username Posted January 16 Share #61 Posted January 16 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks again @hansvons and also @BernardC 👍 Yes, looking at the T-Max negs (how light / thin not only the image, but also the lettering is) I think it's safe to say they're a bit underdeveloped (and that shot in particular also a bit under-exposed on top of that). I shall return with more XTOL-developed images when I have my dev routine down! Will stick to using it in 1:1 dilution, and using the 1min / 10sec agitation sheme from here on out. Thanks again guys ✌️ Ps: this thread needs more pictures! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Hi username, Take a look here Xtol: experiences and issues. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hansvons Posted January 16 Author Share #62 Posted January 16 (edited) 10 hours ago, username said: Ps: this thread needs more pictures! Because you asked for more pictures, below are a few B&W photos that I developed in Xtol. Ilford Delta100 in Xtol mildly pushed, shot at EI100, 35mm Summicron ASPH, 2024, France. Click to enlarge. 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 January 16 by hansvons 3 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5740755'>More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 16 Author Share #63 Posted January 16 (edited) Kentmere400 in Xtol pushed by one stop after it met an unfriendly airport scanner, shot at EI 320, 35mm Summicron ASPH, 2024, Portugal. Click to enlarge. 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 January 16 by hansvons 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5740760'>More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 16 Author Share #64 Posted January 16 (edited) Kentmere400 in Xtol regularly developed and shot at EI320, 35mm Summicron ASPH, 2024, Germany. Click to enlarge. 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 January 16 by hansvons 3 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5740761'>More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 16 Author Share #65 Posted January 16 (edited) Kodak Double-X 5222 shot at EI200 and developed for 6:30 min at 24C in 1:1 Xtol. 35mm Nokton f/1.4 SC VS. The glow can primarily be attributed to the lens. 2023, Germany. Click to enlarge. 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 January 16 by hansvons 2 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5740763'>More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 16 Author Share #66 Posted January 16 (edited) Ilford Delta100 in Xtol, no push dev, exposed @ EI 50, 35mm Summicron ASPH, Germany. 2024. Click to enlarge. 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 January 16 by hansvons 3 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5740767'>More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 16 Author Share #67 Posted January 16 Advertisement (gone after registration) HP5 in Xtol mildly pushed but exposed @ EI 320, 35mm Summicron ASPH, UK, 2023. Click to enlarge. 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! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5740770'>More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 16 Author Share #68 Posted January 16 Kentmere400 in Xtol mildly pushed, shot at EI320, 35mm Summicron ASPH, 2024, France. Click to enlarge. 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! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5740772'>More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 16 Author Share #69 Posted January 16 Tri-X in Xtol pushed by one stop and shot at EI640, 35mm Summicron ASPH, 2024, conservationist conference Durham, UK, 2024. Click to enlarge. 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! 2 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5740787'>More sharing options...
username Posted January 16 Share #70 Posted January 16 Great shots @hansvons ! I like the flamingo one and the one with the boat best, and the conference ones. It's so weird, Tri-X always looks a little brown / sepia-ish to me - even if it's really just greyscale 🤷♂️ I like it, but can't explain it. Great stuff, thanks for sharing ✌️ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 17 Author Share #71 Posted January 17 11 hours ago, username said: Great shots @hansvons ! I like the flamingo one and the one with the boat best, and the conference ones. Thanks for the kind words. Maybe it makes sense to elaborate a bit why I did what. Until recently, I used Agfa APX400/Kentmere400 primarily as my high-speed B&W filmstock simply because i) it cost half of Tri-X and ii) with a very mild push or more vigorous agitation looks closest of all fast Ilford films to Kodak’s skin tones because it lacks that amplified yellow-red sensitivity of HP5 and Delta400. However, the contrast in the upper mid tones (eg skin) is still flatter. Another difference is the grain. Tri-X grain is less in your face (not finer) but the overall acutance is the same or better. It‘s anti halation layer is less effective than Tri-X and HP5, thus Kentmere400 is prone to glowing highlights. Also it‘s noteworthy to mention that APX400 and Rollei RPX400 are so similar/identical to Kentmere400 that I refer to them as Kentmere400 because the other two are mainly marketed in Europe only. Since Summer 2024, Kodak stopped their Tri-X scarcity policy in Europe and Tri-X now can be bought for just about 10 Euros per roll which brings it into the Delta400 and HP5 ballpark. Before that, it cost more than double the price of Kentmere400. However, Kentmere400 remains probably the leading contender in the marked of fast B&W films when price matters. So, I will always have a few rolls laying around. The other film that I