xtol for Tmax films - good way to go?

Several magazines have suggested that one of the best developer-combinations for the Tmax films is XTOL. I have only seen it in the 5 liter size, but could live with that. Anybody with experience in this? Thanks.


--
foto phred

------------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.photographytalk.net/viewtopic-169011.html

Send from http://www.photographytalk.net

foto phred wrote:
Several magazines have suggested that one of the best
developer-combinations for the Tmax films is XTOL. I have only seen it in
the 5 liter size, but could live with that. Anybody with experience in
this? Thanks.

Yes. Kodak stopped making the 1-litre size because they had problems with it
that they thought were related to the packaging. Perhaps so. So now they
make only larger sizes.

I happen to like Xtol 1+1 on TMX and TMY films. There are others who say it
is unsuitable for outdoor work, which is mostly where I use it. YMMV. There
is no escaping testing.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:20:00 up 17 days, 22:07, 3 users, load average: 4.22, 4.19, 4.11

foto phred a écrit :
Several magazines have suggested that one of the best developer-combinations for the Tmax films is XTOL. I have only seen it in the 5 liter size, but could live with that. Anybody with experience in this? Thanks.



Xtol is my main developer, a very good general purpose developer, one of
the best acutance/grain size/speed combinations.
I use it with TMX, TMY and Acros but also conventional film (PanF, FP4+,
HP5+, Tri-X).
For 35mm work I prefer the 1+1 dilution.

Best regards,
Claudio Bonavolta
http://www.bonavolta.ch

I disagree.

T-Max films are inherently fine-grained and lack the edge
sharpness/acutance that conventinal films have, and Xtol does not
possess an agressive character, so the result is a sort of too-smooth
look. Xtol also does not provide much compensation. which TMY
desperately needs.

I hate TMY anyway, but Xtol makes it even worse. It's the LAST
developer I'd use with it.


foto phred wrote:
Several magazines have suggested that one of the best developer-combinations for the Tmax films is XTOL. I have only seen it in the 5 liter size, but could live with that. Anybody with experience in this? Thanks.


--
foto phred

------------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.photographytalk.net/viewtopic-169011.html

Send from http://www.photographytalk.net

Claudio Bonavolta ha scritto:
foto phred a écrit :

Several magazines have suggested that one of the best
developer-combinations for the Tmax films is XTOL. I have only seen it
in the 5 liter size, but could live with that. Anybody with experience
in this? Thanks.



Xtol is my main developer, a very good general purpose developer, one of
the best acutance/grain size/speed combinations.
I use it with TMX, TMY and Acros but also conventional film (PanF, FP4+,
HP5+, Tri-X).
For 35mm work I prefer the 1+1 dilution.


For me is the same, now I use it 1+2 (less expensive) time is about x
1,4 from 1+1 diluitons at 24 C°

I Use it on TMY, TXP and Acros 100 on 6x6 films.

UC ha scritto:
Xtol also does not provide much compensation. which TMY
desperately needs.

Not much ? 6 stop from the white wall and the dark side of the tire
http://www.lorenzoborra.it/1000/7.html

for me is enough.

foto phred wrote:

: Several magazines have suggested that one of the best developer-combinations for the Tmax films is XTOL. I have only seen it in the 5 liter size, but could live with that. Anybody with experience in this? Thanks.

I've never gotten past the problem of XTOL going dead without warning. As
a result I decided to go with the Tmax developer. I use Tmax-rs with sheet
film and Tmax with roll film.

--




-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

UC wrote:
I disagree.

T-Max films are inherently fine-grained and lack the edge
sharpness/acutance that conventinal films have, and Xtol does not
possess an agressive character, so the result is a sort of too-smooth
look. Xtol also does not provide much compensation. which TMY
desperately needs.

Compensation for what? Exposure error? Development time error?

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:10:00 up 18 days, 21:57, 4 users, load average: 4.25, 4.21, 4.12

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
UC wrote:
I disagree.

T-Max films are inherently fine-grained and lack the edge
sharpness/acutance that conventinal films have, and Xtol does not
possess an agressive character, so the result is a sort of too-smooth
look. Xtol also does not provide much compensation. which TMY
desperately needs.

Compensation for what? Exposure error? Development time error?

'Compensation' means developing the highlights less and the shadows
more, through controlling the concentration of the developer.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:10:00 up 18 days, 21:57, 4 users, load average: 4.25, 4.21, 4.12

UC wrote:
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
UC wrote:
I disagree.

T-Max films are inherently fine-grained and lack the edge
sharpness/acutance that conventinal films have, and Xtol does not
possess an agressive character, so the result is a sort of too-smooth
look. Xtol also does not provide much compensation. which TMY
desperately needs.

Compensation for what? Exposure error? Development time error?

'Compensation' means developing the highlights less and the shadows more,
through controlling the concentration of the developer.

I do happen to know that. But is it something that needs doing
_as a general rule_? In my experience, to the extent that they work,
compensating developers decrease highlight contrast. In the old days, this
was a bad idea because the films shouldered off too much already. But these
days they do not. Why bring this fault back with clever developers?

I agree that there may be times when you are willing to sacrifice highlight
contrast in order to get some highlight detail without burning and preserve
mid-tone contrast as well (if that were not an objective, then just develop
less and sacrifice mid-tone contrast), but not as a routine thing.

I tested split-development that is said to be a compensating trick with 4164
Tri-X especially. The results were the exact opposite of what was claimed.
The highlights did not shoulder off at all, but the density of the shadow
areas was increased. I.e., it made the toe even longer, resulting in a speed
increase of about one stop, but a further reduction of shadow contrast.

I was using D-25 as the first bath and for the second bath, a solution of 2%
sodium sulphite and 2% sodium metaborate. This combination is just awful for
TMax films, but I did not really like the lengthened toe I got on Tri-X
either because it gave the same results as a high flare lens.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 09:05:00 up 18 days, 23:52, 4 users, load average: 4.30, 4.29, 4.19