I would stick to the recommended time, temperature, no dilution beyond 1:1, box speed.
XTOL stock works great, replenish for ultimate economy.
I would stick to the recommended time, temperature, no dilution beyond 1:1, box speed.
XTOL stock works great, replenish for ultimate economy.
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
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?
” Never attribute to inspiration that which can be adequately explained by delusion”.
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.
Will Wilson
www.willwilson.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bookmarks