helen.HH
A smile & a wink…
Al Kaplan
Mentor
"Hardcore" Helen? Not me, no way. The closest I ever came to "hardcore" is living within a few blocks of the house where Linda Lovelace lived, the bar where she worked, and the former motel where Deep Throat was filmed. I also helped catch her big red dog a few times when he ran off. At the time nobody had any idea about the infamous movie that was being filmed. North Miami can be a very happening place!
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Last edited:
Turtle
Mentor
I use Xtol 1+2. Why?
Cheap
Good grain and acutance
Gentle working - deals with harsh light very nicely
good speed
Great shelf life
D76 gives less speed, comes in daft 3.8l/US gallon packs, has a pH which oscillates on the shelf giving variable neg density (I believe you should not mix it and use it immediately for example). Otherwise it is pretty similar. Kodakl says less fine grain which fits in with my experience too, but this is no issue to me.
Another advantage of Xtol is that you can mix it with Rodinal in variable amounts for a change in grain structure and acutance.
Cheap
Good grain and acutance
Gentle working - deals with harsh light very nicely
good speed
Great shelf life
D76 gives less speed, comes in daft 3.8l/US gallon packs, has a pH which oscillates on the shelf giving variable neg density (I believe you should not mix it and use it immediately for example). Otherwise it is pretty similar. Kodakl says less fine grain which fits in with my experience too, but this is no issue to me.
Another advantage of Xtol is that you can mix it with Rodinal in variable amounts for a change in grain structure and acutance.
Ronald M
Mentor
I notice the post office has run a deficite since i stopped sending bags of xtol back to Kodak. In fairness, they always sent me two. Then I sent those back too. They were not the infamous 1 liter packes either.
The last straw was an out of date pack that was not dated. Ruined some of the best landscapes i ever made in weather that will not repeat.
At least D76 is known fresh and it is good to new specs 6/7 months.
I now mix mix D76 from raw chems and never have a problem.
The last straw was an out of date pack that was not dated. Ruined some of the best landscapes i ever made in weather that will not repeat.
At least D76 is known fresh and it is good to new specs 6/7 months.
I now mix mix D76 from raw chems and never have a problem.
Freakscene
Obscure member
For me, Xtol has numerous advantages: finer grain, better speed and with similar neutral tonal characteristics to D76. Our local water is terrible enough that I would need to use RO or distilled water for D76 anyway. I test by getting a film leader and adding drops at intervals and then fixing. You can tell if it's oxidised. But mostly it doesn't last long enough to even start to show signs of oxidation.
Marty
Marty
Attachments
Last edited:
Yammerman
Well-known
Found it cheap and got my best results shooting HP5 at 1600.
Turtle
Mentor
In recent years, or is this from a while back. It is important to note that Kodak did make some changes to Xtol (allegedly) a while back and I am not aware of recent issues being reported. It is surely current Xtol that is being asked about.
Ronald M
Mentor
In one of many conversations with Kodak, they told me there is "NO HOME TEST" that can measure the the activity of Xtol reliably. You have to run a full roll in appropiate amount of developer and that is the test. 6 frames will not do. Neither will your drops unless it is nearly dead and then it will show.
Furthermore the exp date now shown is to be followed. It may mix without clumping and look good, buy it goes to half strength within a week. I always mixed with distilled water at 85 deg using gentle stiring. My last pack was pre exp dated package and I was did not look for it. I know they are now dated and have been for years.
D76 does not change activity on the shelf. Ice cubes and 30 min does not work, 24 hours does. Someplace in there is the correct "wait time". After that is is more stable than Xtol IF IT IS IN A FULL STOPPERED BOTTLE. 120 ml work for me. Someone on P Net did the test and measured negs at intervals over 6 months with a densitometer. All the results and readings were posted ten years ago. The D76 was perfect, ie within experimental error. Xtol was close and the average user probably would not see the changes. I have run my own with a step wedge and actual printing and find it is perfect to 6/7 months.
I am aware the packaging was changed to better seal the product from oxidation. I have received bad product after that took place. The seals looked good, but the bad area was not found until after a failure and I went looking for it. It was along one edge for a distance of 1". I got a free replacement pack. Big deal. My work was lost.
You can`t tell it is bad and it may be good when mixed but bad in a week. I just can`t commit to the stuff for the small improvement over D76 .
I am sure you like it and never had a problem. To me it would be like remarrying a woman you previously divorced.
