Xtol, CHS and a Jobo expert what could possibly go wrong

[aluncrockford]

Having just discovered my deep tank of ID11 has been contaminated yet again I have decided to go down the road of one shot xtol in a Jobo expert for my 10x8 Adox CHS but kodak advise 1-1 dilution and the times on the massive dev chart only give times for 1-2 with out a mention of continuous agitation , has any one experience of this dev, film, process combo and if so what are the times and dilution that work best

thanks

alun

[Lynn Jones]

I don't like Xtol under any circumstances. With thin emulstion high res films like TMX, Rollei, Efke, Adox, Delta 100, etc., your best bet would be Rodinal or whatever they call it now the Agfa isn't there. Another one shot alternative would be a dilute HC110. I've used Rodinal in anywhere from 1-25 all the way up to 1-150. I'll run one batch and if used in an hour or so, I add 10% to the basic time to develop another batch.

Lynn

[Jay DeFehr]

Alun,

In absence of a direct recommendation from a reliable source, extrapolate as best you can from available data, and make your best guess. You haven't said which CHS (25, 50, 100) you have, so that might help to secure a recommendation. Unless you plan to print your negative in a rigid process that doesn't allow contrast control, in which case you'd need to do your own rigorous testing, you just need a ballpark estimate to get you started. My guess for CHS 100 would be 10:00, 70F.

On a related note, this film is crap, and so is this manufacturer. Do yourself a favor and choose film from a more legitimate manufacturer.

[Peter Yeti]

I can't give you times for Xtol but for Atomal and CHS 100, just in case you're interested. It works very nicely for me, brings out the mid tones beautifully and gives at least full speed. Any reason why you want to use Xtol for this?

I think the film itself is wonderful, but they fight with quality control issues right now. I just learned that they are seriously considering to relocate production to Germany. If they do, the price will be considerably higher but the film will be amazing.

[polyglot]

My, what a bunch of snobbish, unhelpful answers to insult the OP's choice of both film and developer! Both are excellent products.

Anyway, I don't have times for the exact combination, but I would suggest that 9:00 at 1+1 would be a very good starting point. I use a lot of Xtol and unless pushing, my dev times all lie between 8:00 and 9:30 across a wide range of film types. I would suggest acquiring a roll of the film, shooting a bunch of test frames with known contrast ratios and spot-metered intensities and developing them for 8:30, 9:00 and 9:30.

You could do the whole BTZS thing of course but if you had the tools and inclination you probably wouldn't be asking for a time here :)

[Jay DeFehr]

polyglot,

As I assume the OP is not responsible in any way for the production of Adox film, my criticism of the film can in no way reflect on him. I'm not sure how you make the connection you did. As for being helpful, I did my best given the limited information given, and according to your more experienced estimate, I wasn't far off, and since you don't know the exposure conditions, I might even be closer to correct than you are, so don't pull your arm out of socket patting yourself on the back. If you think Adox film is excellent, have at it, but I can't think of another manufacturer who defers to the Massive Development chart for processing information. Probably doesn't reflect on their QC, though. I'm sure my experience is anomalous, and Adox films are highly reliable and without defects.

[Vaughn]

Relax, Jay, not all Aussies are friendly easy going folks. I should know, I was married to ones who was not. :rolleyes:

[Jay DeFehr]

I think if you imagine me as smirking and sarcastic instead of scowling and angry you get a more accurate picture.;)

[aluncrockford]

Thank you for the replies , the reason I am using CHS 100 is, for he project I am working on I want a particular feel and after testing both FP4 and CHS the CHS provided what I was after, both were processed in both a deep tank with ID11 and PMK in a expert tank, the problem with the deep tank was the cost of replacing the entire stock almost constantly as one of my assistants has a blind spot when it comes to replenisment. The only Pyro dev available in the UK is PMK which is not good in the tank , hence the interest in a one shot in the expert tank , silverprint suggested XTOL and as the massive development chart has not got much information on this films dev times at 1-1 I thought this forum might be able to provide some help, which it has . As soon as I have run some tests I will post the results


http://www.aluncrockford.com/

[mdm]

Some of the small gods around would do well to look at some of yours.

[Sevo]

If I were you, I'd go with one shot ID-11 in the expert tank - you already had ID-11 working, so you only need to work out the adjustment to your times for one-shot and rotation. A change in developer will only force you to start from scratch, for little, if any, benefit. XTOL is not going to be any better or worse than ID-11 (or other mainstream developers) with old style thin layer film like CHS.

[Rolfe Tessem]

It has always been my experience that a five minute pre-wet in the Jobo has the effect of equalizing the development time to that used for standard inversion processing.

[Bruce Watson]

For a group that is normally very helpful, this thread is surprisingly filled with unhelpful comments. I don't have an explanation for it, but I do apologize to the OP for the group's weird behavior.

While I don't have direct experience with the OPs film of choice Adox CHS, I do have experience with XTOL at 1:3, using an Expert 3010 tank on a CPP-2, with both Tri-X and TMY-2.

To address the question about dilutions: XTOL has a long and interesting history when it comes to dilution. Kodak originally listed options for XTOL from stock to 1:3. But "early XTOL failure" caused them to reduce this to just stock and 1:1. When the cause of "early XTOL failure" was found (dissolved iron in the mix water), Kodak for some reason decided to stick with the 1:1 limit. I don't know why. See Kodak Tech. Pub J109 (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf) for the current recommendations from Kodak, including their times for rotary processing of sheet films.

