this crop of the T-Max 400 image you can see the grain but I did not have to get down to individual pixels.

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[irivlin]

If you are really serious about fine grain,  you might wish to consider a paraphenylinediamine developer. You will lose a little sharpness with 400asa films. This is of no consequence to me as I print using the unsharp mask process (the old fashioned one - nothing to do with scanning and digital manipulation). Check out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking

(You don't need to use large format film)

Alternatively you can scan and increase the sharpness digitally (but I think that is a departure from film photography). My compromise is to project the image onto the printing paper and slightly blur that image - giving about 20% of the needed exposure,  I then expose with a sharply focused image. I put the paper in the developer and when the image is appearing,  I "flash" using a diffused flashgun. The paper is taken out of the developer and I let it sit on the table for a few seconds. This gives a partial Sabatier effect. Time it correctly (lot of trial and error in the early stages) and the results are really appealing. (Appears sharp with fine grain). I always direct the enlarger image through a silk stocking,  that's held in a wooden frame and moved around during exposure. It, more or less,  gets rid of any grain. I have some photographs, using HP5 and exposed at 1600asa - printed to 12x16 and the grain is almost invisible. These were developed using "Promicrol" (that was a paraphenylinediamine type of developer - not available any more). However B&H have PPD developers that don't lose film speed. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/halcyon-p-phenylenediamine-developer-test.173080/

Try Crawley's FX-10 or Harvey's 777.  I think they're available from The Photographer's Formulary.

Don't forget to use gloves.  PPD is relatively safe (hair products are made from it) but I suspect it can cause dermatitis etc.  If the developers have "pyro" in them, this can be carcinogenic. - Perfectly safe, if handled sensibly just make sure you *are* handling it sensibly. 

Do try Troop's TD-3 developer. I use this extensively.  Very low contrast but get the right lighting and use CM-20 or Ilford 50 asa film and you can print a 35mm film to 4ft wide with remarkably little grain. This is a pyro film, so use latex or nitrile gloves and goggles etc (for splashes) and you'll be very impressed with the results

[Martin B]

Some advice and from lessons learned working with Xtol for several years:

1. I most often dilute the stock solution to 1:1 or 1:2 of Xtol:water. Biggest advantage of Xtol is its capability to smoothen the grain. I always use it in combination with Rodinal which is pretty much the opposite in development terms: high micro contrast and sharpness but very grainy. Therefore I first use Rodinal (diluted) and then do a second development step with Xtol using adjusted development times to smoothen the earlier formed grain from Rodinal. It works really well and was described by me and reviewed by others in this thread (comment #29):

Xtol by itself as developer is a soft developer. A bit too soft for my taste. It can lack some needed sharpness. 

2. Stability: I found it critical to keep the Xtol stock solution away from air as good as possible. I made good experience by filling up bottles to top excluding air. Then Xtol can last easily for more than 6 months at room temperature. One issue I found using Xtol is that it isn't obvious to see when it decayed. The color changes only a little bit to slightly yellow. I have lost two films using decayed Xtol developer. Rule of thumb is to test its effectiveness by immersion of an exposed little negative strip into the developer, washing it in water, and then immersing it in fixer solution. If the strip turns black at least on some areas, Xtol is still usable. 

3. Preparing Xtol stock solution: Follow exactly the recommended procedure with water for dilution being at the recommended temperature. If the water is too cold, the powder does not dissolve fully and causes haze and residue at the bottom. 

[RDJ]

I was an early adaptor using Xtol.  I had one bad batch due to the early packaging issue.  Kodak or more specifically the last Asian firm licensed for distribution had package failures a few years ago with several of the Kodak branded chems.  I moved to ID-11.  1.  5L is too much supply for me;  I prefer 1L packaging.  2.  Kodak has had too frequent package quality issues for me to stick with them.  3.  Ilford ID-11 is a similar researched quality product and the firm deserves photographers support.  4.  135 film enlarged to 5X to 6x will not show any difference between the two developers.  

Xtol per Kodak is the best and most throughly researched general purpose developer outside of the D-76 family.  Xtol lasted no less than 8 months stored in 1L soda bottles when mixed with distilled water.  Truthfully I’m sure it would store for one year but I get nervous and need repeatable results.  Its one of the least expensive developers and is more environmentally friendly then most.  

Bottom line:   I spend more on developer, reduce storage footprint, have less supply disruption, and get similar results with ID-11. 
 

 

 

 

 

[ArnoG]

@Martin B & @williamj: I hope this chat is still active: Many thanks for these insights in making Xtol work! I grew up with film, and went back to it some 3 or so years ago after I got bored with digital only. Despite doing photography since I was 11 and being of a certain age now, I had never developed my own, so I was up for quite an adventure. Since then, I've been going through a number of developers (Ilfosol, HC110, Rodinal) but quickly settled on Xtol. I'm still trying all (ISO400 since I need light) B&W films, trying to find my favorite. I even developed a dosimeter and a tool to characterize film with one shot (https://www.arnogodeke.com/Blog/Zone-system-calibration and https://www.arnogodeke.com/Blog/Technical-BW-film-reviews). The latter still needs updating with many new results.

When Xtol was not available for a while I used XT-3, but despite claims it should be the same, or even better, it didn't seem to work as good. Hence, I'm back to Xtol, for a while at 1+1 and now exploring semi-stand with 1+3, until I had a nearly blank film due to "sudden death"(?) after six months in sealed 1 liter wine bottles, which I vacuum out with a "Vacuvin" (rubber stoppers that allow pumping the air out, used for wine). Hence, I started reading up again and came across this forum, and ordered fresh Xtol...

