Xtol: experiences and issues

[username]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

..and here is a 100% crop from the above:

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]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[username]

..oh yeah - and it's always Delta 400 on the left and the Tri-X on the right 🙂

Surely there must be some conditions that play more to the strengths of one emulsion or the other, but frankly in these examples here they do look quite similar, don't they?

(sorry @hansvons - I didn't mean to turn this into a Delta 400 vs. Tri-X thread but I figured you won't mind posting these) ✌️

[username]

Also here's two Volvo's for your viewing pleasure -

 

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!

 

 

[username]

..and a hippie van 😍

 

 

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!

[hansvons]

28 minutes ago, username said:

Surely there must be some conditions that play more to the strengths of one emulsion or the other, but frankly in these examples here they do look quite similar, don't they?

Yes, Delta tends to render brighter, softer skin tones when photographing faces, while Tri-X stays more faithful to the truth (wrinkles, pimples, etc.). 

I prefer the second Volvo 240 over the first 850. That's not only because I owned the 240 in the 90s but also because of the contrast and overall look.

I can't comment on Silverfast, etc., as I don't use that. I use an SL2-S, a Sigma 70mm Macro, the incredible Valoi Easy35, and for editing Capture One. 

Regarding development: Ilford proposes swiftly pouring in the developer, followed by 10 seconds of agitation, and then agitating again every minute for 10 seconds. Many photographers prefer the Ilford agitation method because it lets you do some stuff between the shaking. However, many tend to agitate for 30 or even 60 seconds after pouring in the developer. Depending on the film, I do mostly 30 seconds, sometimes 60 seconds. Double-X already has a pronounced toe in the shadows. Too much agitation will close the toe even more, so I figured 30 seconds would do. Kentmere 400 and HP5, on the other hand, benefit from a 60-second initial agitation in my experience. 

 

[ArnoG]

“The look” I’m after:

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 in Xtol 1+3, EI not stated. Click pic for link to Flickr with author 

Edited January 27 by ArnoG

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, ArnoG said:

“The look” I’m after:

I don't know him personally, but he made himself ubiquitous in the internet Leica world. He knows what he does. However, his subjects are young women whom he photographs for castings, model agencies, etc. (I might be wrong). This is a look per se. Or, to put it differently, the subject somewhat masks a film's character and makes it look cool. But I get the idea of a look that allows for natural skin tones but keeps blacks black and whites white and not grey–basically, a (relative) high-contrast film that doesn't kill skin tones. Double-X does that. But it cannot remedy bad clothes choices and unfavourable light, not to mention castings that went wrong.

[ArnoG]

I do know “MrLeica” personally and noticed some “adversary” in forums on his choice to shoot mostly pretty girls, and believe it deserves some nuance. I’ve been shooting since I was 11 starting with film, then digital, and now for a few years back to film. Having tried all kinds of subjects over the years, I felt up for a new challenge and found that in portraits: It’s quite hard to bring out “the soul” of people in a picture that is also technically good. The psychology involved in earning the trust of the subject being a person confronted with a lens stuck up close provides a new dimension that is completely absent in other subjects. I find as much satisfaction in portraying and old grandfather who’s life is etched in his face, as any other person, but as it happens, most people who want good pictures of themselves happen to be (younger) girls. I’ve since then done quite a bit of model work and these sessions have always been extremely professional, respectful, and rewarding for both the model and photographer. I also noticed that many of the “models” have had some form of difficulties in their lives and use the fact that they can look beautiful in pictures as a confirmation to themselves that they “are back”. Some extreme examples of this that I personally encountered are cancer survivors. Hence, there’s absolutely nothing “dirty” about doing a model shoot, and in contrast, it’s a genuine attempt to create art together. The first picture which I posted on HP5 was from a shoot with someone unknown to me, who came together with her friend and both ended up in tears during the session because of the way I managed to portray her, which felt extremely rewarding to me. Another example is a shoot with the daughter of a good friend of mine, who I held when she was a little baby, and who turned into a very beautiful young woman, who also had a bad experience. She posted the pictures proudly on her instagram and wrote her feelings about the shoot below it: 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C40t0ZHMZjA/?igsh=aWNqdGJqaW4ydTV2
 

Again, to me as a photographer and as a person this was very rewarding. What I think I’m trying to convey here is that there is more to a book than just the cover.. 

