Xtol: experiences and issues

[ArnoG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@username At high dilution XT-3 gave “muddy” results. I read somewhere that Asia had hired a very knowledgeable developing person to test it who claimed that it was like xtol with improvements, so I wanted it to work, also because it came in 1 liter packs, and at my then default 1+1 it seemed to behave well, but the higher diluted stuff seemed off. Not scientifically and rigorously tested of course but when I got similar signals from others and xtol became available again I switched back.

@jensthoes that sounds quite dramatic and if you used it for decades you should know, so curious to learn what made you abandon it?

[username]

Thanks for the feedback @ArnoG, I appreciate it 👍

[username]

30 minutes ago, jensthoes said:

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

Would you mind saying why?

 

30 minutes ago, jensthoes said:

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.

..just too thin negs with the new XTOL compared to the old one, or what was the problem if I may ask?

[hansvons]

44 minutes ago, jensthoes said:

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.

Interesting. Would you mind elaborating a bit? What was different?  I'm genuinely curious!

[jensthoes]

vor 30 Minuten schrieb username:

Would you mind saying why?

 

..just too thin negs with the new XTOL compared to the old one, or what was the problem if I may ask?

...yes, the negatives were definetly thinner. And I didn't like the fact, that they sayed "nothing changed" and the results where obviously not the same.

Best,

Jens

[jensthoes]

vor 32 Minuten schrieb username:

Would you mind saying why?

 

..just too thin negs with the new XTOL compared to the old one, or what was the problem if I may ask?

...not the same densities compared to the old X-Tol and the negative strips showed a strange behavior - they were like curls and that's not fine if you want to put negative stips on a flatbet scanner (for the enlarger, I prefer flat negatives as well).

Best,

Jens

[username]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, jensthoes said:

...yes, the negatives were definetly thinner. And I didn't like the fact, that they sayed "nothing changed" and the results where obviously not the same.

Thank you for elaborating!

You're not alone 🙂

There's been a dicussion regarding these points over at the Photrio Forums in case you're interested / haven't seen it before -

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/fresh-xtol-from-psi-and-thin-negatives.210701/

 

[250swb]

2 hours ago, jensthoes said:

...yes, the negatives were definetly thinner. And I didn't like the fact, that they sayed "nothing changed" and the results where obviously not the same.

Best,

Jens

It begs the question did you extend the developing time to compensate? I think most people would do that given any development time published is a starting point which you adapt to your own technique of exposure, developing method, agitation technique, etc. 

[jensthoes]

Hello,

vor 2 Stunden schrieb 250swb:

It begs the question did you extend the developing time to compensate? I think most people would do that given any development time published is a starting point which you adapt to your own technique of exposure, developing method, agitation technique, etc. 

Hello,

if I'm using a NEW developper or a new film-developper-combination, I "calibrate" this.

I messure the density for theses "Zones" (referring the Zone-System by Ansel Adams and his suggestions):

- Zone I (targeted logD: 0,09-0,11)

-Zone V (targeted logD: 0,65-0,75)

- Zone VIII (targeted logD: 1,25-1,35)

That gives me the negatives I want.

If I'm using film-developer-combinations, that I used several thousend times, I use my common times/agitation/temperature.

And I'm not very happy, if the negatives are not right after the developpement!!

I will not support I product with such bad information politics - this has to be much more transparent for the user.

Now I use the new JOBO ALPHA and alternatively the old D-76 (not changed since decades).

Best,

Jens

[250swb]

6 minutes ago, jensthoes said:

 

I will not support I product with such bad information politics - this has to be much more transparent for the user.

 

I thought from the rest of your reply you were creating your own information on which to base development times with XT-3, I guess not. But it isn't unusual for other developer manufacturers such as Kodak or Ilford to publish times that are not the common times that people find from experience and testing or from the Massive Dev Chart. I accept if you don't like the aesthetic results there is no reason to carry on using a film and developer combination, but can't understand how a suggested time can be wrong enough to never use it again if all it requires is maybe adding a minute or so onto the time, for example. Each to his own as they say.

[username]

16 hours ago, 250swb said:

it isn't unusual for other developer manufacturers such as Kodak or Ilford to publish times that are not the common times that people find from experience and testing

..sure - however with XTOL it seems like that after all the changes regarding licensing and production the product is just not the same any more.

Basically (despite it being almost 30 years old) people now kinda need to treat it as a new product and "calibrate" again it seems; the old developing times apparently don't work any more, many people report thin negatives.

Personally, I'm just starting out with XTOL so for me it doesn't really matter, as I have to find the times that work for me anyways - but I can understand the frustration of those that have been using the product for a long time, that have endured a couple of years of apparently super-unreliable batches from the Sino Promise era - and are now being offered a developer that's really not the same as it was.

Yet they do claim the formula hasn't changed.

And actually, as of right now, they don't bother to offer any data sheet at all on the official product page - but rather just direct folks to the Massive Dev Chart.
Which isn't really helpful as the times published there are in regards to the old version of XTOL.

Also when asked directly, they do tell you the "old times still work", which just isn't true.

So I can see @jensthoes' frustration regarding the transparency / information, to me it also seems very unprofessional.

Ordered some Adox XT-3 myself now and will switch to that if I like the results, as I really don't feel like supporting Kodak Photo Systems / PSI any more, to be frank.

[jensthoes]

…perfect. That matches my opinion very good.

And yes, Kodak is cool with wasting my time, my films (and by that my photos).

Best,

Jens

[username]

This thread still needs more pictures I think; here's another still life from my test films -
Tri-X in XTOL 1:1 @ 20°C, 10sec initial agitation followed by 10sec every minute, 10min total

 

 

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!

