Struggling with Xtol. Subjects are looking a little soft.

[Andy F]

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

[interneg]

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.

[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 ...

[paulbarden]

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.

[Tin Can]

LOL

Read the attached

I just buy any Rodinol in the bottle

Life is too short to reinvent Rodinol

Love it as is

[interneg]

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).

[Sal Santamaura]

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. :)


...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.")

[ltbphoto]

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.

[Michael R]

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.

[Doremus Scudder]

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

[Duolab123]

I would stick to the recommended time, temperature, no dilution beyond 1:1, box speed.

XTOL stock works great, replenish for ultimate economy.

[david@bigeleisenlaw.com]

I've been using xtol for years, almost always 1:1. I just follow Kodak development directions and develop film at box speed. It has always worked just great with fine grain and good contrast. It lasts a long time and it's easy to use. Sometimes I use PMK. That works very well also. I'm not sure why you are having problems.

David

[Willie]

Looked at a friends time/temperature chart for X-tol and it shows 1:3 dilution. He said this was the original chart from Kodak from when the developer first came out. He uses it at that dilution and the prints from his negatives look good. \In checking now online I don't see that dilution. Has the recommendation changed?

[willwilson]

My 4x5 HP5 time for an N development is 9m at 70F in a jobo. It also is a 200 or even 160 ISO for me. Maybe you underexposed and over developed a bit causing your error.

I'd say knock out a film speed test. Fred Pickers method works well for 35mm. https://youtu.be/hNUtaMlPh3I

I usually find a softened neg looks better than a softened print from a hard neg.

[paulbarden]

Looked at a friends time/temperature chart for X-tol and it shows 1:3 dilution. He said this was the original chart from Kodak from when the developer first came out. He uses it at that dilution and the prints from his negatives look good. \In checking now online I don't see that dilution. Has the recommendation changed?

Kodak may not list 1:3 dilution times for Xtol, it’s still a useful approach. The Massive Dev Chart still includes times/films for the 1:3 dilution. Xtol behaves as a solvent developer at 1:1 (and stock) but changes to act as an acutance developer at 1:3, which appeals to some folks.

[Richard Wasserman]

Kodak may not list 1:3 dilution times for Xtol, it’s still a useful approach. The Massive Dev Chart still includes times/films for the 1:3 dilution. Xtol behaves as a solvent developer at 1:1 (and stock) but changes to act as an acutance developer at 1:3, which appeals to some folks.

1:3 works very well. You just need to be sure you have enough stock developer in the mix to ensure full development. Kodak says 100ml/80 square inches of film

[ic-racer]

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

The answer here ^^^

[Andy F]

Wow. That is a lot. It is also really interesting. Thanks.

Xtol is a new developer for me. I am trying to test it. I freely admit I could have made an exposure or processing mistake. Still I would like to play around with it a little more to see what I get in order to see if it is right for me. I am really interested in the science underpinning developer design. Could you explain what you mean when you write "effectively a choice between borate buffering for finer grain aim or carbonate/ bicarbonate buffering for higher definition" and "the preferential use of Phenidone/ modified Phenidones". I read Steve Anchell's book dealing with developing negatives but I still struggle with the theories relationship to the final product. I wish I could see what is really meant by "higher definition". I can say one thing. Something really did look great. I think it was the smooth range of tonalities. I think my next step is to try Xtol with different films and with different dilutions. I want to see what happens with a large piece of film or a slower ASA.

[Andy F]

My 4x5 HP5 time for an N development is 9m at 70F in a jobo. It also is a 200 or even 160 ISO for me. Maybe you underexposed and over developed a bit causing your error.

I'd say knock out a film speed test. Fred Pickers method works well for 35mm. https://youtu.be/hNUtaMlPh3I

I usually find a softened neg looks better than a softened print from a hard neg.


This looks really interesting. One of the issues I am dealing with is that I do not have a personal film speed. I shot my negatives last summer at box speed but subsequently I have been told that box speed is a lie. That is why I am looking into Xtol. I don't want my negatives to be too thin. In the past I have shot Tri-X at box speed and developed it by following D76 and HC-110 suggested development times and my negatives turned out to be way too thin. I have been told, as a rule, you should cut the film speed in half to open up one stop because the box speed is a lie. I wonder what other people would do. I want to save the negatives I shot last summer using HP5+. I wonder if HP5+ has the same issue as not being box speed.

[interneg]

I read Steve Anchell's book dealing with developing negatives but I still struggle with the theories relationship to the final product.

A dramatically better place to start would be Haist's 'Modern Photographic Processing' (on the understanding that it censors a great deal of then current R&D, which underpinned a lot of emulsion/ developer design within the major manufacturers - you can track down useful information about this, but it's largely in patents & papers/ theses that are written for the industry, not a general reader). A second important book would be Henry's 'Controls in Black and White Photography' - especially if you want to avoid the populist nonsense about 'box speed is a lie' (it isn't - it's just that populist names claiming it is apparently cannot do the requisite testing at a baseline level of adequacy or control) - whatever EI you set on your meter is purely a personal preference for how you use that meter, relative to the exposure you want to achieve on the film at the end.

[iml]

I've used Xtol for 15 years or so for everything except sheet film (for which I use Pyrocat HD). Always 1+1, box speed or push/pull processed, have never had a problem, it's been completely reliable for me. Film stock I shoot in 35mm and 120 is mostly HP5+, Acros, or FP4+, but before Tri-X got too expensive it was always that, at any speed from 200 to 3600 depending on conditions and desired final outcome. In my experience it's an incredibly flexible and consistent developer. If you're consistently having problems I think it must be exposure or process.