can‘t let go is Delta100. Shot at EI50 (the film sees one stop more light than box speed but does not seem to be overexposed at all), and gently developed to Ilford‘s recommendations in Xtol 1:1, will yield results close to the resolving limit of my scanning SL2-S. It‘s resolving power is clearly one big step above Tri-X. And even other ISO100 films such as Kentmere100, Fomapan100 etc are in a different league; clearly, the more modern technology does matter. With Delta100, Ilford nailed it and provides us with an excellent alternative to Kodak’s T-Max 100, which is the other modern ISO100 film but 30% more expensive (and maybe less balanced in the spectral colour response). At boxspeed, Delta100 loses a bit of its astounding resolving power, and at EI200 and pushed by one stop, it changes its personality and turns into a super-sharp high-contrast film with tons of soul and inky shadows. I don’t find its tabular grain distracting at all, which I cannot say about Delta400 (especially when pushed). 11 hours ago, username said: It's so weird, Tri-X always looks a little brown / sepia-ish to me - even if it's really just greyscale 🤷♂️ I like it, but can't explain it. Funny that you mention that 😊. I can relate to that. I find Tri-X to be the ideal fast B&W film for journalism and similar tasks. Skin tones remain in their mid tone range and don’t get hot even when pushed by a stop. Delta400 has problems with skin tones and even HP5, which is somewhat the king of dynamic range, renders faces too bright for my taste. This brings me to Double-X, my first longer relationship in the world of B&W films. I learned loving it when shooting music videos in the late 90s on it and am glad to have it in my arsenal for stills photography today. It‘s quite similar to Tri-X, not as flexible, at tad more contrasty, renders skin tones in an emotional, yet natural way, outperforming Tri-X in that area. At the moment I‘m figuring out how to deal with it at EI400. I’m always interested in what other fellow B&W aficionados think. 🤔😉 cheers! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted January 17 Share #72 Posted January 17 @hansvons : Thanks very much for posting and your thoughts on various films in Xtol. When you mention just Xtol, this means stock? I'm a little bit puzzled on grain: It seems to be somewhat of a lottery, which is also my personal experience. Sometimes everything just clicks for whatever reason, and sometimes I see a lot of grain. Case in point: Your HP5 in Xtol compared to the pic I posted early-on in this thread, (albeit at 1+3). There seems to be a large difference in grain(?). Is this perhaps scanner resolution(?): My system goes to about 55-60 LP/mm, limited to the 24 MPix camera that I scan with (I use a Minolta 5400 scanner lens that should achieve around 80 LP/mm). I've also come to a provisional conclusion that modern tabular grain films (Delta 400, Tmax400) don't seem to like xtol stock too much (rough unpleasant looking grain) whereas they seem to shine in Xtol 1+1. The other elephant in the room is airport scanners (I fly a lot with film, and have the film hand-checked when possible and otherwise inside a lead-bag or inside a, metal, camera). So far, I can see that x-rays increase the base fog (measurable with a densitometer): At some point I suspected Foma QA since the base-fog seemed to vary from batch to batch, but then found out that the ones with increased fog went through airport scanners, and now I do see this trend clearly. Airport scanners increase base fog and thereby reduce the dynamic range of the film (I see this in 400 ISO film which I use mostly). I did read about x-rays increasing grain, but have no statistics nor an objective method to verify this. Would appreciate your thoughts on this since you mentioned above the influence of airport scanners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 17 Author Share #73 Posted January 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, ArnoG said: Airport scanners increase base fog and thereby reduce the dynamic range of the film (I see this in 400 ISO film which I use mostly). I did read about x-rays increasing grain, but have no statistics nor an objective method to verify this. Agreed. More detailed: An increased base fog through airport scanners can be (partly) understood as rapid ageing. A formerly ISO400 film becomes an ISO200 film or even an ISO100 film with the grain and resolution powers of an ISO400 film. (That's why ISO 100 films are less affected by scanners.) The best remedy is to expose your shots on the fat side when airport scanners seem unavoidable. If this happens, a mild push can help make the film better scannable. But the damage is done, and the grain is there. 1 hour ago, ArnoG said: When you mention just Xtol, this means stock? No. All photos were developed in 1:1 diluted Xtol. My apologies for not making this clear. 1 hour ago, ArnoG said: I'm a little bit puzzled on grain: It seems to be somewhat of a lottery, which is also my personal experience. Sometimes everything just clicks for whatever reason, and sometimes I see a lot of grain. I can see that. Often the grain isn't an dev issue (I don't find grain an issue, BTW), but rather more a thing of exposure and the editing after the scanning. I tend to work a lot with my images in my editor (C1) which brings out the grain more often than not, as my goal is punch and not subtleness. Why? Because when nailed to a wall, the rules fundamentally change compared to digital media. Clarity, punch, attention getting, etc. become essential. That's why I can hardly make myself a vintage lens fanatic with all the subtle character nuances because the game is very different on the wall, which is my primary play ground. Below of this post is an image shot on Kentmere400 at EI 200-320, developed in Xtol 1:1 to the manufacture's recipe. You can hardly see the grain in the sky. The only hint that this has been shot on film is the bridge. Its is the only part I worked on to create some contrast to the misty, depressing landscape. Thes rest of the image basically looks how the scan comes out in a linear fashion with only the films inherent gamma as a contrasting device. If I were to make this an punchy image, grain would be all over the place. 