username Posted January 19 Share #81 Posted January 19 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) 19 minutes ago, hansvons said: 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 Oh yes, very nice indeed (and looking very different to what I saw from Double-X so far) - thanks for posting - although I don't appreciate you complicating things; I actually just was under the impression that I successfully boiled down my candidates 😀 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 username 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=5742992'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 19 Posted January 19 Hi username, Take a look here Xtol: experiences and issues. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
username Posted January 19 Share #82 Posted January 19 5 minutes ago, hansvons said: This is a rare type of photography channel on YouTube because he knows what he does and says indeed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted January 19 Share #83 Posted January 19 21 minutes ago, hansvons said: Check this link for Tri-X. Thank you! Actually did just order some stuff from them and saw they had reduced the price of Tri-X - frankly I usually shop my b&w things at Impex though, as I like the shop and I do live in Berlin 🙂 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 19 Author Share #84 Posted January 19 1 minute ago, username said: I actually just was under the impression that I successfully boiled down my candidates 😀 If I were you, I'd stick to Tri-X for now. Later, when your results match your vision in a highly consistent fashion, do whatever you like. Consistency in all possible variables, including the film stock you use, is the key to success in B&W film photography, regardless of how experienced one is in other fields of photo-making. That's, by the way, the reason why I shoot 98% with 35mm lenses. Again, consistency, but this time in framing and visualisation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 19 Author Share #85 Posted January 19 (edited) 16 minutes ago, username said: I usually shop my b&w things at Impex though, as I like the shop and I do live in Berlin 🙂 Good people, great city! Impex is crucial for the community, eg Adox films etc. While we are in Berlin, this guy is my dealer for colour cine stock, which I regularly use, but he also sells Double-X. Highly reliable! Edited January 19 by hansvons Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted January 20 Share #86 Posted January 20 I know this is supposed to be an xtol thread, but also focuses on double x: Did anyone try double x in D76, or better yet, D96, which apparently has been developed specifically for the film? From what I have seen, double x seems to work very well in D96 (and apparently D76 is close), but I cannot seem to find a proper comparison to Xtol for double x. Thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 21 Author Share #87 Posted January 21 Advertisement (gone after registration) On 1/20/2025 at 2:13 PM, ArnoG said: Did anyone try double x in D76, or better yet, D96, which apparently has been developed specifically for the film? I was thinking of getting D96 to test it against Xtol in the past. I did not follow this up for these reasons: Xtol is by far the most environmentally friendly developer. In that regard, I'm not keen on using a lesser developer. The results I get with Xtol are slightly better overall than with D76, which I used initially, including Double-X. I know developers play a role in the result, especially when looking at the two ends of the spectrum, e.g., Rodinal vs. Xtol. However, exposure, temperature, and the recipe used are more important. Given that D76 and D96 are said to be similar developers and that there is no magic potion in B&W photography, I feel I'm still well served by Xtol to develop Double-X. Bottom line: I'm confident that D96 will not visibly improve images. So, I will keep this rabbit hole shut and leave dealing with developers to others. But if you are eager to delve into this, please let me know how it went 😉. (To my knowledge, D96 exists for specific cine workflow reasons, not only driven by quality reasons. I can't say for sure, but a) Double-X is supposed to be printed on high-contrast print films in a cinema workflow (that's why the ENC2 developer exists for colour cine film stocks, which flattens the gamma), which might lead to specific gamma requirements only D96 can provide, and b) cine labs need an economical workflow, e.g. replenishing the developer is mandatory. Chances are high that neither D76 nor Xtol fill that bill. However, in Stills Land, the rules are more relaxed, which might lead to the conclusion that Double-X could be better developed with Xtol than with its "native" developer when the cine constraints don't apply. Please note that this is purely speculative.) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted January 22 Share #88 Posted January 22 @hansvons Thanks! Glad you tried D76. Thing is, there’s wonderful results to see on the web for double x in D76 and D96, but no objective comparisons to xtol, so I started wondering. Similarly, I also saw wonderful things for HP5 in HC110b and for Tri-x in Rodinal (with unexpected fine grain), so I agree that getting the right recipe with a specific combo is key. I’m just starting to get a proper feeling for how xtol in its various recipes behaves, and the differences visible in various dilutions and agitation schemes are quite large. Switching developers is more like opening a can of worms than going down a rabbit hole, due to the exploding number of free parameters. I also selected xtol initially for being more environmentally friendly than others. You tried D76, which seems quite similar to D96, and I trust your judgement, so won’t go that route either. Another variable is the lens that is used. I recently switched to Leica and only want to afford myself vintage glass (Leica tax feels like any other tax to me), so I’m using