[username]

11 hours ago, ArnoG said:

“The look” I’m after:

On that flickr page you linked to he shares in detail what his method was - Developing - 1:3 Xtol, 10min30 at 23 degrees - 

if I were you I'd just do exactly that with 2-3 rolls of Double-X (using different EI's) if I wanted to replicate that look 💁‍♂️

[username]

13 hours ago, hansvons said:

Yes, Delta tends to render brighter, softer skin tones when photographing faces, while Tri-X stays more faithful to the truth (wrinkles, pimples, etc.). 

Yes, sorry - I really should have said ..apart from the red sensitivity - I do remember you elaborating on this when talking about the conference shots you posted, and also it's been made very clear by TNP in that Delta 400 YouTube video I linked to.
I even made some semi-scientific test shots including various red things, alas I didn't post them as I didn't want to bore you all to death, and I feared they're too half-assed to begin with, but now we're at it..

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 guess my point is rather that I'm kinda surprised how very similar Tri-X and Delta 400 look (in the conditions I shot them in the last two weeks at least) - in regards to "character", grain structure, "overall feel".

Looking at other peoples' images on the net for weeks I got the impression that Delta is oftentimes a bit more "crisp" looking, a bit more "fresh", and has a bit of a "lighter" feel to it (not only because of, but also because of the reds) - while Tri-X to me always felt a bit more "oldschool", a bit more "creamy" in appearance (mostly talking about the smoothness of transitions, yet also in regard to grain structure).
As mentioned upthread Tri-X usually looks rather "warm" to me - like, very slightly brown / sepia toned you could say - which Delta 400 does not (this is also what I'm refering to when I say Delta looks "fresher" to my eyes - it's a bit cooler usually, color-temperature-wise, and I think this contributes to a somewhat more "modern" look compared to the more "retro" looking Tri-X).

I'm not seeing these differences very much in my own pictures that I have shot so far is basically what I'm saying.
 

Also what I have been meaning to ask you - do you actually use XTOL these days, or have you switched to XT-3?
If the latter, did you experience any differences (I've heard XT-3 is a bit more active.. so shorter times for the same effect?), and do you find your images look different when developed with XT-3 instead of XTOL?

I realized I'd definitely rather support ADOX than Kodak going forward - and figured that if I'm going to switch I'd better do it now rather than later..

 

13 hours ago, hansvons said:

I prefer the second Volvo 240 over the first 850. That's not only because I owned the 240 in the 90s but also because of the contrast and overall look.

I do realize the second shot is more appealing, frankly the first ("dull") one really depicts accurately what the situation is here in Berlin, mid-January:

cold, grey & bleak 😀

 

Edited January 28 by username

[username]

12 hours ago, hansvons said:

Regarding development: Ilford proposes swiftly pouring in the developer, followed by 10 seconds of agitation, and then agitating again every minute for 10 seconds.

Yes, this is what I've been doing, and what I will continue to do for the foreseeable future 👍

 

12 hours ago, hansvons said:

Many photographers prefer the Ilford agitation method because it lets you do some stuff between the shaking. However, many tend to agitate for 30 or even 60 seconds after pouring in the developer. Depending on the film, I do mostly 30 seconds, sometimes 60 seconds. Double-X already has a pronounced toe in the shadows. Too much agitation will close the toe even more, so I figured 30 seconds would do. Kentmere 400 and HP5, on the other hand, benefit from a 60-second initial agitation in my experience. 

