username Posted February 2 Share #141 Posted February 2 Advertisement (gone after registration) Another still life 🙂 This is from another roll of Tri-X in 1:1 XTOL @ 20°C, for 10 minutes (plus pour in/out) - agitating for 10s in the beginning, and 10s every full minute. I'm quite happy with how it looks. Still got a bit more than 3 liters of XTOL left, might as well use this up in the coming weeks (and switch to the Adox XT-3 then). 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=5750539'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 2 Posted February 2 Hi username, Take a look here Xtol: experiences and issues. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ArnoG Posted February 2 Share #142 Posted February 2 Looks very nice indeed! Why would you switch if you’re happy? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 2 Share #143 Posted February 2 1 hour ago, ArnoG said: Why would you switch if you’re happy? ..as mentioned upthread, I'm disappointed by the way Kodak treats their customers - so if XT-3 works for me I'll definitely rather support ADOX going forward 👍 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 2 Share #144 Posted February 2 (edited) Just developed some Foma 400 shot at EI 200, (current PSI) xtol 1+1, 8’ at 20C, 10s inv at start, 10s inv every minute. Negatives seem very thin. Weird. Will report back after scanning. edit: I should add that while it came in what looks like a factory Foma canister, the way the leader was cut looked like it was re-spooled. 😬 Edited February 3 by ArnoG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted February 6 Author Share #145 Posted February 6 On 1/30/2025 at 11:24 AM, ArnoG said: 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. Arno, Kodak does not recommend diluting Xtol more than 1:1. However, I read that Kodak had a different stance on that in the past, and it was from the horse's mouth. I learned (I forgot the source) that for one 35mm roll of ISO400 film, you need 75ml of Xtol. From that perspective, 1:2 works, albeit close to exhaustion in a regular scenario. But 1:3 is out of specs when you use a Jobo tank. There's no reason to believe that XT-3 is absolutely identical to Xtol. However, XT-3 is marketed as an alternative to Xtol with the same formulation, e.g., based on Vitamin C, etc. I get good results from XT-3 and cannot complain. However, I recently bought an Xtol package and will compare it to the XT-3. If my findings are interesting, I'll let you know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 7 Share #146 Posted February 7 8 hours ago, hansvons said: However, I recently bought an Xtol package and will compare it to the XT-3. If my findings are interesting, I'll let you know. ..please do! 👍 I'm very curious to hear about what developement times you're getting with the new XTOL vs. the XT-3 (meaning : if you'd be able to figure this out before I have used up my XTOL / before I make the switch to XT-3 that would be fantastic 😀) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 7 Share #147 Posted February 7 Advertisement (gone after registration) Some Delta 400 (shot at 320) in XTOL 1:1 @ 20°C, 10s/10s as before) 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=5753262'>More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 7 Share #148 Posted February 7 (edited) There are indeed two datasheets circulating on the web. The old one provides times for undiluted, 1+1, 1+2, and 1+3 and mentions indeed that you need at least 100 ml stock per film. The newer datasheet only mentions undiluted and 1+1. My Jobo is a bit over 450 ml, so I can go up to 1+3. From the limited data that I have myself plus what I’ve seen on the web, I have the (slight) impression that 1+3 semi-stand could be an optimum for classic cubic grain films, whereas modern grain films seem to like 1+1 with “standard” inversions best. This is merely a subjective impression, and not at all based on objective tests. Edited February 7 by ArnoG 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 7 Share #149 Posted February 7 Older datasheet attached here… j109-1998_04.pdf 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted February 7 Author Share #150 Posted February 7 1 hour ago, username said: Some Delta 400 (shot at 320) in XTOL 1:1 @ 20°C, 10s/10s as before) 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! Nice! Two remarks: Is the grain of your original scan tack sharp? I mean, really, really sharp? I know that the forum software is unusable to evaluate sharpness, but I'm wondering. The other question is about the sky. There should be more detail in it. This is, of course, a personal thing of taste. Thanks for sharing your results! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 7 Share #151 Posted February 7 3 hours ago, hansvons said: Nice! Thanks! 3 hours ago, hansvons said: Is the grain of your original scan tack sharp? I mean, really, really sharp? No. It isn't. And to be frank I'm not really quite sure why that is to be honest. I suspect something goes awry at the scanning stage, alas I haven't yet figured out what exactly. 