some 1950-60’s era glass that is apparently optimized for B&W, and there’s something in the tonality and rendering that just clicks with me as the look I’m after in my unconscious mind. I also obtained a modern Zeiss ZM 50/1.5 Sonnar because I love the look of my 1950’s Contax Zeiss Opton 50/1.5 (as well as the 35/2.8 companion) but it’s not the same. Today I’m out to likely purchase a 1957 50/2 Summicron to replace the (too?) modern Zeiss. The look I’m after is that era Summicron on double x in xtol, since I find consistent jaw-dropping results online for that combo, and I intent to find a way to make the classic Opton Sonnar and its 35/2.8 sister work on my M2. My Contax iia, which I purchased, and spent months getting operational, was to be able to use the classic Sonnar for its rendering, but the Contax, despite looking cool and working flawlessly, is a bit archaic in terms of its viewfinder compared to the M2. Perhaps I’m overly picky and anal in terms of optimization, but I have this look in my head that I’m after and which I want to create consistently. Apologies for all that rambling. Not sure if it makes sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 22 Author Share #89 Posted January 22 (edited) 2 hours ago, ArnoG said: Thing is, there’s wonderful results to see on the web for double x in D76 and D96, but no objective comparisons to xtol, so I started wondering. Hi Arno, Xtol is still an outlier in the B&W developer market. Thus, chances are low that you will find Xtol-developed Double-X images on Flickr, etc. I don't know for sure why that is, but I have some ideas: Xtol is a reasonably recent developer, brought to market by Kodak in the 90ies. At that time, B&W photography was already a niche, with newspapers being the notable exception for professional photographers. When Kodak announced Xtol as its shiny new and superior developer (extol!), many were disappointed because, in the end, Xtol was and still is just another compensating developer—no magic potion that would turn an ISO400 film into an ISO1600 film without the usual sacrifices. The remaining professional users at that time saw no reason to change their workflow from D76 to Xtol. That's why most labs and pragmatic photographers still stick to D76, which is the de facto standard developer. Besides these arguments, Xtol is highly compensating (flat gamma, so shadows get lifted, and highlights keep detail) but also delivers full film speed, provides good acutance and sharpness, and creates fine-grained results. It is also quite good at pushing. However, not all of these virtues are necessarily desired. A flat gamma means less contrast, which can be an issue in a wet printing workflow. For scanning, however, a flat gamma has its advantages but requires some experience in editing to achieve classic B&W results. Many prefer a scan-done approach. That's why Rodinal is so attractive. 2 hours ago, ArnoG said: Perhaps I’m overly picky and anal in terms of optimization, but I have this look in my head that I’m after and which I want to create consistently. Apologies for all that rambling. Not sure if it makes sense. It does make tons of sense. I'm still learning (it's a lifelong process). I'm interested in your vision of that look you are after. Love to share some ideas here. 2 hours ago, ArnoG said: I’m just starting to get a proper feeling for how xtol in its various recipes behaves, and the differences visible in various dilutions and agitation schemes are quite large. Absolutely. That's why sticking to one developer makes a lot of sense if you want consistency. I love serendipity moments but prefer not to have them on the back end. When they happen, I would like to make them available for reproduction, which requires a scientific approach, meaning consistency is king. In sailboat racing, they say you can only learn to start successfully when you jump the gun multiple times until you have a clear idea of that process—so, winning means first losing big time because you'll never win a race when you must start again at the tail of the pack for crossing the line too early. The same applies to film development. Overcooking your film is essential to understand where the limits are. Often, like box speed ISO, the official recipes deliver the "right" development at the "right" exposure and "right" ISO. That may not be right for you. For example, I find Kentmere400 and HP5 too flat when developed in the manufacturer's recipe and can't see any downsides when pushed mildly. But I find their box speed ISO "right". In the case of HP5, you can also expose it at EI640 without much difference (shadows lose a tad of detail). 2 hours ago, ArnoG said: Another variable is the lens that is used. Oh boy. This is a can of worms. This alone is worth multiple books. Again, I look for consistency and thus use only one focal length, in my case, 35mm, except for 50mm for the (rare) occasional close portrait. I own a 35mm Summicron ASPH, a 35mm Summarit, and a 35mm Nokton f/1.4 SC V2. Why these lenses? Lenses behave differently on film than on digital. Generally, some quirks tend to be milder on film, notably vignetting and corner mushiness. Some character features like the infamous "Leica glow" will overlap with typical film features like halation in strong backlight, leading to an even more amplified glow. If I want that, I use the Nokton because it's basically a Summilux V1 copy and glows like hell at full aperture, gradually turning into a "proper" lens when stopping down (corners never become sharp, though). However, I'm mostly not after that look. I find film to be "emotional" enough and like clarity, so I prefer lenses with decent sharpness at full aperture. Like lenses, different film stocks have different MFT curves. How good the result will be in terms of resolution, sharpness, and acutance depends on the lens film-stock tandem. Both equally factor in. A high MTF lens with a low MTF film will lead to better results than when using a lesser lens. (That's why, until 