Furthermore the exp date now shown is to be followed. It may mix without clumping and look good, buy it goes to half strength within a week. I always mixed with distilled water at 85 deg using gentle stiring. My last pack was pre exp dated package and I was did not look for it. I know they are now dated and have been for years.
D76 does not change activity on the shelf. Ice cubes and 30 min does not work, 24 hours does. Someplace in there is the correct "wait time". After that is is more stable than Xtol IF IT IS IN A FULL STOPPERED BOTTLE. 120 ml work for me. Someone on P Net did the test and measured negs at intervals over 6 months with a densitometer. All the results and readings were posted ten years ago. The D76 was perfect, ie within experimental error. Xtol was close and the average user probably would not see the changes. I have run my own with a step wedge and actual printing and find it is perfect to 6/7 months.
I am aware the packaging was changed to better seal the product from oxidation. I have received bad product after that took place. The seals looked good, but the bad area was not found until after a failure and I went looking for it. It was along one edge for a distance of 1". I got a free replacement pack. Big deal. My work was lost.
You can`t tell it is bad and it may be good when mixed but bad in a week. I just can`t commit to the stuff for the small improvement over D76 .
I am sure you like it and never had a problem. To me it would be like remarrying a woman you previously divorced.
Turtle
Mentor
Ronald,
Not disputing you had problems. Just curious how long ago the problems last occurred because as well as packaging changes I also heard that they made some other changes to make it more stable and resilient to water impurities that killed it. It may be that your experiences are after they changed the packets but before the other changes.
All I can say is that using it heavily in the last few years, stored in brown plastic bottles it has lasted at least 9 months with not visible change in anything on film. I use the nastiest water which is uinpredictable, often needs filtering and you would not drink. No problems in many hundreds of rolls.
As there are no problems associated with more recent use of Xtol, I can only conclude that the issues were fixed, but understand why you would never go back.
Kodak would not commit to a home test any more than a doctor would advocate home diagnosis! But I do not believe for a minute that leader tests have no value: Either they will not develop (it is dead) or they will develop very slowly (the active ingredients are mostly dead and you are effectively running on a low concentration). If your leader develops nice and quickly it would at least suggest that there is a reasonable concentration of active ingredient?
Whenever Xtol comes up, there are lots of refs to failure; however few actually put a date on the problems and talk about them as if they happened yesterday when in fact they were nearly a decade ago. Maybe there are more recent failures that occurred despite correct handling (i.e. not leaving the dev in bottles without tops on etc), in which case it would be much more of a concern. I don't know, but I have taken part in lots of threads on various forums on this subject and I have yet to hear of a single recent example, but maybe yours is one?
I'd happily use D76 too. I used too, but enjoy the additional speed of Xtol to change unless I have to. If I did, it would probably be DDX.
Not disputing you had problems. Just curious how long ago the problems last occurred because as well as packaging changes I also heard that they made some other changes to make it more stable and resilient to water impurities that killed it. It may be that your experiences are after they changed the packets but before the other changes.
All I can say is that using it heavily in the last few years, stored in brown plastic bottles it has lasted at least 9 months with not visible change in anything on film. I use the nastiest water which is uinpredictable, often needs filtering and you would not drink. No problems in many hundreds of rolls.
As there are no problems associated with more recent use of Xtol, I can only conclude that the issues were fixed, but understand why you would never go back.
Kodak would not commit to a home test any more than a doctor would advocate home diagnosis! But I do not believe for a minute that leader tests have no value: Either they will not develop (it is dead) or they will develop very slowly (the active ingredients are mostly dead and you are effectively running on a low concentration). If your leader develops nice and quickly it would at least suggest that there is a reasonable concentration of active ingredient?
Whenever Xtol comes up, there are lots of refs to failure; however few actually put a date on the problems and talk about them as if they happened yesterday when in fact they were nearly a decade ago. Maybe there are more recent failures that occurred despite correct handling (i.e. not leaving the dev in bottles without tops on etc), in which case it would be much more of a concern. I don't know, but I have taken part in lots of threads on various forums on this subject and I have yet to hear of a single recent example, but maybe yours is one?
I'd happily use D76 too. I used too, but enjoy the additional speed of Xtol to change unless I have to. If I did, it would probably be DDX.
Roger Warren
AddlepatedWight
I can't vote for one over the other. They both have their qualities. Xtol gives me smaller grain and higher push ability, while D-76 gives me a softer look with large grain.
Mackinaw
Think Different
Likewise, I use both. Love the fine grain of Xtol and the tones of D-76 (especially with Tri-x).
Jim B.
Jim B.