[250swb]

1 hour ago, username said:

Basically (despite it being almost 30 years old) people now kinda need to treat it as a new product and "calibrate" again it seems; the old developing times apparently don't work any more, many people report thin negatives.

 

But XT-3 clearly works for many people on the basis that you only hear from the few people complaining, not those who are happy. And maybe I'm reading the wrong forums but it seems most of the complaint is down to times and not how the negatives look when fully developed, which would be making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Edit - For example here is a current thread about Xtol and the alternative XT-3 in which XT-3 seems to be winning the popular vote

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/xtol-recommendations.211634/

 

 

Edited January 30 by 250swb

[username]

55 minutes ago, 250swb said:

it seems most of the complaint is down to times and not how the negatives look when fully developed, which would be making a mountain out of a mole hill.

No offense, but I think you're missing the point.

Yes, developing times can be adjusted.

Nobody is saying that it wouldn't be possible to get good looking negatives using today's version of XTOL (I'm fairly happy with mine for what it's worth), also it's understood that provided data sheets are merely offering starting points, not 100% foolproof developing times for everybody.

It's rather about the fact that in recent years (since 2019) there has been a lot of chaos in the aftermath of Eastman Kodak's bankruptcy, XTOL production has moved to China for a while (Sino), also partly to Germany (Tetenal), now back to the US (Photo Systems Inc.) - and now the product isn't working the same way any more - yet they tell you it is.
 

 

Quote

XT-3 clearly works for many people on the basis that you only hear from the few people complaining, not those who are happy. 

Can't really comment on it as I haven't used it yet myself, but what I hear is quite a few people who formerly used XTOL have switched over to XT-3 (not because it works "better" but because they're fed up with how Kodak handled things and due to their horrible experiences during the Sino years, and because it works pretty well, for most at least).

 

What's your personal experience if I may ask?
Have you used the old (pre-2019) XTOL, the one from recent years, as well as the one being offered today - and have you had any issues / change in performance?

 

Edited January 30 by username

[250swb]

1 hour ago, username said:

No offense, but I think you're missing the point.

 

What's your personal experience if I may ask?
Have you used the old (pre-2019) XTOL, the one from recent years, as well as the one being offered today - and have you had any issues / change in performance?

 

No offense but it's important to redress the criticism XT-3 is getting for the sake of context, that is the point. Getting 'thin' negatives unjustly blames the tools and not the workman, check with the link I posted and nobody is currently complaining about XT-3.

No I haven't used Xtol for twenty or so years or whenever it was first released so couldn't really care less about the convoluted history of Kodak's chemicals.

Edited January 30 by 250swb

[ArnoG]

@username your getting very nice results and I’m continuing to learn along with you! In the links you posted, both Cinestill as well as Photo Systems claim that in the period that the rights were with Sino (China), photo systems continued to manufacture the chemicals. Does this mean that the “unreliable batches” of xtol in Sino times were not produced in China but at photo systems, before, during, and now after the Sino period?

@250swb I have to add that my criticism to XT3 was sporadic and not properly evaluated at all: When I couldn’t get xtol, I read good things about XT3 and was very satisfied with what I got at 1+1. Then at higher dilution I got some “lesser” results and heard also complaints from other. Xtol was back, so yippee, let’s go and use the original. Maybe if I had had no choice and xtol would not have become available, and I would have invested more time getting XT3 to work as well for longer times, it would have been ok. Also, I was flipping between various films as well at the time, so it was a too large parameter space. Hence, I’m trying to narrow that down now and focus on one developer and one film, which currently seems to converge to double x in xtol (although Tri-x keeps pulling lol). I so far never went to learn about the variables with one developer and one film, and only started developing 2-3 years ago, so I’m not at all a reliable source for claiming that XT3 ain’t as good as xtol. 

Edited January 30 by ArnoG

[username]

22 minutes ago, 250swb said:

No offense but it's important to redress the criticism XT-3 is getting for the sake of context, that is the point. Getting 'thin' negatives unjustly blames the tools and not the workman, check with the link I posted and nobody is currently complaining about XT-3.

I'm not crtiticizing XT-3 at all - I literally just said that I  can't really comment on it as I haven't used it yet myself.

The issues detailled above are all in regards to XTOL.

 

Quote

Getting 'thin' negatives unjustly blames the tools and not the workman

I agree with you! For the third time now! 

It's not that it's impossible to get proper results, by using longer dev times.

The issue is that the product changed, and that the manufacturer(s) are so unprofessional and intransparent about it.

You could care less of course, as you haven't used XTOL in 20 years, which is fine, yet after all this is a thread about XTOL, so 💁‍♂️

Edited January 30 by username

[username]

14 minutes ago, ArnoG said:

@username your getting very nice results and I’m continuing to learn along with you! In the links you posted, both Cinestill as well as Photo Systems claim that in the period that the rights were with Sino (China), photo systems continued to manufacture the chemicals. Does this mean that the “unreliable batches” of xtol in Sino times were not produced in China but at photo systems, before, during, and now after the Sino period?

Thanks for the kind words, and I'm happy if my posts help you in some way!

You're right - on that webpage it sounds like XTOL (or rather: "the entire KODAK B&W line") was produced by PSI even during the Sino times, yet that can't be the whole truth as I know for a fact that Tetenal produced XTOL for a while, and I read that during the Sino phase at least part of it was not made by PSI but somewhere else (these apparently were the "bad" batches that didn't dissolve properly).
That's all I know 💁‍♂️

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LocalHero1953]

.

Edited January 30 by LocalHero1953