username Posted February 15 Share #161 Posted February 15 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) @ArnoG ..interesting! To be frank I can't really wrap my head around how you do the agitation without sloshing the dev around (are you merely turning the filmstrip around by turning the pen?) Looking forward to seeing the scan 👍 Edited February 15 by username Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 15 Posted February 15 Hi username, Take a look here Xtol: experiences and issues. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
username Posted February 15 Share #162 Posted February 15 (edited) @hansvons ..very curious how the XT-3 behaves compared to the XTOL, will probably mix up the former and develop one roll of Delta 400 in it, and another in XTOL (there's a few easy-to-compare (read: boring still lifes from a tripod) shots to compare the two 🙂 Did you develop some in the meantime and would you be able / willing to share some intel in regards to developing times? Edited February 15 by username Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 19 Share #163 Posted February 19 Ok, so I couldn't wait (until I've used up all my XTOL) and dissolved my first XT-3 pack to see how it performs versus the XTOL. Please take the following with a grain of salt, call it a semi-scientific comparison if you will 🙂 It's all Delta 400, shot @ 360. Developed in XTOL 1:1 / XT-3 1:1, at 20°C, for 12minutes (excluding the pour in and out of the developer), 10sec initial agitation (4 inversions), and 10sec every full minute. Actually using a stop bath now, followed by 2-bath fixing, for extra nerd points 😀 Negs are scanned with Silverfast 6 - without any Negafix profiles, without any adjustements - and are not edited after the fact. 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! To be frank I'm not completely sure what to make of it (read: I'm kinda too dumb to properly judge my negs) 💁♂️ Obvioulsly the XT-3 developed film looks a bit "hotter", so yes the XT-3 seems to be more "active" compared to the latest (PSI) version of XTOL that I have - but I can't really tell whether the XT-3 neg is actually a bit overdeveloped already - or the XTOL one still underdeveloped. Keeping in mind that with the 12 minutes (plus pur in / out) I'm already over the Ilford-reccommended 11,5mins - and especially over the Kodak-reccommended 10,5mins for Delta 400. 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! To be frank I'm not completely sure what to make of it (read: I'm kinda too dumb to properly judge my negs) 💁♂️ Obvioulsly the XT-3 developed film looks a bit "hotter", so yes the XT-3 seems to be more "active" compared to the latest (PSI) version of XTOL that I have - but I can't really tell whether the XT-3 neg is actually a bit overdeveloped already - or the XTOL one still underdeveloped. Keeping in mind that with the 12 minutes (plus pur in / out) I'm already over the Ilford-reccommended 11,5mins - and especially over the Kodak-reccommended 10,5mins for Delta 400. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/359851-xtol-experiences-and-issues/?do=findComment&comment=5760037'>More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 19 Share #164 Posted February 19 Can’t say I see much difference, which was also my conclusion with XT3 at 1+1. It seemed just fine, but XT3 didn’t seem to like higher dilution as well as xtol (very non-scientific and not well documented conclusion!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 20 Share #165 Posted February 20 12 hours ago, ArnoG said: Can’t say I see much difference For clarity, I wasn't trying to find out whether film developed in XT-3 gives a different look compared to XTOL (there's this thread over at the Photrio forums where the OP states there's slight differences / improvements with XT-3 in certain circumstances, in case anyone's interested, keeping in mind this is from 2021 - so he's comparing it to the pre-PSI version of XTOL, for what it's worth).. ..rather I was just trying to find out how "active" they are in relation to each other - trying to figure out how exactly I would have to adjust my developing times now I'm moving from XTOL to XT-3 - and looking at the results so far I agree with what others have stated in regards to XT-3, that it's a bit more active compared to the latest version of XTOL. Which kinda "makes sense", as now the dev times are probably more close to the ones given for the original XTOL, the ones published in the old datasheets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 20 Share #166 Posted February 20 Delta 400 @360, XTOL 1:1, 20°C, 12mins + pour in/out, 10sec initial agitation, 10secs every minute.. 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=5760580'>More sharing options...
hansvons Posted February 24 Author Share #167 Posted February 24 Advertisement (gone after registration) On 2/15/2025 at 6:13 PM, username said: ..very curious how the XT-3 behaves compared to the XTOL, will probably mix up the former and develop one roll of Delta 400 in it, and another in XTOL (there's a few easy-to-compare (read: boring still lifes from a tripod) shots to compare the two 🙂 I split the 5-litre Xtol package into five 1-litre parts and mixed a 2-litre 1:1 Xtol solution. The granular nature of the two powders caught my eye because a few years back when mixing Kodaks's Xtol with water, at least one had a flour consistency that created inconvenient and unhealthy dust clouds. This is gone, and Xtol can be mixed just like XT-3. I developed four rolls of Tri-X regularly, with no push. My recipe for Tri-X in 1:1 Xtol is as follows: 24C, 6:15 minutes, every minute 10 seconds medium gentle agitation, 15 seconds initial agitation (for Kentmere 400 and HP5, that's a full minute to create more contrast). The negs turned out to be fat and thin, both as expected. Fat, because I had two rolls of background-up high-key shots, exposed one-stop fat. Thin, because I shot one roll in an artificial light interior environment where one would typically see a 1-2 stops push. And one roll of sunny outdoor shots regularly exposed at EI 400. In between the occasional exposure miss. Learnings? None particular, as I didn't conduct side-by-side comparisons. However, it's safe to say that XT-3 and regular modern-day Xtol do the job with the same recipe in a similar, if not identical, fashion. The shots show the film's full speed at EI400 with fine grain. They have the expected acutance and grain sharpness (maybe a tad less sharp than XT-3? I could be wrong). I can't share most images as they are from a family event. However, shot on a brief walk in the neighbourhood on my M6 with my workhorse 35mm Summciron ASPH, I can share these at least: 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=5762850'>More sharing options...
hansvons Posted February 24 Author Share #168 Posted February 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! 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=5762851'>More sharing options...
