Liquid developer similar to XTOL?

Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I don't see any point to replenishment in a home darkroom. The labs do it to save money, but developer is so cheap in the volumes that a hobbyist would use that it really makes no sense to bother with replenishing.

I don't shoot film as much as I used to because of my health issues, but back when I was shooting BW film heavily, I bet I still spent less per year on developer than I spend each week on fuel for my car.

One shot developing means you have fresh developer for every roll you develop. No speed loss, quality is consistent roll-to-roll, and no hassles with having to add the right amount of replenisher per roll developed.
Click to expand...


Very good point. Replenishment is completely unnecessary in the home dark room. The cost savings is minimal. Ilford DD-X is a great developer and was my go to chemical for when I wanted XTOL like results.
 
If the huge batch is the main problem, what about Fomadon Excel? It is Xtol, in packs for 1L. Works great for me.
 
Kai-san said:
Handy, but almost doubles the price compared to Xtol.
Click to expand...




Liquid developers are usually a lot more expensive than powders due to the more expensive packaging required and the higher costs of transporting them (due to their greater weight and volume) from manufacturer to wholesaler to retailer.
 
Kai-san said:
Handy, but almost doubles the price compared to Xtol.
Click to expand...

Sure, but if you have a problem with storage or capacity to mix it might be better for you. It depends on your priorities.

At 1+3 that litre of stock will develop 16 films. That's about US$0.6 a roll in developer per film. If you can afford film, you can probably afford that. It probably indicates that Xtol, if you use all 5L from a batch, is extremely economical, rather than that this is expensive.

Marty
 
I have no problem seeing that storage space or infrequent use can be an issue. I have never had any developer going bad, but I always make sure that there is no or very little air present in storage bottles. The exception is Rodinal which seems to last forever however bad you treat it. I'm in the lucky situation that I can buy Xtol locally for 24 USD at the current exchange rate. I expect that many of you pay less, but I can well afford both that and a fridge full of film. Others are not so lucky.
Regarding dilution I read an interesting article about Xtol in the German PhotoKlassik magazine some years ago. To get the best results you should not dilute Xtol more than 1+1 for T-grain films, but film with traditional grain will benefit from higher dilutions. I've followed that regime since and it seems to work very well.
 
Kai-san said:
Regarding dilution I read an interesting article about Xtol in the German PhotoKlassik magazine some years ago. To get the best results you should not dilute Xtol more than 1+1 for T-grain films, but film with traditional grain will benefit from higher dilutions. I've followed that regime since and it seems to work very well.
Click to expand...

That is what I do too. T-grain and epitaxial films seem to need more developer. I did the development work for at least one article that was published in that magazine.

Marty
 
Freakscene said:
That is what I do too. T-grain and epitaxial films seem to need more developer. I did the development work for at least one article that was published in that magazine.

Marty
Click to expand...

I tested Tmax films as described in Ansel Adam's book, "The Negative". Checked densities with a densitometer and found that my Normal Development, diluted 1:2, is 12.5 min at 68 deg for EI 320. Very happy with my negatives thus far.
 
Marty, can you elaborate what the problem is with T-grain films and higher dilutions of X-tol? Seems to work well for me, although times do get long. I think the curve shoulders off more unless you agitate a lot, but I'm fine with that.
Do you have more thoughts about PC-TEA? I'm preparing to make some, I expect it to be a little more grainy and very cheap and convenient.
 
retinax said:
Marty, can you elaborate what the problem is with T-grain films and higher dilutions of X-tol? Seems to work well for me, although times do get long. I think the curve shoulders off more unless you agitate a lot, but I'm fine with that.
Do you have more thoughts about PC-TEA? I'm preparing to make some, I expect it to be a little more grainy and very cheap and convenient.
Click to expand...

T-Grain and epitaxial films contain a lot of silver iodide, and it needs more developer to develop it. Particularly with T-Max 100 and high key scenes, there just isn’t enough developer in a normal volume of high dilution Xtol to develop the film to a normal density. This is why Kodak dropped the dilutions greater than 1+1 in the 2004 version of the Xtol datasheet. If you are seeing an increased shoulder in the usable portion of the negative you are probably operating near exhaustion of the developer.

If high dilutions work for you with these films, that’s great, but bear in mind one day it might not, although a lot of photographers aren’t attuned enough to the these details to notice unless the development fails entirely.

