Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks a lot for your detailled reply @williamj, it's appreciated!

By the way do you have some of your XTOL-developed images online?

I'm shooting two rolls of b&w alongside each other right now, and two packages with chems & other developing equipment will likely arrive this weekend.
Also spent hours to re-install Windows 7 on an old laptop (need this for my scanner, as there's no drivers for any newer Windows versions), so my trusty Quato Intelliscan is up and running again 🙂

Very much looking forward to developing my first rolls of film after a hiatus of about six years I think, I shall report back how it went with the XTOL..

Thanks again for your help!

Edited by username
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you @ArnoG - should have said "..do you have some more images online" (I did see yours as well as williamj's - thank you very much for sharing, they're great!).

My first package has arrived, will mix up the XTOL and hopefully start developing tomorrow 👍

Here's the most recent version of the dev times, as printed on the actual XTOL packaging (the latest version from Photo Systems Inc. from 2023, CAT 105 8338) in case anybody is interested - don't ask me why, but this is not published on the official website any more, they now just link to the massive dev chart instead for whatever reason 🙂 -

 

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!

 

XTOL Developing Times.pdf

Edited by username
..actually made a quick PDF with XTOL dev times - figured this might come in handy 👍
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2023 at 6:26 PM, hansvons said:

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!

 

Hey @hansvons -

thank you for creating this thread, I am aware it's two years old already so not sure if it's still relevant, but will respond either way 🙂


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.

..would be interested to hear why you settled on Delta 400, and whether you still work with this combo (Delta & XTOL), or whether you have moved on to something else?


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

Was wondering whether you actually did test this out (as in: shooting the same stuff in the same conditions etc. and developing one roll in stock and one in 1:1), or whether it's more of a "feeling"? I'm aware Kodak themselves mention XTOL gains a bit more speed, bit more sharpness, and bit finer of a grain when diluted, but have actually never seen any side-by-side comparisons..


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

I'm just starting out with XTOL, and wil share my first experiences in another post soon-ish, but regarding the "goals" I have / what I want from a b&w developer -

  • it should suit / work well with my chosen "main" film, and ideally also work well with my "alt" film -
    so in my case this would probably be Tri-X for 400 speed and Acros II for 100 (although I haven't 100% settled on this yet)
  • "character" wise I'd like to see reasonable sharpness, although this is not my top priority,
    I don't need, but am ok with visible or even pronounced grain - if it's "nice" grain 🙂
    ..in general it should not look "digital" in the end (frankly, I'd shoot digital if I wanted that kinda look)
    It should look "classy" - so even if it's just 35mm it should look somewhat "high quality"
    The overall look should be "classic" (like Tri-X in D-76), but maybe less "frumpy" (this is kinda my reason to go with XTOL - because I felt it looks kinda "classic" (especially when paired with a traditional grain film) but maybe a bit more modern and "exiting")
  • it should be somewhat enviromentally friendly
  • it should be somewhat economical (I'm totally fine with paying a bit more for proper quality, but would avoid expensive one-shot developers)

 

Have a great day, and happy shooting! 🙋‍♂️

 

Edited by username
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, username said:

..would be interested to hear why you settled on Delta 400, and whether you still work with this combo (Delta & XTOL), or whether you have moved on to something else?

I changed my default B&W stock to Tri-X and Double-X 5222. Delta 400 arguably resolves a smallish tad better than Tri-X and is one stop faster than Double-X by box speed. Its acutance is also said to be better, and I would not deny that. Also, it’s not as greyish as HP5 at box speed. Why the change of mind?

It‘s the skin tones. Delta 400, like HP5, has a propensity to render skin tones lighter because it’s more sensitive in the red-yellow spectrum. But the Kodak stocks render skin tones neutral which gives faces more character. I prefer that. And lastly, Tri-X is back in my market at an affordable price.

To complete this: Delta 100 is a different animal; it only shares the same brand name with Delta 400, not the character. It‘s not only two stops slower, it also renders faces similar to Kodak without that increased red-yellow sensitivity. Plus, it works super-nicely in Xtol, almost out-resolves my scanning SL2-S.  Shot and pushed at ISO 200, it creates notable inky shadows with a slight increase in grain, even more sharpness, making it highly attractive when printed. A joy to work with.

