XTOL compliants and problems?

[Jay Decker]

That's right, I want you to share your bad experience with XTOL. I want to hear all the problems with XTOL before I decide to settle down with XTOL as my regular developer. Oh, and, let's steer clear of the "what's the best developer?" argument and try to stick to the bad things about XTOL.

Why am I asking this question? I returned to B&W film photography and processing after being out of it for about 30 years. Over the past couple years I've been accumulating the "pots and pans" to soup film again... and trying different film developers. Every developer that I have tried, see the list below, has resulted in MF and LF (and 35mm, arguably,) negatives that scan well and produce better B&W prints using an ink jet printer than I can achieve with my late model DSLR. Bottom line, I'm as joyous as a swine in fecal material.

I recently tried XTOL at the incessant insistence of a friend, who told me to just try it without reading anything on the internet about it. So, I did, and while there was nothing magical about the results, there was good tonal separation in the negatives. Anyway, I'm thinking about settling down with XTOL as my regular developer, and possibly using one other developer for compensating development.

Here's the list of Developers I've tried:
D-76
Rodinal
Pyrocat-HD
Pyrocat-MC
Rollo Pyro
Diafine
Acufine
HC-110
XTOL

[Oren Grad]

I've heard of two problems with Xtol. The first was a problem with sealing of the 1L size packaging in the early years of the product, which unpredictably resulted in the developer going bad before it was mixed. Kodak fixed that by discontinuing that package size. The other problem was that some users run into trouble by trying high dilutions without allowing for enough stock solution. That's easy enough to avoid, too.

I got good results with Xtol when I tried it. I didn't see anything that made me want to switch from my standard, which is still D-76, but if I had to use Xtol I'd be happy with that too. If you tried it and like it, I can't think of any reason why you shouldn't use it.

[neil poulsen]

Search the archives. There's a lot of information on this developer.

[Armin Seeholzer]

The worst thing about XTOL it is not the cheapest one, but the results are the best compromise of all developers which I know!
I use it for 98% of my negs but in different dillutions!
Jay will like it even if you knew it better then now!

Cheers Armin

[Ron Marshall]

No problems at all; excellent image quality.

[tgtaylor]

It's a great developer: Inexpensive ($2/liter), and a stock solution will last 6 months in a floating lid tank (I know because I've actually used it when it was that old).

[Richard Wasserman]

I use it replenished with no problems whatsoever. I like it a lot.

[EdWorkman]

I had a bad 1L packet once- shoulda' known better than to mix it when i saw it was "gooey". I just tested a batch that i mixed up in June. I had made up the five liter stock in a 4 liter glass wine jug and used most of it. [ I used ALL of the wine some time back] The leftover filled an applejuice bottle about half way so it was well exposed to the air in the bottle. It worked just fine at the equivalent of 1:2 on 4x5 HP5-in-a-tray. After the test I diluted it 1:3 for 120 film in stainless tanks. As for too little stock etc, most tank loads were 96 oz in a tank for/and 6 stainless reels, or 64oz in a 4 reel tanks- that's NO extra at 1:3. Dunno what the rotary folks do. Sure glad I have the original Kodak T&T tables. One of the tank runs was to develope some odd rolls i'd had lying around. As i had forgotten the subject on a roll of Photowarehouse 400 I threw it in with a coupla HP5 rolls and was very pleasantly surprised that it came out very well [ probly the high dilution I'd guess, but that was the last 3 rolls in a 4 reel tank, 64 oz 1:3].

[Renato Tonelli]

I have used and continue to use Rodinal, D76, Microdol-X, Diafine, Acufine for my 35mm work but switched from HC110 to XTOL for LF. What surprised me about XTOL is that I am getting twice+ the box speed. At first I didn't believe it, so I sent a second round of test negatives to a third party for testing and the results were the same.

My only complaint so far is that I would like to use a higher than 1:1 dilution but my developing equipment does not allow it.

[Filmnut]

All I have had is good results from this developer. Like all developers, it is a compromise between grain/sharpness/speed, but it is the best compromise, in my humble opinion. I too have read about the problems with the 1L. packets, which I never used. The other issue I've read about is it dying quickly in the bottle, but I have used a part filled bottle after a few months storage in my cool, dark basement, with no troubles. It does stay quite clear even when dead, so this could also have contributed to some of the bad rap, as its' not obvious that it has gone bad.
I almost always use it at 1:1 dilution.
Keith

[Andrew O'Neill]

It's a first rate developer and I have been using it for years as my main "conventional" developer. Films sing in xtol 1+1. Just be sure to use the required volume when diluting.

