D-76 and Tri-X is, of course, the classic combination. Although XTOL has been my favorite lately, I am currently working through a bag of D-76 that I found in the back of my shelf and am developing :whistling: a renewed fondness for D-76 1:1.
You won't go wrong with either. Replenished XTOL is very nice. However, if you don't want to deal with the 5L quantity, than go with the D-76.
(BTW, XTOL is NOT a new D-76. It's a totally different developer basic on ascobic acid and dimezone.)
XTOL is a newer product but it isn't a newer version of D-76. It's a different product.
I normally use D-76. For Tri-X, Plus-X, Tmax 100, and 400, it works very well. I like the result.
I used to use XTOL. Initially, I had trouble of getting excessive contrast so I had to reduce the dev time by 15% to dial it down.
It seems (meaning I haven't done a scientific comparison test), for push applications and Delta-3200, XTOL appears to work better in producing smoother image. D-76 is also quite a bit more forgiving.... It gets me the result I like - every time.
I've pushed Tmax-400 and Tri-X to 1600 and processed with XTOL with absolutely fine results. I haven't done the same with D-76.
I'd say try both and see which one you like better.... they are both pretty cheap.
Sorry, this is kind of random.
I've used t-max developer for both tmax and the Ilford Delta 100 and Delta 400 films with no problems.
Originally Posted by Alessandro Serrao
Oh, it is not recommended for the Pan-F 50 film...I know that because I was about to develop that film and found out I shouldn't use it.
I think Michael R 1974 said what pretty much what I think, but I'll reinforce that with my own experience.
When Phil Davis tested Xtol for Photo Techniques magazine he ran a D76 control with each film and the curves were very nearly identical (except speed point). I recently did a quick test with D76 that confirmed this to my satisfaction. I finished one roll of TX in a camera and started the next roll with the same shots. Ran the two rolls in parallel, one in Xtol 1:1 and one in D76 1:1 for the appropriate times. I got the gamma of the two rolls very, very close and the prints were nearly a dead on match at the same contrast. The only real difference I could detect was a slight increase in shadow detail with the Xtol (maybe 1/3 stop), and just perhaps a bit finer grain and sharpness with the Xtol.
I've used Xtol replenished for quite some time, but have recently gone to 1:3 one shot. This gives the same economy as replenishment, plus a slight boost in speed, sharpness, and grain. I plan to keep my replenished bottle going for now and will use it when I want the ultimate fine grain. The only disadvantage I can see to 1:3 is the longer time, but that is good in every way but convenience. The only other disadvantage I see to Xtol is the PIA of mixing the 5L size.
D76 is great, but Xtol is a bit better for my needs. Nothing at all wrong with using either. Maximum film speed comes with dilute Xtol, but either will push the higher tones well.
Have you decided what quality (or qualities) you want to get from your Tri-X negatives?
Right now I'm experimenting for tkamiya with Dektol 1:9 to see if I can emphasize the grain.
It's exciting to turn the traditional quality standards on their ears.
Originally Posted by rich815
Ilford still makes Perceptol. Folks say it's virtually identical to MX.
Originally Posted by henry finley
Also, if I'm not mistaken, Freestyle carries one in their Arista brand as well:
"Have you heard, it's in the stars, next July we collide with Mars! Well did you ever, what a swell party this is." It used to be two singers with a comical song in a 1950s film and we all knew it was entertaining nonsense. Now it's online and must therefore be true :D
Originally Posted by Wolfeye
Where did you read it? AFAIK, Xtol is a popular product.
Originally Posted by Wolfeye