 

2 hours ago, username said:

Was wondering whether you actually did test this out (as in: shooting the same stuff in the same conditions etc. and developing one roll in stock and one in 1:1), or whether it's more of a "feeling"? I'm aware Kodak themselves mention XTOL gains a bit more speed,

I used Xtol undiluted in the very beginning of my B&W journey and early on started replenishing. Back then, I felt that Xtol became even more gentle and more Xtol-ish the more the developer turned into a fully replenished solution. I stopped replenishing after a year or so when I had a bad result once, fearing that my replenisher would get old.

That experience made me switch to 1:1 and 24 C temperature (same dev times). I never did a scientific side-by-side test, so all I say is a feeling. However, my new 1:1/24C routine never let me down once in the last 300 rolls of B&W, and I guess I will stick to it forever because why swap a winning horse for a new one that I don't know? The most leverage one has in their B&W photography is the subject, the exposure and dev times, the scanning, and the printing. Rodinal would be the only alternative that would have an visible impact on my images. Do I like large grain per se? No. 
 

2 hours ago, username said:
  • The overall look should be "classic" (like Tri-X in D-76), but maybe less "frumpy" (this is kinda my reason to go with XTOL - because I felt it looks kinda "classic" (especially when paired with a traditional grain film) but maybe a bit more modern and "exiting")
  • it should be somewhat enviromentally friendly

That’s Xtol. Period.

Seriously, don’t look further. Develop the next 100 rolls in Xtol 1:1 for economic reasons (and it’s a tad more Xtol) with great consistency in your dev routine. Go either for the Kodak or the Ilford way of shaking and stick meticulously to the manufacturer’s recipes. Don’t believe the internet and take notes if you find something noteworthy. 

For example, I had a brief liaison with HP5. After a few rolls I learned that I like HP5 better when mildly pushed by one stop but exposed at boxspeed. Kentmere 400 likes a half-stop push and exposed slightly on the fatter side. Delta 100 looks finest when exposed on the fat side, say ISO 50-80 and developed at the regular recipe’s times.  Tri-X looks great at boxspeed following Kodak’s recommendation and the Ilford agitation scheme that I use 100% of the time. Same can be said about Double-X. But the next roll will see an EI of 400 and no push. As Double-X is a movie stock, it's designed to be printed on high-contrast print film. Moving up the exposure index by one stop might add one-stop more headroom in the highlights which tend to be unnecessarily cut off at regular exposure speed. However, it loves tons of backlight. At least that were my findings when I used it for shooting music videos. Happy shooting!!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok, so as mentioned above I'm not 100% settled on film(s) yet, but decided I'm going to go with XTOL for a while.

Thanks again everybody for your input in this thread!


My experience so far -

  • with my order I received some of the "latest" XTOL (the one again manufactured in the US, by Photo Systems Inc., CAT 1058338), as mentioned above
  • part A took a good while to dissolve, despite correct temperatures and vigurous stirring with a suitable stirring staff, adding part B was easier
  • divided the 5L up in five 1L wine bottles as @williamj suggested
  • developed two rolls with it so far (one T-Max 400 shot at 400, and a HP5 @ 400), both undiluted, with the times given on the XTOL packaging, and 30 sec initial agitation followed by 5 sec (rotating tank 180° and back again two times, followed by a little bump to dislodge air bubbles) every 30 seconds as recommended by Kodak
  • Negatives came out fine, the T-Max a bit thin maybe, the HP5 a tad strong - adding a few images below; these are unedited apart from initial highlight / shadow / midtone adjustments while scanning with Silverfast Ai
  • I like what I'm seeing so far, yet obviously need a few more rolls to be able to really comment on it, especially looking forward to the results with Tri-X..

 

Have a great day everyone and enjoy shooting ✌️

 

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 by username
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

^
the above are from the HP5, also here's one more -

 

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

..and here's some from the T-Max 400:

 

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

..and one more from the T-Max 400 (boy, the upload limit here is quite tight 😅)

 

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, @hansvons for taking the time to write such a detailled reply, I appreciate it!