[jeroldharter]

I use Xtol 1:1 as my main developer. I don't have much bad to say about it.

It mixes OK but sometimes there are little undissolved bits. I use a magnetic stirrer so I can't complain too much.

Also, it needs time. Short development times for contraction can be erratic

[mat4226]

Nothing bad to say here about XTOL. In my brief history processing my own B&W film (120 and 8x10), using XTOL 1:1 has been very reliable. The biggest mistake I made with the first mixed batch was using the bulk of the developer within a week and letting the small amount at bottom oxidize for two months :( . Attention to detail when mixing and limiting oxygen exposure should give it plenty of life.

[Henry Ambrose]

Great developer.
Just use it.

[David Swinnard]

I used it for many years, both the one litre and five litre packages. I never experienced the dreaded "Xtol failure". I always mixed the stock and working solutions with distilled water (one less variable to worry about.)

I used half-litre brown glass bottles (filled to brim and sealed with Saran Wrap under the cap) and have had them last up to 13 months in the fridge. I might have lasted longer, but I ran out - it was a slow year.

I mostly used it at the 1+3 dilution - ALWAYS ensuring I met Kodak's minimum STOCK recommendations. I used it for 35mm through 4x5 (Acros and the TMaxes mostly) and only stopped when I started using Pyrocat HD a few years ago. (Acros at night at 1+3 - wonderful!)

[Peter De Smidt]

I too used Xtol for years, mainly at 1 + 2 and 1 +3. I really like it. My film developing is more intermittent now, though, and so I've switched to Pyrocat MC in glycol, mainly for it's keeping properties.

[p_markowski]

A number of members have mentioned X-tol failure and/or bad packaging, I'm in this camp from personal experience, and that is last time I used the developer . I could not find a comfort zone on a product that has failed for me in such a critical area (I have enough variables) so I switched. I went Pyro-PMK (liquid contents, no air borne dust or undissolved contents) and have been very happy. I look back at previous negs with satisfaction but not enough to commit my time in the field to jeopardize.

[Ian Gordon Bilson]

I have recently started using Xtol replenished,which was a leap of faith on my part,as I had,like many users on this forum,always used the standard D76/ID-11 at 1:1 to 1:3 dilutions.
Test was a 36exp roll of Fuji NP400 developed in Xtol 1:1,as is my wont,and a clip test in stock developer.
No contest at all : the stock result was most convincing : improved acutance and a very slightly lower contrast negative, probably half a grade.
Subject :oblique sunlight on a textured surface/55/2.8 MicroNikkor,bracketed -1 to + 1f.
Test printed at magnification equivalent to 16in wide enlargement.
Not what I expected at all : but well worth the trouble,and the economy of use is very welcome for a multi-format user.
Blame the folks at Apug for making me think outside the square..

[Sirius Glass]

Great developer undiluted that I have used for years with and without replenishment. Undiluted replenished XTOL gives the best results.

The only problem that I have had was using the JOBO processor and the 3010 drum with replenished XTOL, was that the recommended 15% reduction in time was too agressive when I used it on HP5+. Use the time for 20 degrees C 8 minutes plus 1 minute for the replenishment = 9 minutes on the Ilford website and use the full 9 minutes, do not reduce the time.

Steve

[Jim Noel]

I have had it go bad in an unopened package so I threw the other packages away and refuse to use it.

[Sirius Glass]

Jim,

That could happen with any developer, powered or liquid.

When? Back in the early days of XTOL? If so that problem has been taken care of.


Steve

[jdaivpmed]

Great developer undiluted that I have used for years with and without replenishment. Undiluted replenished XTOL gives the best results.

The only problem that I have had was using the JOBO processor and the 3010 drum with replenished XTOL, was that the recommended 15% reduction in time was too agressive when I used it on HP5+. Use the time for 20 degrees C 8 minutes plus 1 minute for the replenishment = 9 minutes on the Ilford website and use the full 9 minutes, do not reduce the time.

Steve

Steve,

I'm a bit confused by your comment... do you mean that undiluted replenished XTOL gives better results than fresh XTOL? I'm a one-shot chemistry guy so I don't generally replenish everything. If you were using fresh stock XTOL in the Jobo would you run the full 8 minutes?

Thanks,

John IV

[Ron Marshall]

Info on Xtol:

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/

[Andrew O'Neill]

I second pyrocat-hd. It's been my main developer for years.

[Mark Barendt]

do you mean that undiluted replenished XTOL gives better results than fresh XTOL?