3 hours ago, hansvons said: Thanks for sharing your results! You're welcome! Looking forward to seeing more of your work as well ✌️ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 7 Share #152 Posted February 7 Oh and regarding detail in the sky - if you look really close / zoom in you can see some little specks of dust I was too lazy to stamp out 🙂 Jokes aside though I suppose there really wasn't more to record in that case - sky was just pretty blue on that day (you can see very slight haze on the left side of the image, but other than that it's just a super soft gradient 💁♂️) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted February 7 Author Share #153 Posted February 7 3 hours ago, username said: No. It isn't. And to be frank I'm not really quite sure why that is to be honest. I suspect something goes awry at the scanning stage, alas I haven't yet figured out what exactly. Much points to the fact that you can probably improve your scanning and subsequent editing techniques. On the one hand the grain must be sharp corner to corner, like really sharp. On the other hand, detail in the sky should be ample. If you were scanning your negs with a DSLR, leveraging raw files, you would find tons of detail that could be retrieved with the Shadows or Blacks sliders in your editor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 7 Share #154 Posted February 7 12 minutes ago, hansvons said: Much points to the fact that you can probably improve your scanning and subsequent editing techniques. I definitely agree on the scanning part, as mentioned above I think something is going on / going wrong there, I shall figure this out. 12 minutes ago, hansvons said: If you were scanning your negs with a DSLR, leveraging raw files, you would find tons of detail that could be retrieved with the Shadows or Blacks sliders in your editor. To be honest I'm not exactly sure what sort of detail you're expecting to find in a sky without any clouds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 7 Share #155 Posted February 7 48 minutes ago, mark_s90 said: Mainly i learned, if it has sky, hope its cloudy or flat contrast. Otherwise ugh Probably just a matter of taste I guess - frankly, I'm really quite happy with my skies on Delta 400 / don't really see where the problem is 🙂 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 7 Share #156 Posted February 7 18 hours ago, hansvons said: I recently bought an Xtol package ..I was meaning to ask - why don't you just keep using XT-3 if you're happy with it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 7 Share #157 Posted February 7 Ok here's one with a bit more of a lively sky 🙂 From the same roll (Delta 400 in 1:1) 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=5753584'>More sharing options...
hansvons Posted February 8 Author Share #158 Posted February 8 14 hours ago, username said: On 2/7/2025 at 12:08 AM, hansvons said: ..I was meaning to ask - why don't you just keep using XT-3 if you're happy with it? Good question. I used Xtol for two years. Then, it wasn't available anymore, and XT-3 popped up. In hindsight, there might be differences between the two, which might matter—or not. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 8 Share #159 Posted February 8 16 minutes ago, hansvons said: Good question. I used Xtol for two years. Then, it wasn't available anymore, and XT-3 popped up. In hindsight, there might be differences between the two, which might matter—or not. In my experience XT3 behaved similarly at 1+1, but couldn’t do higher dilutions as well as xtol, so I’m back to xtol 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 15 Share #160 Posted February 15 Decided to do a proper analysis on a film leader before the actual development since I had two thin negatives recently. Made up a little tool (film strip is an irrelevant sample for show and tell). Procedure: HP5, EI400, Xtol 1+3. Kodak datasheet says 18’ with 30’’ initial inversions, then 5’’ every 30’’. Dip strip entirely in developer, except for the last cm or so (to track clearing with fixer). Develop for 17’, pull up 1 cm, develop 1’ more, pull up another cm, etc. Meanwhile agitation every 30’’ as per Kodak instructions. Stop, fix, dry and measure densities with a densitometer. Result: 17’ is 2.75, 18’ is 2.93, 19’ is 3.05, 20’ is 3.23, 28’ is infinite. Since the film leader is infinitely exposed, is should be at the maximum density. 3 is a good target (it means a factor 1,000 in brightness compared to no film, so Kodak’s 1996 datasheet seem spot on with 2025 Xtol and HP5. Developed film for 18’, 2 inversions every 30’’. Looks dense but good. Scan will be later and should confirm that noise is less due to properly density development. We shall see… 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=5757940'>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