Struggling with Xtol. Subjects are looking a little soft.

[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.