Just bought some Xtol - any tips/advice?

[welly]

Actually, here's another scan that was developed at the same time, although it's Foma 100 (at 50). Developed for 6:30. And actually, I felt like I had to do very little to the scan, particularly not whack the gamma or brightness up by several notches! Actually, hardly at all. Oh, the big blob in the middle of the screen is a rain drop. I shot this just as the heavens opened and my camera and myself were utterly soaked.

[Michael W]

i've been using Xtol for years. Sydney tap water is fine to mix with. Sometimes I use 1+1, sometimes 1+2 - depends on the film. Both work fine, never had a problem with Xtol and it does give full speed with most films. I'm not familiar with Foma 100 however so 50 might be suitable for that.

[Michael W]

That Tmax neg looks good for shadow detail so I'd say you exposed well. Looks dense in the highlights, but perhaps the main subject was in shade and you had a bright area in the background. Either way I imagine that highlight would print or scan as pure white.
The Palisades scan looks very low contrast. Could have used a bit more exposure and development time based on the scan. The weather wouldn't be helping with the light so flat. Would be helpful to see another neg shot rather than your finished result.

[polyglot]

Why not? I process sheets in Jobo Expert drums, on a CPP-2, all the time using XTOL 1+3. Stock is mixed using distilled water, then stored in 20 full 250ml amber glass bottles with teflon-lined caps. Dilution at time of use always with distilled water. No problems and great results.

I've been successfully using Xtol 1+2 and 1+3 in a Jobo for over a decade.

Fair enough. 1+3 rotary is the only Xtol "failure" I've ever had, though it was a 120 roll in a Jobo. Uneven and very thin. If it works for you, don't let me stop you!

Just further to my "My negatives seem dark when I scan them in!" complaint - I realise this isn't going to be very scientific, accurate and probably impossible to assess on my "iMac screen light box" but





Tmax 100 exposed at ISO 50. Developed for 7 minutes in D-76 (1:1) using BTZS tubes. From this rather vague and scratchy capture from my iPhone, what do you think? I think I shall do some testing tomorrow as I plan to mix up this Xtol tonight.

Your exposures on those two negs is perfect, you don't need any more or less, i.e. don't change the EI. They're pretty contrasty though, so you could probably use a bit less development. Or maybe you're running the development a bit hot? Reducing development will give you a teensy bit less speed but you have bags of shadow detail there that it won't be a problem.

For reference, you have enough exposure if there is shadow detail where you want it. If there are transparent holes in the neg (which will be blank/black in the print) and you wanted to see something there, then you need more exposure.

If your scans are coming out flat or dark, that's a problem in your selection of the black- and white-points in your scans. There's a (C-41) scan howto in the FAQ in my signature that might help.

[welly]

Your exposures on those two negs is perfect, you don't need any more or less, i.e. don't change the EI. They're pretty contrasty though, so you could probably use a bit less development. Or maybe you're running the development a bit hot? Reducing development will give you a teensy bit less speed but you have bags of shadow detail there that it won't be a problem.

For reference, you have enough exposure if there is shadow detail where you want it. If there are transparent holes in the neg (which will be blank/black in the print) and you wanted to see something there, then you need more exposure.

If your scans are coming out flat or dark, that's a problem in your selection of the black- and white-points in your scans. There's a (C-41) scan howto in the FAQ in my signature that might help.

Most of my negatives are coming out looking fairly similar to that. I do have the occasional dark negative and the occasional thin negative but mostly they generally "look" alright to my eyes. It's been really puzzling why I've often had to crank the gamma in Epson scan up to over 2. It's made me concerned I'm getting my negatives wrong. I'm going to the Richard White organised large format gathering next weekend so I thought I might take a few random negatives with me for some of those guys to take a look at as well.

I'll check out your FAQ and see if I can get some tips there. Thanks very much for your help, really appreciated!