[Andy F]

Thank You Mr. Land. I think you and Interneg might be correct about issues around the processing of the image. I am working in a community darkroom and it is hard to control the variables. Willwilson’s link to Fred Picker's video was also really helpful. I also started to research some of the books suggested by everyone on this thread. Some are hard to get but they look awesome. I still think If I keep experimenting with the developer it would help me understand it better. What I am looking to do is really move past D76.

[paulbarden]

Thank You Mr. Land. I think you and Interneg might be correct about issues around the processing of the image. I am working in a community darkroom and it is hard to control the variables. Willwilson’s link to Fred Picker's video was also really helpful. I also started to research some of the books suggested by everyone on this thread. Some are hard to get but they look awesome. I still think If I keep experimenting with the developer it would help me understand it better. What I am looking to do is really move past D76.

But why? While its true that D-76 is the most "common denominator" of developers (works well with every film), it does what it does, well.

That said, if its HP5+ you want to work with, here is what I've experienced: HP5+ lacks highlight separation compared to other "fast" films. Many people will disagree with me, but I've proven it to myself, taking the same photograph with at least one other film for comparison, and I can clearly see the tendency of HP5+ to render "flat" or mushy" looking highlight values compared to - for example - Delta films. This characteristic makes HP5+ great for portraiture because it doesn't accentuate details in skin tones, but it can be a disadvantage in other types of work.
Andy, I don't know if you have access to Photographers Formulary developers (You don't say where you're located), but PF makes an excellent liquid concentrate developer called FA-1027 which delivers (in my opinion) "better" results when used with HP5+. You may want to give that a try instead. Blue Moon Camera in Portland, Oregon sells it and they do mail order.

[interneg]

I am working in a community darkroom and it is hard to control the variables.

If anything, a good community darkroom is often better resourced in terms of temperature/ process control than most amateur/ home darkrooms.


What I am looking to do is really move past D76.

Unless you need highly specific characteristics (and not many of them are really improvements over D-76), well controlled use of D-76/ ID-11 will deliver first rate results. Anyone who denounces D-76 is telling you more about their shortcomings than D-76's. Xtol was the eventual outcome of quite lengthy attempts (by far more capable scientists than the amateurs who write cookbooks) to resolve problems with large scale/ industrial use of D-76 - and to try & improve on all three of the speed/ grain/ sharpness tradeoffs (normally you can only improve two at best - and worsen one) within a developer that could be used for both replenished and single shot methodologies.


HP5+ lacks highlight separation compared to other "fast" films.

Almost always this claim is a direct result of not respecting HP5+'s higher useful shadow speed in some developers.

[paulbarden]

Almost always this claim is a direct result of not respecting HP5+'s higher useful shadow speed in some developers.

And almost always when someone says this, they are completely disregarding the fact that HP5 and the Delta films have very different abilities when it comes to rendering highlight values, no matter what developer was used, or how.

[Kevin Crisp]

D-76 is an excellent all-round developer. Lots and lots of professionals never saw a need to "move past" it. I can't tell from this thread what the destination is and what characteristics you think you will get from something else.

[interneg]

And almost always when someone says this, they are completely disregarding the fact that HP5 and the Delta films have very different abilities when it comes to rendering highlight values, no matter what developer was used, or how.

Delta technology attempts to more integrally enact development inhibition effects and other aspects of more sophisticated emulsion design/ manufacture to control highlight density - i.e. by reducing the gradient in the highlights (without shouldering as much in the more conventional sense) - thus they're a bit easier to print than something that's very linear - yet without the mud that a more conventional shoulder effect tends to deliver. HP5+ has a straighter line for a bit longer, but then shoulders much more conventionally. Delta 400 has a shadow speed more in line with its peer group - which, when combined with more sophisticated highlight density control (especially in a developer with some solvency), higher levels of sharpness, lower granularity etc will generally give the end user the impression that highlights are easier to print and better separated overall than an emulsion that the unwary are more likely to overexpose from the outset.

[paulbarden]

Delta technology attempts to more integrally enact aspects of development inhibition effects to control highlight density - i.e. by reducing the gradient in the highlights (without shouldering as much in the more conventional sense) - thus they're a bit easier to print than something that's very linear - yet without the mud that a more conventional shoulder effect tends to deliver. HP5+ has a straighter line for a bit longer, but then shoulders much more conventionally. Delta 400 has a shadow speed more in line with its peer group - which, when combined with more sophisticated highlight density control (especially in a developer with some solvency), higher levels of sharpness, lower granularity etc will generally give the end user the impression that highlights are easier to print and better separated overall than an emulsion that the unwary are more likely to overexpose from the outset.

So basically you're saying what I said, but using ten times more words. Nice.

[Michael R]

Most general purpose PQ developers like DD-X or TMax will tend to give higher highlight contrast than XTOL if one is using a film like TMX or HP5. Ilford Universal would also work. HC-110 is great for increasing highlight contrast and would likely be a good match for HP5 given that film’s “robust” speed.

@Andy F: I agree with others who have commented on the misguided notion D-76 is some sort of humdrum developer one should strive to get past. That’s the problem with cookbooks, books of pyro and the like. B&W negative processing has been totally blown out of proportion, over-complicated and mixed up with long outdated assumptions (+ mythology). Most importantly it almost entirely ignores how tone reproduction works. One is given the impression there are “great negatives” to be made and that this is how great prints are made. Of course there’s nothing wrong with trying different materials, developers etc. It’s part of the fun and we’re all hobbyists. Just don’t get sidetracked into too much nonsense.