PC-Tea produces negatives with coarser grain than Xtol because the alkali is unbuffered. It works better if you use dimezone-s instead of phenidone because dimezone-s develops silver more synergistically with ascorbate than phenidone. I had problems with it failing the same as Xtol, and although cheap, it was slow and unpleasant to mix. I corresponded with Pat Gainer, who invented PC-Tea, before he died, but essentially we could only agree to disagree. Tremendously intelligent and nice man.

Marty
 
Freakscene said:
T-Grain and epitaxial films contain a lot of silver iodide, and it needs more developer to develop it. Particularly with T-Max 100 and high key scenes, there just isn’t enough developer in a normal volume of high dilution Xtol to develop the film to a normal density. This is why Kodak dropped the dilutions greater than 1+1 in the 2004 version of the Xtol datasheet. If you are seeing an increased shoulder in the usable portion of the negative you are probably operating near exhaustion of the developer.

If high dilutions work for you with these films, that’s great, but bear in mind one day it might not, although a lot of photographers aren’t attuned enough to the these details to notice unless the development fails entirely.

PC-Tea produces negatives with coarser grain than Xtol because the alkali is unbuffered. It works better if you use dimezone-s instead of phenidone because dimezone-s develops silver more synergistically with ascorbate than phenidone. I had problems with it failing the same as Xtol, and although cheap, it was slow and unpleasant to mix. I corresponded with Pat Gainer, who invented PC-Tea, before he died, but essentially we could only agree to disagree. Tremendously intelligent and nice man.

Marty
Click to expand...


Great information, thanks! I've used only 1+2 and I've mostly produced thin-ish negatives from T-max because I always have some shots with high SBR on a roll and prefer printing with higher grades overall, and never have that many high key shots, so yes, I probably just haven't noticed the problems.

I will try PC-TEA to see for myself, as I already have the C and TEA. Unfortunately neither Suvatlar nor Silverprint seem to sell dimezone-s, so I'll probably make do with phenidone, unless someone can suggest another source in Europe? I would think the same considerations about dilute developer apply, especially as the amount of phenidone/dimezone-s in the stuff is very small compared to some other developers?
 
Freakscene said:
DD-X and TMax/RS are nothing like Xtol, chemically or tonally.
Marty
Click to expand...

I don't think Chris is saying they are the same as Xtol:

Chriscrawfordphoto said:
DDX and Kodak Tmax Developer have similar properties to each other. They're not identical in properties to Xtol . . .
Click to expand...

I think he's just suggesting they are a good choice in a liquid developer. I use them myself, for pushing and for Ilford Delta films. I like DD-X for increasing shadow detail, similar to what Xtol does. It seems similar to Ilford Microphen, which I also use from time to time. (But Xtol seems closest to a "free lunch," because of the way it minimizes grain and maximizes film speed and acutance, all in one developer!)
 
Rob-F said:
I don't think Chris is saying they are the same as Xtol: I think he's just suggesting they are a good choice in a liquid developer. I use them myself, for pushing and for Ilford Delta films. I like DD-X for increasing shadow detail, similar to what Xtol does. It seems similar to Ilford Microphen, which I also use from time to time. (But Xtol seems closest to a "free lunch," because of the way it minimizes grain and maximizes film speed and acutance, all in one developer!)
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the original query was asking for a liquid developer that produces results that produce a similar look to that which they get from Xtol. DDX is a great speed enhancing liquid developer, but if you wet print the results look quite different to Xtol.

Marty
 
retinax said:
Great information, thanks! I've used only 1+2 and I've mostly produced thin-ish negatives from T-max because I always have some shots with high SBR on a roll and prefer printing with higher grades overall, and never have that many high key shots, so yes, I probably just haven't noticed the problems.

I will try PC-TEA to see for myself, as I already have the C and TEA. Unfortunately neither Suvatlar nor Silverprint seem to sell dimezone-s, so I'll probably make do with phenidone, unless someone can suggest another source in Europe? I would think the same considerations about dilute developer apply, especially as the amount of phenidone/dimezone-s in the stuff is very small compared to some other developers?
Click to expand...

Bellini Foto in Italy sells dimezone-s: http://www.bellinifoto.it/en/scheda-prodotti.php?id=87&categoria=12&famiglia=3

Marty
 
vnukov_pk said:
Do not try it. It dies very quickly and a lot of ppl I know had problems with film because of silberra ascorol. Same with another liquid developer of their production - mickrol.
Click to expand...

I have some on order; I'll report back when I receive it. I prefer to work from my own findings, but all ascorbate developers can suffer rapid oxidation. I'll probably use the whole bottle within a week or so of opening it, and I have lab products to replace the air in the bottle, so for me this risk might be less of a problem.

Marty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top