Struggling with Xtol. Subjects are looking a little soft.

Hi everyone,

I used Xtol for the first time. I am trying to wrap my head around what it does. It seems really interesting. I used it because I read in Steve Anchell’s book that it will raise the speed of the film and I was concerned my negatives might come out too thin. I used HP5+ and I shot it at 400 ASA and developed half a roll in a 1:1 dilution for 12 minutes. The other half at 1:3 for 18 minutes. The density seems to be fine but I found myself needing to print it using a much lower filter number (00) to contain the contrast. It seems to give me a lot of good details in the midtones but it also seems to make the subject I am focusing on look out of focus. I think what I might be observing is an effect of the developer. To be clear it is a roll of 35mm cut in half and shot in the same conditions. I have been shooting film for years and I just don’t consistently screw up my focus so I am trying to figure out what is going on. I am thinking I just don’t understand this developer yet. The 1:3 seems more softly focused than the 1:1 so it is not focus and must be a by-product of development. Is it that I don’t really understand at a visual level what the difference between solvent and non-solvent development does and with how contrast affects sharpness. I am thinking my next steps might be to try this developer with some 4x5 film? Maybe I should try it without diluting it for a fine grain effect? Maybe I should also cut back on the agitation to control the contrast?

I know this is a lot but I would love to know what people's thoughts are. Any information would be helpful. I would love to hear what people think about Xtol. What experiences they have had with it.

-Andrew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy F

The density seems to be fine but I found myself needing to print it using a much lower filter number (00) to contain the contrast.

---

That would tend to suggest that you have made a significant exposure/ process error without noticing it. Printing at a very low grade from an overly dense neg will make the resultant image always look less sharp than printing at a higher grade from a neg that has been correctly exposed & more optimally processed (this is on the basis of using the same film, developer and paper for both examples). Before getting into any discussion of developer characteristics, make sure that the most basic levels of process control are being met.

Les McLean solved the problem by adding Rodinal into his XTol, I can't find the link to his blog entry on his website anymore but this article on Ed Buffaloe's site might get you started with amounts
https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html
I had similar issues with CaffenolC (also a vit c developer ) I add 20cc/L of stock D-72 or Ansco130 into it, solved the problem. YMMV


interneg
some folks have problems with xtol (since it was first released) with it not building density or contrast, I think the OP isn't really making any mistakes ... I've made lots of friends here and the former analog site documenting my attempts to build contrast and density with xtol - several different water sources (including distilled) over exposing, over developing yada-yada yada, sometimes it's just not in the cards to use what some people claim is the best developer ever, easiest fix is spiking it with something that will help it build contrast and density ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnantz

some folks have problems with xtol (since it was first released) with it not building density or contrast, I think the OP isn't really making any mistakes ... I've made lots of friends here and the former analog site documenting my attempts to build contrast and density with xtol - several different water sources (including distilled) over exposing, over developing yada-yada yada, sometimes it's just not in the cards to use what some people claim is the best developer ever, easiest fix is spiking it with something that will help it build contrast and density ...

---

FWIW, I have recently started making my own "Xtol" (using the Mytol recipe) and it works beautifully, and as a side effect, it also generates a bit more density and contrast than Xtol does. I would recommend trying "DIY Xtol" (Mytol) and see if that works better for you.

Water ..................................... 750 ml
Sodium sulfite (anhydrous) ....... 60 g
Sodium metaborate 4H2O ........ 4 g
Sodium ascorbate ................... 12 g
Phenidone .............................. 0.15 g
Sodium metabisulfite ............... 3 g
Water to 1 L

I suggest dissolving the Phenidone in a couple ml of alcohol (grain alcohol) first; makes it far easier to get it into solution.

LOL

Read the attached

I just buy any Rodinol in the bottle

Life is too short to reinvent Rodinol

Love it as is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnantz

Les McLean solved the problem by adding Rodinal into his XTol, I can't find the link to his blog entry on his website anymore but this article on Ed Buffaloe's site might get you started with amounts
https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html
I had similar issues with CaffenolC (also a vit c developer ) I add 20cc/L of stock D-72 or Ansco130 into it, solved the problem. YMMV


interneg
some folks have problems with xtol (since it was first released) with it not building density or contrast, I think the OP isn't really making any mistakes ... I've made lots of friends here and the former analog site documenting my attempts to build contrast and density with xtol - several different water sources (including distilled) over exposing, over developing yada-yada yada, sometimes it's just not in the cards to use what some people claim is the best developer ever, easiest fix is spiking it with something that will help it build contrast and density ...

---

John, you have kept dumping this copypasta opinion into every single discussion about Xtol for decades & signally failed to read the original comment. While I appreciate that you struggled with the basics of Xtol use and thus feel a need to tell everyone about it every time someone has a minor user error with Xtol, the problem is that the OP is getting too much density.

The whole Rodinal/ Xtol thing is really more an illustration of questionable chemical opinions from people with too many column inches to fill rather than meaningful knowledge of modern developer design - which very clearly delineates the science underpinning Xtol and the choices of its formulation (effectively a choice between borate buffering for finer grain aim or carbonate/ bicarbonate buffering for higher definition, the preferential use of Phenidone/ modified Phenidones (Dimezone S) to enhance adjacency effects via development inhibition (which has an impact on highlight density control) as well as shadow speed enhancement - and the choice of HQ/ Ascorbate having more to do with wider aspects of perceptions of user safety/ legislation than purely which one is 'best' as they both effectively will do the same job here).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interneg

John, you have kept dumping this copypasta opinion into every single discussion about Xtol for decades & signally failed to read the original comment. While I appreciate that you struggled with the basics of Xtol use and thus feel a need to tell everyone about it every time someone has a minor user error with Xtol...

---

Yup. I often rebut John's erroneous extrapolations, but your reply serves adequately this time. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interneg

...the problem is that the OP is getting too much density...

---

As well as, ironically, too much contrast! (See his statement "I found myself needing to print it using a much lower filter number (00) to contain the contrast.")

Following this thread with interest - recently had a very similar experience with Tri-X 120 developed in XT-3 (Adox's XTol) - I cannot recall ever needing to print with a 00 filter.

ltbphoto, I hope you will not necessarily be put off XT-3 (the best XTOL clone) because you got too much or not enough contrast. It will do what any other general purpose solvent developer will do. Just adjust your development time to taste. Relative to most other standard developers, XTOL will tend to give slightly lower contrast in extreme highlights (well beyond a normal exposure range). Perhaps this is what some users are seeing with certain films, but objectively the differences between XTOL and say D-76 (the reference standard) are virtually inconsequential.

A developer that "raises" the speed of the film does so by only a small amount, usually in the 1/3-stop range. Exposing at twice box speed will still likely yield an underexposed negative. Why not try box speed?

If you need a lower filter number to print your negatives, it is because they have too much contrast, not too little, so box speed (for the shadows) and a bit less development time would seem to be in order.

I don' use Xtol, but it should be a rather sharp developer. Compared to, say, D-76, or other solvent developers, it should yield a slightly sharper (in terms of acutance) negative. I don't know where your softness is coming from, but it is likely not caused by the developer. Developers don't affect your camera focus. You may be missing some edge effects or apparent contrast compared to what you have been using before, but you shouldn't get blurry prints from a developer.

Don't confuse contrast range and density. Some really dense negatives have a small contrast range and vice-versa.

Best,

Doremus