I'm shooting a roll of Delta 400 right now alongside a Tri-X, and will decide on one of them for my ISO 400 film after seeing the results. 
I appreciate HP5 as well but it isn't "classy" enough 🙂

For a "finer" film I'll probably compare FP4, Delta 100 and Acros II - once there's more light where I live 😅


Seriously, don’t look further.
Develop the next 100 rolls in Xtol 1:1 for economic reasons (and it’s a tad more Xtol) with great consistency in your dev routine.

Still trying to figure out what's the best way to go here, in terms of

  • what XTOL dev routine will give the most consistent results - probably a one-use diluted one as you recommend
  • what is economic - probably a replenishing approach of undiluted developer
  • which approach gives the best images
  • which approach is "safest" (an in: least chance of "sudden death syndrome")
  • which is the least "complicated"

Actually XTOL is pretty cheap to begin with so choosing the most economic route isn't top priority - image quality / consistency is - 
so likely I'll go with the 1:1 approach - this just means (if using single Jobo tanks, which is what I usually do) I'd take 125ml of XTOL out of my 1L bottle every time I develop a film, emtying the bottle more and more, thus leaving more and more oxygen / introducing a greater risk of the developer going bad..
..maybe I'm overthinking this, but how do people handle this? Re-fill the rest to smaller bottles as they go? Use lighter gas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, username said:

Still trying to figure out what's the best way to go here, in terms of

  • what XTOL dev routine will give the most consistent results - probably a one-use diluted one as you recommend
  • what is economic - probably a replenishing approach of undiluted developer
  • which approach gives the best images
  • which approach is "safest" (an in: least chance of "sudden death syndrome")
  • which is the least "complicated"

Stick to one routine for consistency. Either one gives you good results. I use the Ilford routine for these two reasons:

  • Ilford recommends one full minute of agitation, including the time you need to pour in the developer. I feel that the first minute is highly relevant, and I want it to be as "chaotic" as possible to prevent uneven development and funky results. 
  • The one-minute, 10-second agitation scheme is handy as it helps my laziness. 

Remember that a more vigorous agitation will increase contrast. If you feel like changing something, change only the development time. That way, you can pin results to the development time and nothing else. That's another good reason to default to one developer. 

(I have two agitation styles in my bag. One is a regular medium-vigorous style that gives me highly consistent results. The second is a vigorous-vigorous style that I use when developing Kentmere 400 rolls that I shoot occasionally to save money. I feel the difference is about half a stop.)

 

2 hours ago, username said:

Actually XTOL is pretty cheap to begin with so choosing the most economic route isn't top priority - image quality / consistency is - 
so likely I'll go with the 1:1 approach - this just means (if using single Jobo tanks, which is what I usually do) I'd take 125ml of XTOL out of my 1L bottle every time I develop a film, emtying the bottle more and more, thus leaving more and more oxygen / introducing a greater risk of the developer going bad..
..maybe I'm overthinking this, but how do people handle this? Re-fill the rest to smaller bottles as they go? Use lighter gas?

You are overthinking this. If in doubt, take a short film strip, dip it into the developer, and see what happens. Does it turn black? The developer either works or does not, at least to my knowledge. However, Xtol can die from a sudden death after being exposed to air for a longer time (what longer time? Nobody can specify that). That never happened to me, though. I buy the Adox XT3 one-litre package. I get eight rolls from one package in a 1:1 dilution. That way, the shelf time is too short to worry me. I'm talking here one week to four months. Shielding gas for welding will keep oxygen out and won't interfere chemically with the developer as it's based on noble gases. You can buy it in handy bottles. I don't know if lighter gas is a good idea.

Edited by hansvons
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, username said:

..and here's some from the T-Max 400:

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!

 

Thin. Probably the exposure rather than the development. M6? Did you/the camera accidentally measure the sky? If so, it's a classic. Happened to the best of us. 