PetPhoto Posted February 24 Share #169 Posted February 24 On 2/19/2025 at 11:56 AM, username said: Ok, so I couldn't wait (until I've used up all my XTOL) and dissolved my first XT-3 pack to see how it performs versus the XTOL. Please take the following with a grain of salt, call it a semi-scientific comparison if you will 🙂 It's all Delta 400, shot @ 360. Developed in XTOL 1:1 / XT-3 1:1, at 20°C, for 12minutes (excluding the pour in and out of the developer), 10sec initial agitation (4 inversions), and 10sec every full minute. Actually using a stop bath now, followed by 2-bath fixing, for extra nerd points 😀 Negs are scanned with Silverfast 6 - without any Negafix profiles, without any adjustements - and are not edited after the fact. 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! To be frank I'm not completely sure what to make of it (read: I'm kinda too dumb to properly judge my negs) 💁♂️ Obvioulsly the XT-3 developed film looks a bit "hotter", so yes the XT-3 seems to be more "active" compared to the latest (PSI) version of XTOL that I have - but I can't really tell whether the XT-3 neg is actually a bit overdeveloped already - or the XTOL one still underdeveloped. Keeping in mind that with the 12 minutes (plus pur in / out) I'm already over the Ilford-reccommended 11,5mins - and especially over the Kodak-reccommended 10,5mins for Delta 400. it depends on how you are shooting and then developing the delta 400. I spent some good time with a bulk roll or two of it, and i discovered it had unique flaws that really could make things go bad at times. dd-x, rodinal, and i think i may have used some with ilfotec hc. I learned the negatives would changed based on contrast and how extreme the hilights and low lights in the image were. If the highlights metered at say 1/500 at f/3, and the lows at 1/125 or lower at f/3, the image would always be blown out. Never could get a method to make it consistently blown to highlights or to the lows.. I also learned that I could shoot from 160 to 500 iso on my meter, meter as 400 per ilford dev charts and it would come out fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted February 25 Share #170 Posted February 25 (edited) 16 hours ago, PetPhoto said: If the highlights metered at say 1/500 at f/3, and the lows at 1/125 or lower at f/3, the image would always be blown out. Never could get a method to make it consistently blown to highlights or to the lows.. I also learned that I could shoot from 160 to 500 iso on my meter, meter as 400 per ilford dev charts and it would come out fine. No offense, but I have to admit that I'm having a hard time understanding what it is that you're saying. Edited February 25 by username Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 25 Share #171 Posted February 25 (edited) HP5, EI400, Xtol 1+3, 18 min, 30" initial inversions, then 5" inversions every 30" (film from post #160 where I did the leader test). Leica M2 with Summicron DR. 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 February 25 by ArnoG 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=5763493'>More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 25 Share #172 Posted February 25 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=5763495'>More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 25 Share #173 Posted February 25 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=5763496'>More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 25 Share #174 Posted February 25 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=5763497'>More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 25 Share #175 Posted February 25 Foma400, EI200, Xtol 1+1, 8 min, 10" inversions at start and every minute, Leica M2 + Summicron DR 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=5763500'>More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 25 Share #176 Posted February 25 ...same... 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=5763501'>More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 25 Share #177 Posted February 25 ...same... Foma400 used to be a favorite of mine, and I still like the tones better than HP5, which always seems to make a wash from zones V-VIII (due to increased red sensitivity?) 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=5763504'>More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 25 Share #178 Posted February 25 (edited) HP5 again, but different film from post 172. EI400, Xtol 1+3 for 18.5 minutes. a few initial inversions, then at 5', 10', and 15' (semi-stand). M2 + Zeiss 50/1.5 C Sonnar ZM. Same area as #172 and #161 to enable comparisons. With HP5, I always need to boost contrast in LRC curves panel. Thoughts? 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 February 25 by ArnoG 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=5763508'>More sharing options...
PetPhoto Posted February 25 Share #179 Posted February 25 6 hours ago, ArnoG said: ...same... Foma400 used to be a favorite of mine, and I still like the tones better than HP5, which always seems to make a wash from zones V-VIII (due to increased red sensitivity?) 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! you actually dont mind the big film defects in that shot? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArnoG Posted February 25 Share #180 Posted February 25 1 hour ago, PetPhoto said: you actually dont mind the big film defects in that shot? I’m not sure if I can blame the film. At some point I tried a different type of reel (one of these metal ones) and the film touched the film below it and gave bad spots. Will look if it was this film. I used quite a bit of Foma 400 and never noticed funky things 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