Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Been there, done that. I don't think that it's the developer, based on my dealings with Xtol. The most common causes of Xtol failure I have experienced are - - one part settling out of solution (sounds like what happened to you) or just being suspended, not dissolved. - - too-strict adherence to Kodak's numbers, which with T-grain films need about a minute over what they tell you. Looking a little thin is what every TMY and TMZ negative you do in Xtol according to the book does. Your 3200 looks soft - just like TMZ does. It's a similar problem. But I think that (a) the packaging problem is over and (b) Xtol is just too good to ditch over what is essentially hearsay perpetuated on a lot of sites. If you make sure everything is properly dissolved, and you recompute the times upwards, it produces outstanding results. Dante Stella In a message dated Mon, 10 Jul 2000 9:46:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Roy Zartarian <royzart@connix.com> writes: << LUGs, The part A powder in the two packages of Xtol purchased last week was caked inside the foil pouch as if the powder had become damp. This powder did dissolve okay. Two test "disposable" rolls of Ilford HP5 came out of the development process satisfactorily, but a subsequent roll of Ilford 3200 looked a little thin. From photo.net I learned that Kodak has had some packaging problems with this product and that results with caked Part A were inconsistent. I did email the folks in Rochester from their web page about the situation but have not yet received a reply. Much as I liked what Xtol can do, I guess until Kodak cleans up its act, I'm going to jump on the ID-11 bandwagon. Roy >>