2009, when digital cinematography took over Cine Land, everybody sought newer, sharper lenses. Quite a contrast to today, when old lenses are highly fashionable to tone down that sharp digital-ness.) To my eyes, the 35mm Summicron ASPH provides precisely that, and I'm not looking further (BTW, the ASPH Summicron was developed with film in mind). This link will lead you to the Double-X product sheet, including an MTF curve. Edited January 22 by hansvons Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted January 22 Author Share #90 Posted January 22 (edited) @ArnoG @username, below is the same subject shot with a year between them. The weather, light, clouds, etc., were different. Both are edited to my liking. However, Double-X is more straightforward to edit because it looks less greyish from the beginning. The first image was shot on APX400, aka Kentmere400 @EI320 and developed in Xtol with a mild push (half a stop). The second image was shot on Double-X, exposed @EI400 and developed at 6:30 minutes in Xtol @24C. Both were shot using a 35mm Nokton f/1.4 SC. The first image was shot at f2.8, the second on an f/5.6. This lens has tons of character and many virtues, but corner sharpness is not one of them. Unfortunately, the forum software limits us to 2K resolution, which is way below both films. But I can confidently say that Double-X resolves a tad more and is sharper. Will the audience recognise the difference between both films? Probably not. However, they will notice the wavy water pattern in the second image, which somewhat kills the motif's intent. APX400/Kentmere400 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! Double-X Edited January 22 by hansvons Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Double-X ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5744425'>More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted January 23 Share #91 Posted January 23 @hansvons: Matt Osborne, aka MrLeica, has extensive pictures with double x in xtol: https://mrleica.com/kodak-double-x/amp/ There's many pictures of double x in xtol across his website and on flicker, and he got me into diluted xtol and double x. I think the optimum, from only his pictures, seems to occur around 1+3 dilution, semi-stand development (for scanning that is...). The look I'm after is visible in his Summicron Dr review: https://mrleica.com/leica-summicron-dr/, although most of the shots there are from Tmax100 in xtol. I was initially very fond of the 1950's Opton Sonnar look, and went the Contax-route as described above, but now think I like the look from the Summicron 50/2 DR in B&W is even better, so that's what I got now, but it's hazy inside and needs a CLA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted January 23 Share #92 Posted January 23 (edited) More still lifes.. (the weather / light is so shit right now where I live.. still I wanted to make some progress regarding the XTOL developing, so took a lot of shots of black, white, grey and chrome things in the last couple of days : ) 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! These are all shot on Delta 400 in XTOL 1:1, with 10sec initial agitation followed by 10sec every minute, at 20°C, for a total of 11,5 minutes (as per Ilford's Delta 400 data sheet) ..negatives still came out a bit thin so will go even longer next time 👍 Edited January 23 by username 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! These are all shot on Delta 400 in XTOL 1:1, with 10sec initial agitation followed by 10sec every minute, at 20°C, for a total of 11,5 minutes (as per Ilford's Delta 400 data sheet) ..negatives still came out a bit thin so will go even longer next time 👍 ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5745355'>More sharing options...
username Posted January 23 Share #93 Posted January 23 (edited) 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! ..some Tri-X for good measure 👍 @hansvons - thanks once again for your feedback, I appreciate it 🙋♂️ I hear you on the consistency part. At the moment it all feels very much like "homework", but I know this is the smart way to go. I will settle on Tri-X most likely (really want to shoot one more roll of Tri-X and Delta 400 next to each other - in "real life", not still life 😅 - and develop both with the 1:1 dilution, then I'll decide on one film). A tough one for me in regards to consistency is the scanning part. Boy, I forgot how much I hate SilverFast.. truly one of the most vile pieces of software I have used in my whole life. That being said my scanner is actually decent, so it's worth the effort in the end. I've found at least with the thinner negs it's worth it to completely ignore the NegaFix profiles, but scan as positive instead, inverting / adjusting in PS after the fact. Found some more info in the sky on the Tesla shot after all, who would've thought 🙂 Edited January 23 by username 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ..some Tri-X for good measure 👍 @hansvons - thanks once again for your feedback, I appreciate it 🙋♂️ I hear you on the consistency part. At the moment it all feels very much like "homework", but I know this is the smart way to go. I will settle on Tri-X most likely (really want to shoot one more roll of Tri-X and Delta 400 next to each other - in "real life", not still life 😅 - and develop both with the 1:1 dilution, then I'll decide on one film). A tough one for me in regards to consistency is the scanning part. Boy, I forgot how much I hate SilverFast.. truly one of the most vile pieces of software I have used in my whole life. That being said my scanner is actually decent, so it's worth the effort in the end. I've found at least with the thinner negs it's worth it to completely ignore the NegaFix profiles, but scan as positive instead, inverting / adjusting in PS after the fact. Found some more info in the sky on the Tesla shot after all, who would've thought 🙂 ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5745394'>More sharing options...