My experience is like Steve's in this sense. Yes Replenished Xtol is better. :)

The only problem I have ever had with Xtol was my own ineptitude. :o

[jnantz]

i used to use xtol undilute / replenished as well as single shot undilute / dilute
but i never really liked it. it seemed that i always had to over develop my film
to get halfway decent contrast. the developer was OK i guess, one could over develop by 30%
without worry of blocked highlights ... i did have premature death when i used it dilute
but i was foolish enough to dilute it beyond 1:3 as the (old/original) datasheets
used to suggest to do .... i eventually gave up on it (around the same time i gave up tanks and hangers. )
other developers like sprint film developer allow for over development without blocked highlights
and can be used in a replenished system or single shot ... and give great results ... i just got tired of thin film ...

YMMV

[venchka]

Diluted 1:3 and stored for 13+ months may make it one of the most economical developers. The German Xtol data book is where I started. Tweaked the times a bit to offset the variable temperatures in my apartment.
Xtol has done nothing bad for me.

[IanG]

Xtol's a great developer, I used it from it's release until last year always replenished. I only stopped using it because of traveling between two locations and leaving stock for months on a time usually about 6 months.

In terms of keeping it's no better or worse than any other powder developers like ID-11/D76, Perceptol etc.

Ian

[Robert Budding]

... i just got tired of thin film ...

YMMV

Thin? I've never had a problem, but I ran film tests when I first started using it.

Let's see - I'm supposed to say something bad about XTOL. Hmmm. The price went up! But it's still inexpensive!

[BetterSense]

When I developed film from my latest vacation, I accidentally developed a roll of Tri-X 400 in Xtol instead of Diafine. I shoot it in my P&S camera with the meter set on 1600, and usually develop it in Diafine. I was surprised how well the negs came out with a normal (not 'pushed') development time in Xtol 1+1. I might start using Xtol instead of Diafine.

Basically, Xtol is just so good at everything it's gradually taking over all my other specialty developers. Kind of how TMAX 400 is so good at everything it's gradually taking over all my other films in all my formats. Cost is a concern in both cases...I use replenished D23 for sheet film because it's cheap, but then people replenish Xtol...

[jnantz]

Thin? I've never had a problem, but I ran film tests when I first started using it.

Let's see - I'm supposed to say something bad about XTOL. Hmmm. The price went up! But it's still inexpensive!


i did film tests with it .. many 35mm rolls and lots of 4x5 sheets.
xtol just didn't give me "crisp negative" i was looking for ...
before i used xtol i had been using tmax rs, sprint,
gaf universal and dk-50 and i was used to the results they had been
giving me. i didn't just use xtol for a few weeks, but a few years ...
i guess "thin film" was a little extreme .. the film just lacked
what i was used to when i used the other developers.

[lilmsmaggie]

If you really want to know about Xtol, I'd suggest contacting Jeff Cox at Cox Custom B&W lab. Jeff has standardized on Xtol in his lab and he use's Gordon Hutchings PMK formula as well. customerservice@coxphotolab.com

They also have a facebook page if you're interested.

[Sirius Glass]

Steve,

I'm a bit confused by your comment... do you mean that undiluted replenished XTOL gives better results than fresh XTOL? I'm a one-shot chemistry guy so I don't generally replenish everything. If you were using fresh stock XTOL in the Jobo would you run the full 8 minutes?

Thanks,

John IV

Replenished XTOL produces better results than fresh XTOL. This is something that is entirely missed by using one shot chemistry.

If I was using fresh stock XTOL, the development time would be 8 minutes.

Steve

[IanG]

Replenished XTOL produces better results than fresh XTOL. This is something that is entirely missed by using one shot chemistry.

If I was using fresh stock XTOL, the development time would be 8 minutes.

Steve

This is true, D76/ID-11 behave the same, it's how they were designed to be used originally.

Once seasoned a replenished developer like Xtol gives the best all around performance in terms of film speed, finest grain, as well as sharpness & tonality.

It's forgotten that up until more recent years replenishment was the norm for B&W film processing, only small scale amateur users would use one shot and at the various dilutions.

Xtol is unique in that the replenisher is fresh developer which makes replenishment on a smaller scale extremely viable, just split in two halves one the stock the rest for replenisher.

I began replenishing developers in my mid teens and continued for 40 years it's just so easy & reliable.