1 hour ago, ArnoG said: Case in point: Your HP5 in Xtol compared to the pic I posted early-on in this thread, (albeit at 1+3). There seems to be a large difference in grain(?). Is this perhaps scanner resolution(?): My system goes to about 55-60 LP/mm, limited to the 24 MPix camera that I scan with (I use a Minolta 5400 scanner lens that should achieve around 80 LP/mm). I scan with an SL2-S (24MP), a Sigma 70mm Macro (brilliant), and a Valoi Easy35 (also brilliant). As I work on an DNG raw file, I can dig out whatever is in the negative. And that often is grain, as this is the films texture. How large it is depends on many factors, one is the density. The denser, the less grain, the thinner, the more grain. Hower, if I take a dense part of an photo, eg the sky, and start working on it by making it darker, I will bring out the larger part of the grains. Your HP5 picture is a prime example of a high-key image. Thus, most of the image's parts are high-density zones. And because you were looking for that bright, etheral look, you didn't "dig out" the larger grains. 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 January 17 by hansvons 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5741347'>More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted January 17 Share #74 Posted January 17 AH, got it. Thanks. Indeed that Kentmere shot looks very clean. I re-started with film about 2-3 years ago after I got bored with digital and am still on a steep learning curve. Back in the day when I shot film, it was mostly color, and lab-developed and printed. Now I'm on my B&W film adventure and am trying to find my mojo, which seems to be converging to double XX in xtol. A while back I scanned some 1970's B&W shots for my extended family, and was impressed by how good the negatives were. Also through this threat, I have slowly come to realize that I have been too careful with my agitation, and as a result, my negatives are often quite thin, assuming my exposure has been okay. My rationale was that I read in places that more agitation increases grain, but now I'm on a curve where, indeed, I adhere more to the manufacturer's recommended agitation scheme, and am getting far denser negatives. As you point out, fatter negatives should be better, as in less of a need to digitally post-process and boost the grain visibility. Time will tell how my current negatives turn out. During the learning curve over the past years, I switched a couple of times the developer, and tried basically all 400 ISO films, but the results are not consistent enough to become predictable. Hence, I am now covering to a baseline developer and film to optimize the process with less variables and learn more about the detailed behavior. Your inputs have been, and are, very helpful in my learning process, for which my sincere thanks! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted January 19 Share #75 Posted January 19 (edited) I also appreciate your last posts @hansvons - some really interesting observations & definitely good food for thought 👍 While I still have more work to do in terms of developing with XTOL / making my developements more consistent here's a bit of feedback to what you wrote - Since Summer 2024, Kodak stopped their Tri-X scarcity policy in Europe and Tri-X now can be bought for just about 10 Euros per roll which brings it into the Delta400 and HP5 ballpark. Before that, it cost more than double the price of Kentmere400. Interesting, I wasn't aware of that scarcity policy / didn't notice Tri-X used to be even more expensive, here in Germany it's still almost double the price of Kentmere 400 (current prices from Foto Impex below).. 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! While I'm not rich by any means, I don't really care how much the film costs (meaning if I really wanted, say, the T-Max look then I'd buy it, despite the high price). At least with 35mm, it's still affordable. And even with 120 or bigger I'd probably still buy the film I really wanted - and just shoot a few frames less / shoot more disciplined, if money was tight, rather than opting for a cheaper film). I enjoyed reading your elaborations on Delta 100 - kinda looking forward (after figuring out which 400 speed to use) to doing it all again for a slower / finer "summer" b&w film, and comparing Acros II / FP4 / Delta, etc. 