Thank you for sharing - I will keep this in the back of my head.
For now I'd like to stick to one way of agitating and become really consistent at it 🙂

[username]

2 hours ago, ArnoG said:

I do know “MrLeica” personally

..well then - no offense, but why ask random strangers on an internet forum when you could just go ahead and ask the man himself how he archieves that look?

Surely he'd be the best person to answer your question?

[andybarton]

3 hours ago, username said:

Yes, this is what I've been doing, and what I will continue to do for the foreseeable future 👍

 

Thank you for sharing - I will keep this in the back of my head.
For now I'd like to stick to one way of agitating and become really consistent at it 🙂

Keeping to a consistent regime is essential. If you’re changing elements in your process you must only do one at a time otherwise you won’t know where you are.

And write everything down. 

[username]

..will do, thanks @andybarton 👍

[hansvons]

4 hours ago, username said:

Also what I have been meaning to ask you - do you actually use XTOL these days, or have you switched to XT-3?
If the latter, did you experience any differences (I've heard XT-3 is a bit more active.. so shorter times for the same effect?), and do you find your images look different when developed with XT-3 instead of XTOL?

I realized I'd definitely rather support ADOX than Kodak going forward - and figured that if I'm going to switch I'd better do it now rather than later..

I switched to Adox XT-3 because I can get 1-litre packages, and it's friendlier to mix (it doesn't stir up dust). I didn't do any scientific tests to compare Xtol with XT-3. For me, at least, the results with XT-3 are as good as those with Xtol. I support Adox because their contributions to the community are unique and valuable, not just overpriced me-too products or repackaged products like DoubleXX from Cinestill.

[username]

Some more Tri-X in XTOL from beautiful Berlin 🥰

 

 

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!

[username]

4 minutes ago, hansvons said:

I switched to Adox XT-3 because I can get 1-litre packages, and it's friendlier to mix (it doesn't stir up dust). I didn't do any scientific tests to compare Xtol with XT-3. For me, at least, the results with XT-3 are as good as those with Xtol.

..thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it! 👍

[ArnoG]

I switched to XT3 when xtol wasn’t available. It seems similar at 1+1 dilution, but doesn’t seem to behave the same at higher dilution (1+3, 1+4) where xtol is clearly better. This stems from my own experience as well as MrLeica as well as a pro-lab in the UK. XT3 is close, but not the same apparently. 
 

@hansvons and @username: Yes, obviously I did run xtol at 1+3 and 1+4, and also at 1+4 plus “a dash of Rodinal” based on the results that MrLeica was getting (with 1+3 being the current optimum for classic grain film, tabular grain seems to like lower dilution better, but not stock). Mrleica and I communicate a lot with respect to what works best, specifically on double x in xtol, but we don’t always agree. The reason why I’m also asking here is that I’m learning an awful lot from your experience: I need to agitate more, my negatives are commonly too thin, spectral response of Ilford vs. Kodak specifically for skin tones, noise, etc etc.

yes, I can simply copy the MrLeica recipe and be done with, but I also like to understand why that works well (especially before buying an intended 400ft roll of double x) and this thread has been enormously helpful 
for that!

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[username]

1 hour ago, ArnoG said:

I switched to XT3 when xtol wasn’t available. It seems similar at 1+1 dilution, but doesn’t seem to behave the same at higher dilution (1+3, 1+4) where xtol is clearly better.

Thanks for the feedback!

In what way would you say XT3 behaves differently / in what regard is XTOL "clearly better" at the higher dilutions?

[jensthoes]

Hello,

I used X-Tol since some decades (+/- 120 films / year).

After the production stop, I tried X-T3 - but I wasn‘t satified.

For some time I used the „new“ X-Tol. BUT this is not anymore the same developper!

With my normal developping times, I doesn‘t get the same results.

Kodak and my dealer sayed, that it is the same formular, but the results are definetly not the same.

I don‘t use X-Tol any longer!
 

Best,

 

Jens