While all that was going on, I was mixing XTOL with steam distilled water (no iron, so no problem), and using it one-shot at 1:3 in my 3010 tank on a CPP-2, first with Tri-X, then with TMY-2 (excellent combination, TMY-2 and XTOL). Never had a failure, and my stock solution lasted for longer than 12 months in full wine bottles with Vacu Vin stoppers.

As to how continuous agitation effects development times: With continuous agitation, development time varies with the square root of dilution. So if your time at 1:1 is 5 minutes, doubling dilution to 1:3 would give you 5*sqrt(2) = 7 minutes.

The only warning I give is to make sure you have enough developer stock in your mix to avoid developer exhaustion. With 10 sheets of 5x4 TMY-2 that comes out to 250ml IIRC, which I dilute to 1:3 before using -> makes 1 liter. I have no idea how much stock you'd need for your film of choice, but this is perhaps a good place to start.

I haven't found much difference in the final printed image between stock XTOL and 1:3. Normal enlargements just aren't big enough to show what differences there are (11x enlargement lets me make a 100 x 125 cm print with a tiny bit of room for cropping, and I've only made a few photographs I thought worthy of such a huge print). Basically, dilution gives you just a tiny bit better micro-contrast, and just a tiny bit bigger but sharper grain. I don't dilute XTOL for what it changes in the print, I do it for the economy and for the increase in processing time that makes development a little more controllable for me.

As to the question of presoak or not: I exchanged some emails with Dick Dickerson and Silvia Zawadzki, the Kodak researchers who are most closely associated with the development of XTOL. They did most of their development work in rotary tanks, and they did not recommend a presoak with XTOL. See this thread on XTOL and presoaks (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?84172-XTOL-Pre-Soak-What-gives) for more.

How to proceed: If you can't find anyone with previous experience with Adox CHS, XTOL (in whatever dilution) and the expert drums, you'll have to do the work yourself. Per the Zone System (or any number of its offshoots) you'll have to first find your personal exposure index (EI), then your personal normal development time. But a few days of testing initially can save you buckets of time (and money) in the long run, so go ahead and do it.

My experience with both Tri-X and TMY-2 in XTOL tell me that you'll find your EI very near the ISO of the film (I'm actually a third of a stop faster). My experience with development times is however meaningless for you since I don't use Adox CHS.

[venchka]

I get good results, for my skill level and taste, with Xtol 1:3, an expert tank and a starting time in the 8 to 10 minute range for a variety of films. Efke, Foma, Ilford, Kodak. Speeds from 25 to 400.

Wayne

[sully75]

Having just discovered my deep tank of ID11 has been contaminated yet again I have decided to go down the road of one shot xtol in a Jobo expert for my 10x8 Adox CHS but kodak advise 1-1 dilution and the times on the massive dev chart only give times for 1-2 with out a mention of continuous agitation , has any one experience of this dev, film, process combo and if so what are the times and dilution that work best

thanks


alun

Alun, that's some beautiful stuff on your website. Knock-out.

[Lenny Eiger]

I'm with Bruce on this... Xtol is wonderful. I use it for 4x5 and 8x10, most favorite film is Ilford Delta. I use Xtol 1:1 in a Jobo, with times ranging from 4 to 7 1/2 minutes, at 72F. I did a lot of tests (on both TMax'es, Delta and Efke) and I didn't see anything that could compete with it for tight, sharp grain, which is what I was looking for. I always use the same amount, about 1250 ml's, regardless of how much film is in the tank.

My results are mine, and not someone else's. But, suffice it to say, at least - I don't think there's anything wrong with Xtol at all.

Lenny

[venchka]

I use Xtol 1:3 so that my times are comfortably long during Texas summers which tend to last 8-10 months.

Wayne

[Greg Y]

Wayne trade you for some Alberta.... still snowing & I'm dreaming of Austin or San Antonio :)

[venchka]

Wayne trade you for some Alberta.... still snowing & I'm dreaming of Austin or San Antonio :)

Would that I could trade. On the other hand, I'm dreaming of Wimberly, Fredericksburg & Big Bend. They seem as distant as Alberta. I'll get back north one of these years.

Wayne

[Sal Santamaura]

...Xtol is wonderful. I use it for 4x5 and 8x10, most favorite film is Ilford Delta. I use Xtol 1:1 in a Jobo, with times ranging from 4 to 7 1/2 minutes, at 72F.Lenny, would you be so kind as to share whether you presoak or not and what EIs/CIs result from those times at 72 degrees with Delta 100? Thanks very much in advance.

[Lenny Eiger]

Sal,

HI there...

I do pre-saok, for 5 mins. I don't do EIs or CIs anymore, I just look at the negative... I am generally looking for the juice, which means a certain amount of richness....

The differences between an N-1 and N-2 might be 20-40 seconds, vs a lot more in more dilute solutions... and if you go for deepest development, as in past 8 mins the grain explodes.... However, if one gets it right, its marvelous...

Lenny

[polyglot]

Zombie thread revival, and I don't know how Alun got on with his film, but I did a batch of 4x5 CHS100 in Xtol 1+1 this evening with my Jobo. 9:00 at 20C with a prewash looks OK for contrast, but you get maybe EI80 at most (metering shadows at -2). I did some expansion shots from very flat light, dev for 10:45 and they also look OK for contrast but they're a bit thick at EI100 (average-metering midtones); I could probably have used 160 and a touch more development. They all look eminently printable though.

That's only from eyeballing the film and knowing how I spot-metered (assuming my shutters aren't whack); I didn't do any formal BTZS tests.