Ian

[Vlad Soare]

When? Back in the early days of XTOL? If so that problem has been taken care of.
Well, I guess you might say that, though I would have expected a better solution. Instead of finding out what was wrong with the one liter packages and trying to fix it, they simply discontinued them. Not exactly the most clever way of solving the problem, is it? :)

[Tim Povlick]

Replenish

Interesting comments about replenishing. I've used it 1:1 but would like to try replenishment, for 4x5 or 8x10 in Jobo 3005 / 3010. The data sheet says add 70ml per roll developed. If one uses 1L of developer, maybe 20ml will get lost in processing. How does one add 70ml, just throw over board excess old developer? The replenish developer would be stored in a 1L bottle.
About how many 'rolls' does it take to 'age' the developer from fresh batch?

_ .. --
TiM

[IanG]

Yes Xtol is replenished on a bleed system you have to add fresh dev as replenisher top up and discard the excess. I'd suggest a larger bottle 2 or 2.5 litres will give far better consistency.

About 5 films (120/35mm or 20 sheets of 5x4) in 2.5 litres begins to season the dev, by 10 it's well seasoned.

Kodak solved the issues with the 1 litre packaging and continued to manufacture them later discontinuing them.

Ian

[Mark Barendt]

Pyrocat HD has never let me down so I stick with it. Clean, easy to work with and about 20 cents a litre in working solution. Sandy King is to be contratulated for his developer and especially for giving the formula out to everyone to use.

I attended a workshop and one evening our fearless leader provided the Pyro and managed our use of same.

As he was showing me how to mix my batch of the Pyro right before use he said "careful with this one, it's the one that can kill you".

Never heard that said about Xtol. :p

[Tim Povlick]

Hi Ian,

Thanks for the details and advice.

Best Regards,

Tim

[Lenny Eiger]

Xtol is excellent. The only problem I've found is that when using it 1:1 it threw me off a little when calculating the times for N-3 up to N+2. Normally a spread of times can go from 3-4 mins to 12 or more, for say D-23. Xtol's spread was from 6 to 8 mins. Any time over 8 mins yielded what I called "grain explosion" which blew away the grain. There is definitely a "too much" time.

However, within the limits it yielded the best grain of all the non-Pyro developers we tested.

Lenny

[Bruce Watson]

That's right, I want you to share your bad experience with XTOL.

Can't.

I've been using XTOL for five years or more, with nothing but sterling results. Best developer I've used, no question.

[Henry Ambrose]

Its time to buy some Xtol now.

[Richard Wasserman]

I have used Xtol off and on for several years and really wanted to like it, but never thought it was all that terrific. Then I tried it with replenishing and now I REALLY like it–especially with TMY-2. I urge everyone who is currently using Xtol, or wants to try it, to replenish. It's easy, economical, and gives great results. It's sharper with nicer tonality than when used diluted.

[Lenny Eiger]

I have used Xtol off and on for several years and really wanted to like it, but never thought it was all that terrific. Then I tried it with replenishing and now I REALLY like it–especially with TMY-2. I urge everyone who is currently using Xtol, or wants to try it, to replenish. It's easy, economical, and gives great results. It's sharper with nicer tonality than when used diluted.

Hi Richard,
I would posit that what you are seeing is stronger, more active, development and the concomitant extra contrast. If the replenishment measurements are correct, the "with and without" replenishment results should match exactly.

Lenny

[Richard Wasserman]

Lenny,

You of course could be right, I don't run tests, but make judgments from trial and error. Lots of error. However, the negatives I have been currently printing are in many cases less contrasty than ones I processed using Xtol 1:1 or 1:2. All I can really say is that the prints are nicer (or at least I like them better) with replenished Xtol and I am very happy. They have finer grain, appear to have greater acutance, and I like the tonality a lot. What more do I need? Most of my experience so far is with smaller formats–6x7 and some 35mm, although I've started messing around with 4x5 too. I'll leave it to others who are more inclined to run tests to figure out what is going on.

[sanking]

I attended a workshop and one evening our fearless leader provided the Pyro and managed our use of same.

As he was showing me how to mix my batch of the Pyro right before use he said "careful with this one, it's the one that can kill you".

Never heard that said about Xtol. :p

Photographers have been using Pyro developers for well over 150 years. I am not aware of a single death that has ever been attributed to their use, or for that matter even a single serious illness. Yes, a person might die if he/she were stupid enough to eat the powder pyrogallol or pyrocatechol chemical, or drink enough of the liquid developer. But short of that the major issue with pyro developers is dermatological irritations, which can easily be resolved by use of gloves for those who develop in trays. Not even that precaution is necessary for those who develop in tanks or drums.

Compared to most developers Xtol offers a slight increase in effective film speed and very fine grain. But IMHO several Pyro formulas give greater image sharpness.

Sandy King