username Posted January 23 Share #94 Posted January 23 On 1/22/2025 at 9:52 AM, hansvons said: For scanning, however, a flat gamma has its advantages but requires some experience in editing to achieve classic B&W results. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted January 23 Share #95 Posted January 23 On 1/22/2025 at 10:38 AM, hansvons said: Will the audience recognise the difference between both films? Probably not. However, they will notice the wavy water pattern in the second image, which somewhat kills the motif's intent. To be frank I like both "looks" (both films) a lot, but indeed prefer the first shot with the still water 👍 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted January 24 Share #96 Posted January 24 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! This is Tri-X, from the first roll where I adopted the 1:1 ratio and the more laid-back initial 10sec followed by 10 sec every minute approach. Obviously not the most creative shot, yet I'm pleased with how things are, erm, developing 🙂 Negatives still a bit thin (underdeveloped), but scanning as positive helps getting something out of it as mentioned already 👍 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! This is Tri-X, from the first roll where I adopted the 1:1 ratio and the more laid-back initial 10sec followed by 10 sec every minute approach. Obviously not the most creative shot, yet I'm pleased with how things are, erm, developing 🙂 Negatives still a bit thin (underdeveloped), but scanning as positive helps getting something out of it as mentioned already 👍 ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5745833'>More sharing options...
username Posted January 27 Share #97 Posted January 27 ..so as mentioned above I shot another roll of both Delta 400 and Tri-X, and developed them in XTOL 1:1 @ 20°C, 10sec initial agitation and 10sec every full minute, as seen here. Since the last rolls where underdeveloped I upped the times: for the Delta 400 I now did 12 minutes (the XTOL Data sheet suggests 10,5mins, and Ilford suggest 11,5mins) - also I did start the timer after pouring the dev in, and started pouring it out right when the 12 minutes are over. last time I went with 9mins for the Tri-X (XTOL Data Sheet suggests 8,75), today I tried 10 full minutes 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! ..quite happy with the Ilford, judging by the markings - and the Tri-X negatives look ok as well (I hardly shot any Tri-X in the past and can't find those negs right now so can't compare, but the markings are never that bold / black as they are with the Ilford films right?) 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ..quite happy with the Ilford, judging by the markings - and the Tri-X negatives look ok as well (I hardly shot any Tri-X in the past and can't find those negs right now so can't compare, but the markings are never that bold / black as they are with the Ilford films right?) ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5747399'>More sharing options...
username Posted January 27 Share #98 Posted January 27 Frankly, I'm having a bit of a problem really comparing the shots in a meaningful way - turns out I'm really not an expert when it comes to black & white scanning. For what it's worth here's some comparison images, maybe they are of use to some of you who also scan with an old SilverFast setup 🙂 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! So these are both scanned with their respective NegaFix profiles, and Auto-adjusted highlight / midtone / shadows. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! So these are both scanned with their respective NegaFix profiles, and Auto-adjusted highlight / midtone / shadows. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5747402'>More sharing options...
username Posted January 27 Share #99 Posted January 27 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! These are scanned with their respective NegaFix profiles, but no adjustements at all (everything reset to zero), also the shots have not been edited after the fact. ..these are 100% crops from the above shots. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! These are scanned with their respective NegaFix profiles, but no adjustements at all (everything reset to zero), also the shots have not been edited after the fact. ..these are 100% crops from the above shots. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5747407'>More sharing options...
username Posted January 27 Share #100 Posted January 27 (edited) These are scanned as positive (so obviously without any NegaFix profiles as they're not available in slide mode). The scanner is IT8 calibrated and this is what he sees (all these shots, including the above, are scanned in 16bit greyscale and saved as tiffs by the way). 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! ..the following is with the image flattened to one layer, and curve adjustement (setting black and white point) applied to it - Edited January 27 by username Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ..the following is with the image flattened to one layer, and curve adjustement (setting black and white point) applied to it - ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5747410'>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