XTOL not mixing well and not working any more!

[jnantz]

Please forgive me, I forgot to add in YMMV ...

[Michael R]

Here are some examples. Other films such as FP4, HP5, Tri-X behave the same way.

Relative to D-76/ID-11, XTOL has has the following characteristics:

1) Very slightly finer grain (almost negligible, not a consideration in LF)
2) Very slightly higher sharpness (negligible, not a consideration in LF)
3) Very slightly higher emulsion speed (miniscule, irrelevant from a practical perspective)
4) Slightly reduced extreme highlight density/contrast. This is a property of ascorbate relative to HQ.
5) Self replenishment

[jnantz]

Here are some examples. Other films such as FP4, HP5, Tri-X behave the same way.

Relative to D-76/ID-11, XTOL has has the following characteristics:

1) Very slightly finer grain (almost negligible, not a consideration in LF)
2) Very slightly higher sharpness (negligible, not a consideration in LF)
3) Very slightly higher emulsion speed (miniscule, irrelevant from a practical perspective)
4) Slightly reduced extreme highlight density/contrast. This is a property of ascorbate relative to HQ.
5) Self replenishment

Hi Micheal

You can post all the charts you want, it doesn't change someone's personal experience with the developer. Maybe for whomever took the time and plotted out the curves on the chart
that was their experience, but with the handful of emulsions and personal experiences I had with that developer, it was nothing like that. I've never used D76 or ID 11, but a handful of other developers
which gave me a completely different experience, different negatives, different prints different everything. ...
more power to you if you can get xtol to look like d76, no matter the format processed.
John
(btw my most recent experience was in the early 2000s, not a newbie but with 20+ years processing experience, while it is possible that it was "user error" that I couldn't develop my film, I don't really think it was... )

[Sal Santamaura]

John, I find your personal vendetta against XTOL and anyone who uses it, or posts factual information about it, amazing.

Michael is a meticulous darkroom worker. He took the time and plotted those results. When mixed and stored appropriately (i.e. using iron-free water, preferably distilled, as well as in an oxygen-free environment, preferably in glass containers), XTOL stock solution is utterly reliable and long-lived.

Paul, I don't know what you mean by "hard density areas" in negatives. Does this refer to alternative process printing where extreme contrast negatives are appropriate? If so, then yes, XTOL might not be the one to use. I've found something like Ilfotec HC can push density off the chart, approaching O.D.=4.0. For silver printing, however, I've never found an XTOL-developed negative to be lacking. Look at Michael's curves. ID-11 negatives don't deviate upward from XTOL negatives until O.D.=1.7 for TMX and O.D.=2.2 for TMY-2. And even then, only by 0.1/0.3 at the very highest of exposures.

Milam, don't be discouraged. Stick with XTOL. There's no need to obtain ID-11 instead.

[Michael R]

Well, my post wasn’t only intended as support for XTOL. The point I was really making is that particularly concerning large format film, good old D-76/ID-11 will produce results virtually indistinguishable from properly working XTOL, so if one is fed up with XTOL or scared or XTOL etc. etc. I’m saying you can simply use other things (or scratch mix them yourself) without worrying about leaving anything material on the table. In fact you can also use D-23 in place of D-76.

I know you do things differently (caffenol + Ansco 130, etc.) but that doesn’t mean the data is wrong. Do you think Kodak would have bothered to release XTOL in the first place if it was only capable of producing thin, low contrast negatives?

Hi Micheal

You can post all the charts you want, it doesn't change someone's personal experience with the developer. Maybe for whomever took the time and plotted out the curves on the chart
that was their experience, but with the handful of emulsions and personal experiences I had with that developer, it was nothing like that. I've never used D76 or ID 11, but a handful of other developers
which gave me a completely different experience, different negatives, different prints different everything. ...
more power to you if you can get xtol to look like d76, no matter the format processed.
John
(btw my most recent experience was in the early 2000s, not a newbie but with 20+ years processing experience, while it is possible that it was "user error" that I couldn't develop my film, I don't really think it was... )

[jnantz]

but that doesn’t mean the data is wrong. Do you think Kodak would have bothered to release XTOL in the first place if it was only capable of producing thin, low contrast negatives?

I think the graphs seem like those produced using an industrial lab, the same way iso of films are determined. I've never gotten "box speed" out of any film I have used ( I don't think the saint did either ). it doesn't mean the data is wrong it means that regular people using the film and chemistry might not get the same results. Yes I do think they would have released the developer if there were problems with it, and they did. Just like companies that released papers that had 900 year longevity claims and they shifted 3 months after printing. Xtol was created when their site in Rochester NY was the equivalent of a super fund site and Eastman Kodak was the worst polluter in the world / in the mid 1990s. The developer was advertised as a "non toxic" type developer ( probably to take some of the heat off the rest of their operation ) and was riddled with issues. It not only had problems with contrast but EK had their data guides that suggested people use the developer at such extreme dilutions that it ran out of developing agent and "died" before the film was developed .. I believe if you look up "Xtol sudden death syndrom" you can read about it. Of course there are always people to declare that XSDS never happened, the people who had problems watched too many episodes of "the x-files", it was user error, a figment of the person's imagination who was processing the film, or there were other factors involved ( the person doesn't know how to process film &C ) because of the extreme fan base Xtol seems to have, but it doesn't really change the facts that it's had and still has issues.
as they say "mistakes were made". Regarding me, I would never suggest anyone to use it because its not worth potentially ruining one's film, and using expired sacks of Xtol purchased cheep off the internet is in my mind is an accident waiting to happen, like chocolate milk colored Dektol or Chinese Amidol. People obviously can write off my posts as ravings of someone who has an axe to grind, I just think its a terrible developer and with so many different options out there, either pre made or to be made from scratch, not sure why anyone would bother using the stuff, especially expired stuff purchased "cheap" when 4x5 film costs like 2$ a sheet not to mention the time taken to get to the place where one sets up their camera, and time standing around in the dark converting the latent image to a negative.>> YMMV <<

