XTOL as my default developer?

Hi,

I've been experimenting with various B&W films (HP5+, FP4+, Tri-X, Tmax,
etc.), and have begun developing them at home using D76 1:1.

Looking at the Ilford charts, it seems that XTOL is very versatile-- for
example I can push further with it than D76.

Is there any reason I should _not_ switch from D76 to XTOL as my default
developer? I also hear that XTOL is not as toxic...

Thanks,
Mike



Mike Marty

"Mike Marty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bf3p3i$rr3$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> I've been experimenting with various B&W films (HP5+, FP4+, Tri-X, Tmax,
> etc.), and have begun developing them at home using D76 1:1.
>
> Looking at the Ilford charts, it seems that XTOL is very versatile-- for
> example I can push further with it than D76.
>
> Is there any reason I should _not_ switch from D76 to XTOL as my default
> developer? I also hear that XTOL is not as toxic...
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
XTOL is more environmentally friendly compared to other developers. It also
yields higher film speed, especially at 1:1 or higher dilutions. There have
been some cases of XTOL failures reported, and strangely this seems to be
slightly more prevalent with TMAX 100 (old version), but XTOL is an
excellent developer. Kodak claimed that the problem was with the 1 liter
packaging (which has been discontinued). Do not purchase any 1 liter
packages (just in case you find them) because they are quite old.

Kodak has an excellent data sheet for XTOL on their web-site, and they
publish times for various contrast ratios. However, as usual for all
published times, you should use these numbers as a starting point for your
own testing.

"Mike Marty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bf3p3i$rr3$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> I've been experimenting with various B&W films (HP5+, FP4+, Tri-X, Tmax,
> etc.), and have begun developing them at home using D76 1:1.
>
> Looking at the Ilford charts, it seems that XTOL is very versatile-- for
> example I can push further with it than D76.
>
> Is there any reason I should _not_ switch from D76 to XTOL as my default
> developer? I also hear that XTOL is not as toxic...
>
> Thanks,
> Mike

If you don't mind the extra expense, and the necessity of mixing from
5-liter packets, Xtol is a great developer. See also:
www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:56:51 -0500, Mike Marty
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I've been experimenting with various B&W films (HP5+, FP4+, Tri-X, Tmax,
>etc.), and have begun developing them at home using D76 1:1.
>
>Looking at the Ilford charts, it seems that XTOL is very versatile-- for
>example I can push further with it than D76.
>
>Is there any reason I should _not_ switch from D76 to XTOL as my default
>developer? I also hear that XTOL is not as toxic...
>
>Thanks,
>Mike


Take a look at the site of a real authority in darkroom land about
Xtol. http://silvergrain.org/Photo-Tech/film-dev-orig.html

"Mark A" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>It also yields higher film speed, especially at 1:1 or higher dilutions.

When using Xtol and Tmax, be mindful of the minimum developer volume that
Kodak recommends. I believe it's 100 ml per 36-exposure 35mm roll.

I use Xtol 1:3 with various Fuji films and 60 ml give or take per roll with
no problems.

"Wim" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:56:51 -0500, Mike Marty
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I've been experimenting with various B&W films (HP5+,
FP4+, Tri-X, Tmax,
> >etc.), and have begun developing them at home using D76
1:1.
> >
> >Looking at the Ilford charts, it seems that XTOL is very
versatile-- for
> >example I can push further with it than D76.
> >
> >Is there any reason I should _not_ switch from D76 to
XTOL as my default
> >developer? I also hear that XTOL is not as toxic...
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Mike
>
>
> Take a look at the site of a real authority in darkroom
land about
> Xtol. http://silvergrain.org/Photo-Tech/film-dev-orig.html

Ryuji is very knowledible about photo chemistry but makes
two statements in the above site which I believe to be
mistakes.
1, The rise in pH during storage of aeriated D-76 is due to
a reaction of the hydroquinone and sulfite. This takes place
in virtually all M-H developers but is masked by their often
higher pH.
2, I don't think Xtol is much different in pH from D-76. The
pH of Xtol is specified in the patent. By memory both come
out somewhere around 8.5. The finer grain of Xtol is due to
other factors.
The buffered version of D-76 was devised in 1929 by H. C.
Carlton and John I. Crabtree of Kodak Research Labs to
eliminate the rise in activity in stored D-76. The current
packaged D-76 is the buffered version. Carlton and Crabtree
did not know the reason for the pH rise but were able to
devise an effective way to eliminate its effects.
Xtol shares with D-76 being composed to two supperaditive
reducing agents in a well buffered solution. There are
actually two patents for Xtol, one should see both.
--

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
(E-Mail Removed)

From the patent, Xtol's pH is 8.2; AFAIK D-76 buffered is 8.4.
Not a significant difference, IMHO.

Jorge

"Richard Knoppow" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<jC5ab.6767$(E-Mail Removed) link.net>...
>
> Ryuji is very knowledible about photo chemistry but makes
> two statements in the above site which I believe to be
> mistakes.
> 1, The rise in pH during storage of aeriated D-76 is due to
> a reaction of the hydroquinone and sulfite. This takes place
> in virtually all M-H developers but is masked by their often
> higher pH.
> 2, I don't think Xtol is much different in pH from D-76. The
> pH of Xtol is specified in the patent. By memory both come
> out somewhere around 8.5. The finer grain of Xtol is due to
> other factors.
> The buffered version of D-76 was devised in 1929 by H. C.
> Carlton and John I. Crabtree of Kodak Research Labs to
> eliminate the rise in activity in stored D-76. The current
> packaged D-76 is the buffered version. Carlton and Crabtree
> did not know the reason for the pH rise but were able to
> devise an effective way to eliminate its effects.
> Xtol shares with D-76 being composed to two supperaditive
> reducing agents in a well buffered solution. There are
> actually two patents for Xtol, one should see both.

Xtol is a wonderful developer and was our standard dev. for all films.
Easy mixing, "cleaner" developing than D-76, nice tonality. We used
it one shot, and I am a suporter of that method...1:1, IMHO, should
not be used.
Anyway, in machines, such as a refrema, several labs in our area had
foaming problems, which would affect the developing of the neg, and
deteriorated the developer also.

Good luck.

Alexis
www.alexisneel.com