Great Tesla shot, BTW. l love the discrepancy between film's timelessness and modern-day subjects. There should be details left in the white sky. HP5 has an enormous dynamic range. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, username said:

Negatives came out fine, the T-Max a bit thin maybe, the HP5 a tad strong - adding a few images below; these are unedited apart from initial highlight / shadow / midtone adjustments while scanning with Silverfast Ai

Would you mind posting an image of the two negs against white light?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@username : I use 1 liter brown glass bottles that I fill to the brim and seal tightly, except the on that I use from (one shot only, no replenishment). The bottle in use will have air of course, so I use a rubber “vacuvin” brand wine-stopper which comes with a pump thing to suck out the air and create a vacuum. Whatever works to keep wine good works for developers (same oxidation problem). I’ve also read about the wine cartons that have a coated mylar (oxygen tight) bag inside that collapses down when wine is poured. Seems like a good idea and one can actually also buy wine bags with a little tap, but I’ve never tried that (maybe sometime). I throw 6 months old Xtol away since I had a batch go sudden death shortly after 6 months. This happened once, with an older Xtol stock from just before Kodak switched manufacturing site, so the package might have been old as well. Anyway, since that one time I don’t want to risk and simply make up a new batch every 6 months. I don’t go through film fast enough to use up 5 liters of stock within 6 months, but it’s cheap and considering all the effort going into shooting and developing and scanning film, it’s not worth any risk of bad developer 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, hansvons said:

Thin. Probably the exposure rather than the development.

Would you mind posting an image of the two negs against white light?


Thanks for taking the time and offering to help with trouble-shooting!

Maybe I should get my dev routine straightened out before posting any more pictures 🙈

 

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!

 

I'm by no means an experienced film developer, but the T-Max looks underdeveloped to me, also checked with the Ilford Common Processing Problems PDF again and to me it looks like it..

Quote

Great Tesla shot, BTW(...) There should be details left in the white sky. HP5 has an enormous dynamic range. 

Thanks!

To me the neg looks quite ok.. probably a bit over exposed.. not sure why there isn't more detail in the sky.
I just scanned it again but wasn't able to get more info out of it.
 

Thanks again for your time and have a great day ✌️

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ArnoG said:

The bottle in use will have air of course, so I use a rubber “vacuvin” brand wine-stopper which comes with a pump thing to suck out the air and create a vacuum.

That's a great idea! Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, username said:

I'm by no means an experienced film developer, but the T-Max looks underdeveloped to me, also checked with the Ilford Common Processing Problems PDF again and to me it looks like it..

The HP5 neg looks like a poster child of a fat exposed and well-developed negative. Good job! When scanning properly exposed and well-developed HP5 like yours with an DSLR and the Valoi Easy35, I will certainly find detail in the sky in the camera raw files.

That said, the T-Max is quite the opposite. It’s pretty thin, which is to be expected when looking at your previously posted result. However, I’m pretty sure this is predominately an exposure issue, as the grain in the sky is quite prominent.

The other example, the caravan, does not show this issue that prominently. However, it’s still far from what I’d call a fat negative. Which leads me to these questions:

1. Did you use for both films the exact same agitation scheme and temperature? 
2. Did you cling slavishly to the manufacturer’s recipe?

If so, the T-Max should be on the same fat side as the HP5. But it’s not. Without knowing the details, I’d say all points to an exposure issue. Was your light meter correctly set up?

OK. Hope that helps.
 

PS: despite being the son of a chemist, and thus anal about lab hygiene and recipes, it took me 10 rolls or so to achieve predictable results. I was in my past a cinematographer, thus exposing film (more or less) correctly is second nature to me. Thus, I could attribute unexpected results to the mixing and shaking.

Which bring me to this: to rule out exposure issues, expose the first 10 rolls one stop lower. A ISO400 film becomes an ISO200 film and so on. Most negatives are highly forgiving regarding overexposure but hate it to be underexposed. This won’t make an underdeveloped negative fat but will give you the certainty that the issues you encounter can be attributed to the dev process. Once you have a stable routine you can explore exposure, ISO/EI, push and pull (I don’t do that) etc. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

That said, the T-Max is quite the opposite. It’s pretty thin, which is to be expected when looking at your previously posted result. However, I’m pretty sure this is predominately an exposure issue, as the grain in the sky is quite prominent.

The TMax look under-exposed and under-developed. Much of the detail in the trees is at the same level as the film base, which is a sign of under-exposure. There isn't much density in the sky either, which is under-development.

I would work on the development first. You can't judge your shadow detail until you've settled on a development time. Maybe those trees will lift out of the shadows with longer processing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...