Mablo
Well-known
I like D-76 very much but after having read this thread I bought a package of Xtol.
Matt(1pt4)
Established
Didn't vote, because I happily use both.
Despite Ronald M's experience, I've found Xtol to be far more stable than D76, the activity of which changes with its ph (see Anchell & Troop's notes on D76 modifications). Xtol also gives you a slight speed boost and finer grain. It does seem a bit soft though, and I've never had luck using it diluted past 1:1. I like the stock stuff for pushing.
D76 gives you a bit more bite, and the 1 liter packages are easy to mix up in a Nalgene bottle. The big packages of XTOL have to be mixed in a bucket, which is a hassle. A 1 liter bottle of D76 is stable enough if used up within a few weeks, but after that results can vary.
Lately I'm using more rodinal than anything.
Despite Ronald M's experience, I've found Xtol to be far more stable than D76, the activity of which changes with its ph (see Anchell & Troop's notes on D76 modifications). Xtol also gives you a slight speed boost and finer grain. It does seem a bit soft though, and I've never had luck using it diluted past 1:1. I like the stock stuff for pushing.
D76 gives you a bit more bite, and the 1 liter packages are easy to mix up in a Nalgene bottle. The big packages of XTOL have to be mixed in a bucket, which is a hassle. A 1 liter bottle of D76 is stable enough if used up within a few weeks, but after that results can vary.
Lately I'm using more rodinal than anything.
Turtle
Mentor
Matt,
why no luck past 1+1? I foun1 1+2 does give noticeably more bite than 1+1, but agree the overall tones are somehow softer than some other devs, particularly in the highlights (shoulder?) This is very handy for me in Afghanistan's light.
I mix Xtol in a 5L plastic container then decant into smaller bottles (1L).
If you like Xtol and also rodinal, experiment with mixing them perhaps. You do get results on a sliding scale between the two. Good for adding a touch more bite to films without going all the way. I sometimes add rodinal to Xtol for Delta 100 for example, or TriX when I want some grit, but not gravel!
why no luck past 1+1? I foun1 1+2 does give noticeably more bite than 1+1, but agree the overall tones are somehow softer than some other devs, particularly in the highlights (shoulder?) This is very handy for me in Afghanistan's light.
I mix Xtol in a 5L plastic container then decant into smaller bottles (1L).
If you like Xtol and also rodinal, experiment with mixing them perhaps. You do get results on a sliding scale between the two. Good for adding a touch more bite to films without going all the way. I sometimes add rodinal to Xtol for Delta 100 for example, or TriX when I want some grit, but not gravel!
Freakscene
Obscure member
I can show a 5% reduction in activity, either by the drop test (running drops at 30s intervals to 4 min) or by developing a Kodak B&W Control test strip (CAT 180 2990) in an appropriate volume of solution. You just need a sufficiently sensitive instrument to measure the density. I can show this with statistically significant repeatability. You need to use consistent water.
You also need to test just before you develop - what I mean is you may not be able to test for problems right after mixing, but I am very confident that you can immediately before use.
Marty
Last edited:
venchka
Mentor
Alone
Alone
The opinion of a minority of one.
You also lead a charmed life if you get useable results with the tiny amount of D-76 you mentioned in another thread.
Meanwhile, my Xtol in the recycled wine box is working fine. I am blissfully happy ignorantly using more Xtol than the tank makers suggest. Chemicals are cheap. Photos are priceless.
Have fun!
Alone
The opinion of a minority of one.
You also lead a charmed life if you get useable results with the tiny amount of D-76 you mentioned in another thread.
Meanwhile, my Xtol in the recycled wine box is working fine. I am blissfully happy ignorantly using more Xtol than the tank makers suggest. Chemicals are cheap. Photos are priceless.
Have fun!
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Then again ... the US pres gets voted in without having to really prove that he can actually run the country!
NO president has ever been elected having first proved they can run a country. Of course sometimes people beat the bushes to find someone who has proven they can run one or more companies into the ground, and elect them (sorta) anyway.
Neither, I'm primarily a Rodinal man. But given the choice, XTol because of the more flexible dilution options. And I like the look, not that D76 is inferior.
mfogiel
Mentor
Of the two, I prefer D76. It has a better tonality, and I like the appearance of the grain more on Tri X. Having said that, in 35mm my preferred developer is Prescysol EF. Fantastic sharpness, good tonality, extremely easy to scan, good results with 400 ISO as well as Acros and the like. The only film that sucks in this developer is Neopan 1600.