I'm of the opinion that moving to medium or large format is an easy way out, and instead one should attempt to extract all the detail available in 35mm format first, which is not an easy feat due to the countless free parameters. There's plenty (sufficient?) of detail in 35mm when done well imo, for me justifying to stick with this more convenient system, at least until I dug out all the available detail. Like both of you, I am searching for acceptable grain, high sharpness, and good tonal range, and was impressed by the detail in @williamj's shots above. I don't go through film fast enough to be using 5 liters Xtol in 6 months, so was interested in using it full strength. Seeing the pics above and specifically the zoomed section, this seems to work, although perhaps it could even be sharper(?).

I then read @Martin B's Dual Development chat, linked above, and am intrigued, but unfortunately, the pictures that @Martin B posted to demonstrate sharpness and grain, don't want to show up on my screen. I just see question marks. Having tried many films and developer/dilution combinations, some work well, some work less, some are simply crap, and some really shine, but I felt like I was floating in too large a parameter space. Just recently, just before my Xtol died, I had a (lucky?) combo with HP5 at EI400 in Xtol 1+3 that really seemed to sing, and this is now my benchmark. I'll post the result below. My question to specifically @Martin B is: Would your "dual" results with HP5 at EI400 in Rodinal then Xtol further improve the sharpness and grain beyond what I currently have with HP5 in Xtol 1+3? I would really appreciate your educated judgement.

The shot attached is full frame, and a screenshot at 100% from LRC will be in my next posting. The negative was shot with a 1958 M2 with a 1960 collapsible Elmar 50/2.8 on a SOOKY-M closeup adapter and a soft box with remote flash, scanned with a 24MPix mirrorless and a Minolta 5400 scanner lens (details in my blog linked above). The (RAW) file was linearly imported into LRC, a circular luminosity mask was applied to correct for inhomogeneous exposure from my light source, black and white points were set, inverted, and a slight tweak in the tone curves panel was applied to obtain better tonal distribution on the model's (@marlovelycreation) skin. No sharpening or noise reduction was applied, and the file was exported as an RGB JPEG with a 2.4 Mb file limit.

Thanks in advance!

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ArnoG]

@williamj and @Martin B: And this is a 100% detail:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[BernardC]

@ArnoG I think that's as good as you are going to get, and I mean it in a good way. Your shots are impressively sharp and clean, you won't improve them much by switching your processing.

Other than trying medium format (a Rolleiflex would be great for this type of shot), you could try using a more powerful flash and a slower film.

For your other issue about expired Xtol, the answer is obvious: shoot more film!

[ArnoG]

@BernardC Thanks! After many, many hours of online studies on what should work best, and credit to MrLeica.com who motivated me to do semi-stand with diluted Xtol (though he usually adds 2.5ml of Rodinal in 1,000ml Xtol 1+4 developer), and many, many attempted combinations, mostly on lower-priced film, with HP5 and Xtol 1+3 it suddenly clicked. There's a tad more noise visible when I look at the RAW file in LRC than in the compressed JPEG and PNG screen print above, but in some pictures of the session the eyelashes are even sharper (I switched to a rangefinder not so long ago...), so yes, I was pleased, especially for ISO400 film that is still affordable, and not premium like Tmax400. Reading @Martin B's dual development though, I was wondering how it compared, since my browsers refuse to show me the pictures that @Martin B posted.

The process I used is still simple in comparison:

• 18.5 minutes at 20 C in Xtol 1+3 (100ml + 300ml) (a minimum of 100ml stock is needed per film according to Kodak's datasheet)
• 3 inversions at start, same at 5, 10, and 15 minutes, so semi-stand
• stop was 50ml of 7% household vinegar from the supermarket + 250 ml tapwater (i.e., 2.3% vinegar)
• 50ml Fomafix in 250ml tapwater at the end (I used to use Tmax fixer usually and like that better, but ran out)

Xtol powder was dissolved in distilled water at around 20 C to make stock, while dilution to 1+3 was done with tapwater.

Just in case anyone else wants to try (giving back to the community from whom I learned so much ;>)

Caveat is that I didn't yet do it a second time, since I only had other film stock left (and my Xtol apparently died...).

Indeed, I ordered more Xtol and HP5 now. The only thing that still bugs me with HP5 is the tonal distribution in the mid-range, which seems to be different than other films, i.e., perhaps not linear, but I'll analyze that further with my calibration tools (https://www.arnogodeke.com/Blog/Zone-system-calibration and https://www.arnogodeke.com/Blog/Technical-BW-film-reviews).

Cheers!

[costa43]

Totally new at this but I’ve been using xtol at stock and a cheap Fomapan film with relatively pleasing results for my taste.

these are with Foma100 at 6min dev time converted with FilmLab on my iPad. I also use NLP but this is more convenient sometimes for me.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited November 21, 2024 by costa43

[costa43]

Foma400 at 7min dev time with FilmLab 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[costa43]

On 11/22/2024 at 1:55 AM, mark_s90 said:

Foma is well known for issues, especially the 400 iso listing.  Lots of known issues, whole books have been written about it by using word count programs.. Its not exactly the film stock to use to decide things on.  

 

I’m sure that there are people who start out in the film shooting/home developing arena that will veer towards the lower cost options and I think it could be helpful for others to see how Xtol develops different films stocks at different times and with different techniques. Maybe someone else out there is considering that combo and for them, it does help them decide. Whether it’s consistent or not I have no idea but it’s cheap and a lot of people new to film will no doubt consider it as a viable option. They may well pair it with Xtol which is also cheap and more eco friendly than the average developer. I for one am definitely interested in hearing from others who use this combination to better effect so I can continue learning. I also enjoy seeing how others develop different stocks with this developer. All part of the journey…