🙂 At least by then I should have my dev routine down so it hopefully will take just one roll each.. I find Tri-X to be the ideal fast B&W film for journalism and similar tasks. Skin tones remain in their mid tone range and don’t get hot even when pushed by a stop. Delta400 has problems with skin tones Didn't really notice this (well, as you know by now I'm not a b&w expert in the first place, and on top of that I rarely shoot people), but I do see it now when I look at other peoples' Delta 400 shots. Sometimes I find them really flattering (as in: the lighter reds makes skin look "better" often times), sometimes faces look a bit unnatural. Probably Delta 400 works best for things like studio portraits of beautiful women? Likely you have already seen The Naked Photographer's YouTube channel, where he compares a lot of films with Tri-X? (Delta 400 on the left (obviously), Tri-X on the right) This brings me to Double-X, my first longer relationship in the world of B&W films. I learned loving it when shooting music videos in the late 90s on it and am glad to have it in my arsenal for stills photography today. It‘s quite similar to Tri-X, not as flexible, at tad more contrasty, renders skin tones in an emotional, yet natural way, outperforming Tri-X in that area. ..have never shot Double-X to be frank, but from what I'm seeing so far it's not really my cup of tea (too contrasty to begin with mostly). Also got the impression that the images look quite similar to Ilford's XP2 (which, I'm aware, is a completely different film, but still..) - would you agree? The smoothness / transitions and the inky-ness mostly.. Edited January 19 by username Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! While I'm not rich by any means, I don't really care how much the film costs (meaning if I really wanted, say, the T-Max look then I'd buy it, despite the high price). At least with 35mm, it's still affordable. And even with 120 or bigger I'd probably still buy the film I really wanted - and just shoot a few frames less / shoot more disciplined, if money was tight, rather than opting for a cheaper film). I enjoyed reading your elaborations on Delta 100 - kinda looking forward (after figuring out which 400 speed to use) to doing it all again for a slower / finer "summer" b&w film, and comparing Acros II / FP4 / Delta, etc. 🙂 At least by then I should have my dev routine down so it hopefully will take just one roll each.. I find Tri-X to be the ideal fast B&W film for journalism and similar tasks. Skin tones remain in their mid tone range and don’t get hot even when pushed by a stop. Delta400 has problems with skin tones Didn't really notice this (well, as you know by now I'm not a b&w expert in the first place, and on top of that I rarely shoot people), but I do see it now when I look at other peoples' Delta 400 shots. Sometimes I find them really flattering (as in: the lighter reds makes skin look "better" often times), sometimes faces look a bit unnatural. Probably Delta 400 works best for things like studio portraits of beautiful women? Likely you have already seen The Naked Photographer's YouTube channel, where he compares a lot of films with Tri-X? (Delta 400 on the left (obviously), Tri-X on the right) This brings me to Double-X, my first longer relationship in the world of B&W films. I learned loving it when shooting music videos in the late 90s on it and am glad to have it in my arsenal for stills photography today. It‘s quite similar to Tri-X, not as flexible, at tad more contrasty, renders skin tones in an emotional, yet natural way, outperforming Tri-X in that area. ..have never shot Double-X to be frank, but from what I'm seeing so far it's not really my cup of tea (too contrasty to begin with mostly). Also got the impression that the images look quite similar to Ilford's XP2 (which, I'm aware, is a completely different film, but still..) - would you agree? The smoothness / transitions and the inky-ness mostly.. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5742859'>More sharing options...
username Posted January 19 Share #76 Posted January 19 Little still life just for shits & giggles (Tri-X in XTOL stock).. 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! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5742923'>More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 19 Author Share #77 Posted January 19 (edited) 2 hours ago, username said: ..have never shot Double-X to be frank, but from what I'm seeing so far it's not really my cup of tea (too contrasty to begin with mostly). Also got the impression that the images look quite similar to Ilford's XP2 (which, I'm aware, is a completely different film, but still..) - would you agree? No 😉. Seriously, Double-X shines in Xtol, 1:1 developed for 6:30 minutes @ 24C or 9:30 minutes @ 20C and shot at EI400 or lower (the dev times I mentioned don't push the film). Below are two images I shot today on the same roll of Double-X. It's a gorgeous film similar to Tri-X, with a tad more resolution and a bit more punch in the mid/skin tone. Shadows shut down earlier than Tri-X, which is to be expected due to the lower box speed. It's less malleable but, in my eyes, more expressive. Suppose I ranked HP5, Tri-X, and Double-X from malleability to expressiveness. In that case, I rank HP5 as the most flexible and Double-X as the most capricious but sexiest of the three, with Tri-X sitting right in the middle, which makes it so indispensable. Check this link for Tri-X. 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 January 19 by hansvons 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5742975'>More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 19 Author Share #78 Posted January 19 And this one, same film, same time, also 35mm Summicron ASPH: 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5742977'>More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 19 Author Share #79 Posted January 19 1 hour ago, username said: Little still life just for shits & giggles (Tri-X in XTOL stock).. Looks as good as it can get with Tri-X. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 19 Author Share #80 Posted January 19 2 hours ago, username said: Likely you have already seen The Naked Photographer's YouTube channel, where he compares a lot of films with Tri-X? This is a rare type of photography channel on YouTube because he knows what he does and says (professor for photography, don't know where he has tenure. Doesn't matter.). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now