[Michael R]

John,

The graphs are not esoteric lab gobbledygook. They are simple sensitometry, directly applicable to everyday normal use. Expose film, develop film, read densities. I know you don’t like graphs or curves, but they tell the story. They show how the film/developer combination can be expected to render a subject.

If anything, it’s your own working habits and preferences which are outside the norm. Your insistence, for example, on using loooong expired films. How do you think that affects film speed?

Again I’m not advocating for or against XTOL, and I’m not trying to convince you or anyone else to use it, but honestly you are totally mischaracterizing it and regurgitating disreputable misinformation.

I’ve already suggested D-76/ID-11 or even D-23 as very close substitutes, not to mention other commercially available formulas. If one is unable to get sufficient density, or if one is unable to get full ISO emulsion speed from D-76, it’s not the developer. Rather, it’s what IT people call a code 12.

[jnantz]

Michael, I am aware of what charts and curves are and what they do, I find them to be misleading, like a TicTok cooking video.
Contrary to what you have suggested, I didn't start using expired film until maybe 2005, and it was purchased fresh in 2001. It was purchased for a job that vanished because of 9-11 and I didn't sell it and lose my shirt, and I didn't have a kidney to sell to purchase fresh after all the film went up in price. I don't have the luxury of being able to buy fresh film. All the films I processed using Xtol from 1997-2004 were fresh films. My shooting "habits" - 1/2 box speed for every film I used, and process habits - times, temperatures and agitation schemes the manufacturer prescribed, nothing out of the ordinary. The only developer I have ever had trouble with is XTOL. Unfortunately I wasted a lot of effort between 1997 and 2004 trying to get XTOL to work for me, it didn't, I moved on. Sorry to not be a fanboy, but I'll warn people that it doesn't build density and contrast well, just like I warn people to only use TMAX RS with sheet film (or they potentially will get metallic green dichroic fog on their negatives). It seems a disservice on one of these websites to only ring praise when a developer that might not work as advertised, seeing 4x5 film can cost around $2/sheet and it is known to not build contrast and density well. Life's too short for bad negatives. I'm very happy that you have been able to get the xtol to work for you, Im also very happy you enjoy sensitometry, seems like fun if you like that sort of thing. I have different things I am interested in.

[Michael R]

It’s not about enjoying sensitometry. Of course that isn’t what photography is about. But it’s a useful way of objectively comparing and characterizing the tone reproduction of materials, processes etc.

Anyhow it’s not worth arguing over. It’s just a developer.

Michael, I am aware of what charts and curves are and what they do, I find them to be less useful than practical experience, sorry. I didn't start using expired film until maybe 2005, I didn't have a kidney to sell after all the film went up in price after that and my needs changed, I no longer had the luxury of being able to buy fresh film, and I sold off lots of my things ( retouching desk, record cutting lathe &c ) and a lot of my work went digital. All the film I processed using Xtol from 1997-2004 were fresh films, that were newly purchased at either Hunt Photo in Melrose MA or SBI Sales in Boston. My "habits" pre 2005 were 1/2 box speed for every film I used, and process using times, temperatures and agitation schemes the manufacturer prescribed, nothing out of the ordinary, and it worked for the handful of developers I had used prior to XTOL and those I have used after ditching XTOL. At the time I was doing newspaper / corporate photojournalism, editorial and other assignments, I didn't have the time or money to hope my film was going to be ok for my clients. I had to use what worked ( and I tried for 7 years off and on when I had the time and $$ to get it to work ). You should search Eboink for old Kodak Data Guides for when XTOL came out, these days they recommend stock, 1:1, 1:2 ... previously they recommended dilutions including 1:10, which gave people enough trouble that they stopped recommending extreme dilutions. You might also look into reports by the EPA (US GOVERNMENT) 1990s, common knowledge that EK was pretty much the worst polluter on the planet. Plenty of companies run interference campaigns, it wouldn't surprise me if EK did as well. Unfortunately I wasted probably $500-$1000 worth of film and chemistry between 1997 and 2004 trying to get XTOL to work for me, it didn't and I moved on. I'd rather use something that easily builds density / contrast on my films I am not fond of thin negatives. I'm very happy that you have been able to get the Tang to work for you, Im also very happy you enjoy sensitometry, seems like fun if you like that sort of thing. Sadly I have different things I am interested in.

[jnantz]

It’s not about enjoying sensitometry. Of course that isn’t what photography is about. But it’s a useful way of objectively comparing and characterizing the tone reproduction of materials, processes etc.

Anyhow it’s not worth arguing over. It’s just a developer.

We can agree about that, it's not at all what photography is about, but I find graphs and charts ( like gear and advertising ) a distraction, and potentially misleading.