D76 or XTOL. Why?

[johnamazement]

^--- What do you mean by "smoother midtones"? Less grain? Less tonal separation?

Actually I think what I mean is more of a natural distribution of midtones with D76. I found Xtol could look a little flat with all the middle values "bunched up" together rather than there being a smooth transition from dark to light. I think that also gives less—or less noticable—grain too. Of course with enough post-processing or different developing routines you could probably even out the differences: I'm talking about pretty subtle variations.

[semilog]

Interesting. What films are you using? Most of my work is with TMAX 400 and ACROS, with some Neopan 400 as well. I'm happiest with XTOL at 1+1.

[david3558]

What's the best way to use XTOL with Tri-X or HP5+

[johnamazement]

HP5 and occasionally Tri-X in both developers 1+1. I usually rate both films at 200 and sometimes 1600 in low light. I haven't tried the D76 for 1600 but I always loved the Xtol for that.

[RObert Budding]

Originally Posted by johnamazement

Actually I think what I mean is more of a natural distribution of midtones with D76. I found Xtol could look a little flat with all the middle values "bunched up" together rather than there being a smooth transition from dark to light. I think that also gives less—or less noticable—grain too. Of course with enough post-processing or different developing routines you could probably even out the differences: I'm talking about pretty subtle variations.

Odd since XTOL tends to produce an 'S' shaped film curve that maximizes mid-tone contrast.

[johnamazement]

Odd since XTOL tends to produce an 'S' shaped film curve that maximizes mid-tone contrast.

I find that D76 gives a more pronounced S curve but that may be down to processing technique or developing times: it's early days. But I like it so I'm sticking with it for now!

[besk]

Originally Posted by semilog

XTOL, because of fine grain, reliability, low cost, and low toxicity.

That is why I have used only it (1:1) for the past several years.

[RObert Budding]

There are quite a few excellent developers. I limit myself to just a few.

[presspass]

Been switching back and forth between D-76H and Xtol. Several years ago, I had used Xtol replenished in a Kodak hard rubber tank and was always satisfied. Now I'm back to that and find it consistent and it works with a mix of lighting on the same roll of Tri-X - clear, contrasty autumn light and this past weekend's snowstorm. The D-76H also works just fine, but I use it 1:3 and the times are longer. So far, I can't choose between them.

[John Bragg]

D76 because it is capable of incredible sharpness if used right and lovely tones. Xtol is too smooth. plastic almost.

[RObert Budding]

Originally Posted by John Bragg

D76 because it is capable of incredible sharpness if used right and lovely tones. Xtol is too smooth. plastic almost.

Sorry, but the claim that XTOL looks plastic is really odd. Fine grained with gentle tonal gradations, yes. But plastic?

I wonder how may people could really tell the difference in a properly designed double blind test.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by RObert Budding

Sorry, but the claim that XTOL looks plastic is really odd. Fine grained with gentle tonal gradations, yes. But plastic?

I wonder how may people could really tell the difference in a properly designed double blind test.

I could, though not from shots people post online. 90% of people who post BW film scans don't know how to properly post-process the scans to get the most out of them tonally, and many don't have their screens calibrated right. I can see the differences between developers in my own work, and I choose developers for each project based on how I want the image to look.

That said, I agree with you that Xtol does not make pictures look "Plastic", whatever the heck that means. I suspect people who say such things just have not learned to use it correctly.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by david3558

What's the best way to use XTOL with Tri-X or HP5+

1:3 according to the old German PDF available online. Don't worry about translating from German. The numbers are the same in English. You may need to ask GOOGLE to translate "small tank". I think that is listed on Page 13.
Continuous agitation in rotating Jobo tanks.

http://wwwfr.kodak.com/AT/plugins/ac...Entwickler.pdf

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

I could, though not from shots people post online. 90% of people who post BW film scans don't know how to properly post-process the scans to get the most out of them tonally, and many don't have their screens calibrated right. I can see the differences between developers in my own work, and I choose developers for each project based on how I want the image to look.

That said, I agree with you that Xtol does not make pictures look "Plastic", whatever the heck that means. I suspect people who say such things just have not learned to use it correctly.

Some of us occasionally manage to muddle through.





Wayne

[RObert Budding]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

I could, though not from shots people post online. 90% of people who post BW film scans don't know how to properly post-process the scans to get the most out of them tonally, and many don't have their screens calibrated right. I can see the differences between developers in my own work, and I choose developers for each project based on how I want the image to look.

That said, I agree with you that Xtol does not make pictures look "Plastic", whatever the heck that means. I suspect people who say such things just have not learned to use it correctly.

I do see differences in developers, too, but I print with an enlarger.

What I really love about XTOL is that I can shoot several different films at box speed and still capture shadow detail. Great developer. D76 is very good, too (I used it for over 5 years), but I do prefer XTOL.

[taskoni]

Another vote for D-76 here. I have being used both, have made prints using both (not larger than 50x60cm tho') and to my taste and tonality on the negative I prefer the D-76. Eventually I find T-Max developer to suits me perfectly when pushing Tri-X to 1200/1600