Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: xtol dilutions

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    523

    xtol dilutions

    Heya,


    What does one gain when changing the dilution of Xtol from straight to 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3?
    Is it simply acutance?

    Second, I heard somewhere that Xtol 1:3 is unstable for some reason. Is this true? I've forgotten who/where I heard this.

    Third: Is there an info article on semi-stand developing somewhere.



    Oh yeah, I usually shoot fp4+ and develop it in Xtol 1:1.


    Thanks

    T.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas, USA
    Posts
    23

    Re: xtol dilutions

    When Kodak first came out with Xtol they listed times for 1:3 dilution. However, when using a small tank for 35mm, such as a Nikkor SS tank that uses only 8 oz., there wasn't enough developer for the film. Film developed this way had on it what Kodak called "donuts" which were little circles with a hole in the middle. I found this out because I was having this problem, sent Kodak some developed film, and one of their engineers called (on the phone) and explained the problem. The solution was to use either 1:2 or 1:1. I chose 1:1. Soon afterwards they eliminated the 1:3 dilution from their data.

    Ted

  3. #3
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,362

    Re: xtol dilutions

    Quote Originally Posted by false_Aesthetic View Post
    What does one gain when changing the dilution of Xtol from straight to 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3? Is it simply acutance?
    Mostly what you get is the dilution of the sulfites. This results in a small increase in perceived sharpness and a small increase in graininess, all other things being equal (film, temperature, time, agitation, etc.).

    Of course, you also gain development time because of the dilution, but I'm assuming that you aren't asking about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by false_Aesthetic View Post
    Second, I heard somewhere that Xtol 1:3 is unstable for some reason. Is this true? I've forgotten who/where I heard this.
    I've been using XTOL 1:3 for years. I mix stock solution using distilled water, then dilute at run time with distilled water. Never had a problem.

    The problems XTOL has had in the past seem to be attributable to packaging problems and mixing with water containing too many impurities (I seem to recall something about too much iron in the water, but can't remember what that was exactly). People mixing with distilled water report few problems apparently.

    Bruce Watson

  4. #4
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    Re: xtol dilutions

    Bruce I am in the process of switching to Xtol. How are you processing and

    Mostly what you get is the dilution of the sulfites. This results in a small increase in perceived sharpness and a small increase in graininess, all other things being equal (film, temperature, time, agitation, etc.).
    Since you scan film (what film? how large do you print?) do you find the grain a drawback for scanning?
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    at age 73:
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

  5. #5

    Re: xtol dilutions

    I second what Bruce wrote and carrying it a bit further --

    There is no problem with Xtol 1:3 if you will simply use enough developer. Don't scrimp. You need 100ml MINIMUM for each 80 sq. inches of film. I use a bit more. Minimum means the least you can get away with -- but why court problems? Always, always use enough stock developer.

    Xtol at 1:3 is just wonderful with most any film you can pick.
    Wonderful in small tanks and wonderful with hangers in large tanks and Jobos if you'll just be sure to use enough stock developer.

    For best quality control keep it in dose size bottles. If you typically use 250ml each session buy a bunch of 250ml glass bottles and keep your Xtol there ready for one shot use. Don't store half full bottles for long. Keep air away from your stored Xtol. It'll last a long, long time and give consistent predictable results.

  6. #6
    http://www.spiritsofsilver.com tgtaylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,729

    Re: xtol dilutions

    I have just started using Xtol (I'm about 100ml of finishing the 2d 5L batch) and have been developing Fuji Acros at 1:3 by hand inversion in a Jobo 2500 tank. Fuji says to agitate continousle for the first minute and then 5 seconds each minute thereafter. I've been following that religiously for the last 10L of Xtol with a total developing time of 14.5 minutes or 30 seconds beyond the time in Digitaltruth. The extra time is to compensate for filling the tank. No problems on 120 and 4x5. What about letting the film stand longer than 60 sec between agitations? Has anyone tried that yet that would care to share their experience?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York
    Posts
    525

    Re: xtol dilutions

    I use Xtol 1+3 for most things. As already mentioned you need to pay attention to minimum quantities.

    The German Kodak site still has the data sheet with the 1+3 times. http://www.kodak.fr/AT/plugins/acrob...Entwickler.pdf

    Best,
    Helen

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    232

    Re: xtol dilutions

    I also just started using Xtol with Fuji Acros 100 in quickloads. At 1:1, 68 degrees, I'm at around 9 min in trays. The other day I tried some Tri-X 320 with the same dilution, slightly shorter development time, and the film came out beautifully. I'll try it again, but I'm not quite ready to switch from HC110.
    -Brad

  9. #9
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,362

    Re: xtol dilutions

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings View Post
    Bruce I am in the process of switching to Xtol. How are you processing and since you scan film (what film? how large do you print?) do you find the grain a drawback for scanning?
    I'm processing with a Jobo CPP-2, 3010 tank. I'm using XTOL 1:3, 20C indicated (I think it's a little off, maybe 20.5C or so). I've printed up to 12x enlargement (about 150 cm in the print along the 5" dimension of the film).

    I've been using Tri-X. I was about to start the trials (EI, normal development time, all that) to bring up 400Tmax when Kodak announced TMY-2, so I'm delaying that until I can work with the new emulsion.

    As to the grain itself. It's a sort of nebulous question. What I found was that the grain seems about the same size as I was getting with HC-110H, but it's a little more nicely formed. Local contrast on that level (loupe level) is a tiny bit better with the HC-110H, but that's a moot point for me since I can't control the HC-110H with continuous agitation -- just too active a developer (meaning, development times have to be too short). My point being that I don't feel like I lost anything at all by going to XTOL, and in fact gained 2/3 stop of real film speed. I'd make the switch just for that The environmental aspects of XTOL are a really big plus as well.

    Since I scan and never print in the darkroom I optimized my film for my scanner and workflow. So my Dmax is somewhat less than it would be for darkroom work. I target a Zone VIII of around 1.0, or in Zone System terms, about N-1. Since graininess is directly related to density, this farther decreases graininess. The benefit is in the decrease of Callier Effect. What I see in my scan files is an increase in local contrast in the highlight (dense) areas. This means less work in Photoshop (actually, none) to bring local contrast in line from top to bottom. Before I optimized for scanning I would do some work to decompress the highlights, now I don't have to. The scans are really surprisingly linear.

    What does all this mean to the final print? Well, I've been printing with Epson printers, Cone PiezoTone inks, and the StudioPrint RIP. I have to say that I can't see the grain in the print in a 10x enlargement (say a 50 x 40 inch print). Without a loupe on the print that is. Even under a loupe the smoothness is surprising. It's just smooth tone. At 12x I can just begin to see the start of graininess in clouds.

    So I'd say I'm pretty happy with XTOL. Not that I recommend my methods to everyone - I think people should find workflows with which they are comfortable, learn them well, then concentrate on their art. But this sure works for me.

    Bruce Watson

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    523

    Re: xtol dilutions

    Bruce, that is EXACTLY what i want to hear!!!

Similar Threads

  1. Xtol Problems Anyone?
    By Eric Biggerstaff in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-Mar-2006, 20:40
  2. Xtol and low ISO films (efke 25, agfa 25)
    By Janko Belaj in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 19-Jun-2004, 16:23
  3. Xtol + Tmax 100 ?
    By Michael Kadillak in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16-May-2001, 20:58
  4. XTOL down the drain
    By William Marderness in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-Apr-2000, 00:17
  5. Experience with Xtol 1:2 and with Deep Tanks?
    By Jim Worthington in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18-Feb-2000, 11:54

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •