Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,200   Posts: 1,531,528   Online: 1055
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,919
    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.
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    339
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro Serrao View Post
    Xtol is still manufactured by Kodak. It has NOT been discontinued.
    An alternative to both Xtol and D76 would be T-max developer, a very underrated developer imho.
    I've used t-max developer for both tmax and the Ilford Delta 100 and Delta 400 films with no problems.
    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.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    568
    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.

  4. #14
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,191
    Images
    46
    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.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by rich815 View Post
    Both are better
    Excellent answer!

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by henry finley View Post
    I sorely miss Microdol 1:3....
    Ilford still makes Perceptol. Folks say it's virtually identical to MX.

    Also, if I'm not mistaken, Freestyle carries one in their Arista brand as well:

    http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1641-A...lon?cat_id=301
    Last edited by jim appleyard; 01-07-2013 at 08:52 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,904
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfeye View Post
    and I've read online that Kodak is discontinuing it. .
    "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

    pentaxuser

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,400
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfeye View Post
    Well, it's gone from two local stores here that used to carry it (they now only carry D-76) and I've read online that Kodak is discontinuing it.
    Where did you read it? AFAIK, Xtol is a popular product.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,604
    I certainly haven't read that anywhere. I'm finding XTOL as easy to get as D-76 and ID-11.

  10. #20
    ParkerSmithPhoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    797
    Images
    6
    Over the Christmas break, I've been testing XTOL with FP4 and HP5 sheets and rolls. Using the Darkroom Automation enlarging meter to check the OD, it looks like XTOL in the 1:3 dilution gives true speeds with both of these films, at least with my cameras/shutters (brand new Copal and electronic shutter RZ).

    I've also dialed in a HP5 800 push with this same dilution and the negs have a sparkle and crispness that is really lovely to my eye. Now to see how they print!
    Parker Smith Photography, Inc.
    Atlanta, GA

    Commercial & Fine Art Photography
    Portrait Photography

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin