2 years old shot Negatives kodak trix extol 1:1 problem

[Radost]

Mixed fresh Xtol and 1:1 developed in a jobo.
Used Kodak rotary times as usual.
So while negatives are a little thin what is strange is the 400TX by the sprocket looks very light gray.
Just purchased a new Fuji C41 fixer and mixed 4:1. Leader test clears in less than a minute and I run it for 6-7
The Xtol smells fine and leader test show it active,
Is it washing of c41 fixer?
Is the c41 fixer taking some of the dies and making the sprocket print gray?
Any ideas?

 

[koraks]

Please show an example; I can't visualize what "the sprocket looks very light gray" means.
Also, is this on the still wet film or after drying?

 

[Don_ih]

If you mean the writing on the edge of the film, that can vary in density coming from the manufacturer. As in, sometimes, it develops very dark or sometimes less dark, using the same development. If the photos themselves are fine, then everything is probably fine. It's very unlikely the fixer ate some of the developed silver unless you left the film in the fixer for a long time.

 

[Radost]

If you mean the writing on the edge of the film, that can vary in density coming from the manufacturer. As in, sometimes, it develops very dark or sometimes less dark, using the same development. If the photos themselves are fine, then everything is probably fine. It's very unlikely the fixer ate some of the developed silver unless you left the film in the fixer for a long time.

I looked at the xtol packaging. It was made in 22 and expired in 03/25.
And like i said the negatives were a little underdeveloped.
I remember somebody saying that VItamin C powder gets less active with time.


|

 

[Radost]

Please show an example; I can't visualize what "the sprocket looks very light gray" means.
Also, is this on the still wet film or after drying?

Dried film overnight, Will show examples.

 

[MattKing]

If you mean the writing on the edge of the film, that can vary in density coming from the manufacturer. As in, sometimes, it develops very dark or sometimes less dark, using the same development. If the photos themselves are fine, then everything is probably fine. It's very unlikely the fixer ate some of the developed silver unless you left the film in the fixer for a long time.

I looked at the xtol packaging. It was made in 22 and expired in 03/25.
And like i said the negatives were a little underdeveloped.
I remember somebody saying that VItamin C powder gets less active with time.


|

The density of the edge printing isn't a reliable indicator of development, except perhaps if you have two rolls to compare from the same film batch that you bought at the same time and stored under the same conditions.
As @Don_ih indicated, there can be minor differences in the density right out of the factory.
More importantly, the edge printing is simply normal exposure to the film, done at the time that the film is finished/confectioned.
It then stays as a latent image on the film through the processes of packaging, shipping, retailing and whatever else happens to the film before the film is developed.
In contrast, the images you expose on the film are usually placed there shortly before development.
Latent images can fade over time.

 

[Radost]

Please show an example; I can't visualize what "the sprocket looks very light gray" means.
Also, is this on the still wet film or after drying?

I can not see the dye with my eye.
The digital camera somehow sees it. I changed water in the Jobo like usual 5 times for 2 minutes and did not see any purple in the last 3 waters.

 

[Radost]

I know kodak puts strange expire dates on their products but also remember somebody “maybe PE” saying Xtol vitaminC powder actually gets weaker .
Is the fact that my Xtol Expire date was 10 months ago contributing yo this.
What baffles me is Most pictures look thiner “which might be might be my exposure mistake” but not as thin as the sprocket writings.

 

[koraks]

Going by what @MattKing says, are you referring to the edge print? I.e. this bit here:

The 'sprockets' are the little cogwheels in the camera that transport the film; the sprocket holes are the holes on the film that the sprockets latch into.

The negative as such looks solidly developed; it certainly doesn't look underdeveloped.

Keep in mind that the latent image on film isn't perfectly stable; it fades. The edge print is in fact an image that's exposed onto the film in the factory. Hence, it's as old as the film. If your film is a few years old, the edge print has had all that time to fade. Moreover, as @MattKing said, there's no fixed standard for how dark the edge print is supposed to be.

I know kodak puts strange expire dates on their products

On this @fred K can perhaps comment, but I don't think the qualification of "strange expiry dates" is really justified. Most manufacturers, including Kodak, put a date on the box that's 2 or 3 years after the manufacturing date, give or take, for most films. That's quite sensible.

What baffles me is Most pictures look thiner “which might be might be my exposure mistake” but not as thin as the sprocket writings.

There's no relationship between the exposure of the film and the exposure of the edge markings as the latter are done in the factory and are only for identification (and not for sensitometry; i.e. their density is not controlled).

Your negative looks OK to me; if there's anything wrong with it, I'd consider this particular image adequately exposed and it may be overdeveloped a bit.

The purple color is unrelated to all this and does indeed wash out with much difficulty. It's harmless. If it bothers you, you could try a 10 minute soak in a sodium sulfite solution (hypo clearing agent), or re-fixing the film in fresh fixer. Both are known to help. I'd personally not bother.

In short, I see no problem; you're doing fine. I wouldn't worry and move on.

 

[MattKing]

@koraks has it right about the developing of those negatives.
And about the edge printing as well.
Was the film a single roll or part of a bulk roll, and what was the Develop Before date?
Did you buy it directly from a retailer?

 

[Radost]

Going by what @MattKing says, are you referring to the edge print? I.e. this bit here:
View attachment 415997
The 'sprockets' are the little cogwheels in the camera that transport the film; the sprocket holes are the holes on the film that the sprockets latch into.

The negative as such looks solidly developed; it certainly doesn't look underdeveloped.

Keep in mind that the latent image on film isn't perfectly stable; it faces. The edge print is in fact an image that's exposed onto the film in the factory. Hence, it's as old as the film. If your film is a few years old, the edge print has had all that time to fade. Moreover, as @MattKing said, there's no fixed standard for how dark the edge print is supposed to be.


On this @fred K can perhaps comment, but I don't think the qualification of "strange expiry dates" is really justified. Most manufacturers, including Kodak, put a date on the box that's 2 or 3 years ahead of the manufacturing date, give or take, for most films. That's quite sensible.


There's no relationship between the exposure of the film and the exposure of the edge markings as the latter are done in the factory and are only for identification (and not for sensitometry; i.e. their density is not controlled).

Your negative looks OK to me; if there's anything wrong with it, I'd consider this particular image adequately exposed and it may be overdeveloped a bit.

The purpose color is unrelated to all this and does indeed wash out with much difficulty. It's harmless. If it bothers you, you could try a 10 minute soak in a sodium sulfite solution (hypo clearing agent), or re-fixing the film in fresh fixer. Both are known to help. I'd personally not bother.

In short, I see no problem; you're doing fine. I wouldn't worry and move on.

Thank You.

The picture is white sheets. Next picture that you see a part of is snow. Measured with incident meter.

I have been looking for a way to test my mixed chemical developing times after mixing a new batch so I dont have to question the developer.

Any input on the Xtol powder becoming weaker

 

[MattKing]

Any input on the Xtol powder becoming weaker

What does it say in the small print on the XTil package - Kodak Alaris or Sino Promise or???

 

[MattKing]

Down in this part:

That is an image from the latest version.

 

[Radost]

 

[MattKing]

If your negatives looked less developed than they actually do I might be concerned about that package, because that is right before Sino Promise went under/bankrupt/into receivership, and there were quality problems around then.
The "Made in USA" information tends to counteract that though - it was most probably actually manufactured for Sino Promise by the current licensee - Photo Systems - and they are a longtime quality manufacturer.
Do the packages look undamaged? A damaged package that allows moisture and air in will cause problems.
But with all that in mind, those negatives look fully developed.

 

[Radost]

If your negatives looked less developed than they actually do I might be concerned about that package, because that is right before Sino Promise went under/bankrupt/into receivership, and there were quality problems around then.
The "Made in USA" information tends to counteract that though - it was most probably actually manufactured for Sino Promise by the current licensee - Photo Systems - and they are a longtime quality manufacturer.
Do the packages look undamaged? A damaged package that allows moisture and air in will cause problems.
But with all that in mind, those negatives look fully developed.

Packages look fine.
The other thing is it was hard to wash my stoploss bags wher I had some expired Xtol.
Is there something that can carry over from expired Xtol that can polite the new one?

 

[pentaxuser]

By "powder becoming weaker" are you referring to the fact that the expiry date on the unopened packets had reached their expiry dates before you opened the packets?

If that the case then my understanding is that the the powder being in a sealed envelope has a very long life and the expiry date does not mean much

For what it is worth I agree with the others that the negatives do not look as if the developer has lost its ability to develop properly in any way

Can I ask what it is about the actual negative inside its frame( not the edge markings or blueish look) that makes you think there is something wrong?

pentaxuser

 

[Radost]

By "powder becoming weaker" are you referring to the fact that the expiry date on the unopened packets had reached their expiry dates before you opened the packets?

If that the case then my understanding is that the the powder being in a sealed envelope has a very long life and the expiry date does not mean much

For what it is worth I agree with the others that the negatives do not look as if the developer has lost its ability to develop properly in any way

Can I ask what it is about the actual negative inside its frame( not the edge markings or blueish look) that makes you think there is something wrong?

pentaxuser

Negatives look a bit thiner than usual.
I have a faint recollection of somebody "maybe PE" saying that XTOL powder losses strength with time, Something about the vitaminC activity diminishes with time.
Anybody has an idea?

I know that XTOL mixed just dies. But if the above is correct I have 3 more Xtol mixes that expired 03/2025.

If I shoot at middle gray, pure white long exposure and closed cap fast exposure than develop is there a procedure to test the activity "correct development times for my films"?
I did bunch of searches first but most of it is just activity dev test.
Can I make test frames for Xtol Development times for each film i use?

 

[MattKing]

Pick a scene that you can repeat on each roll as a "reference". Consistent lighting is best.
Every time you expose a roll, include that reference scene exposed the same way.
Each time you develop a roll, check to make sure that the reference scene negative is at least visually consistent with previous ones from previous rolls. A densitometer reading would be even more accurate, but not strictly necessary. Some scanners can, with the right software, also serve as a sort of densitometer. If you have a very consistent darkroom setup for printing, you can check negative consistency with a test print.

And no, unless contaminated, XTol doesn't lose activity. Packages do deteriorate though.
And I would repeat - those negatives look well developed, if not slightly over-developed.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I can not see the dye with my eye.
The digital camera somehow sees it. I changed water in the Jobo like usual 5 times for 2 minutes and did not see any purple in the last 3 waters.

View attachment 415996

from these I'd say normal exposure and development but overfixed.

 

[pentaxuser]

Negatives look a bit thiner than usual.
I

I know that XTOL mixed just dies. But if the above is correct I have 3 more Xtol mixes that expired 03/2025.

Is this the "sudden death "syndrome to which you refer? That is largely a myth nowadays and refers to the packaging of Xtol many years ago when it was a recent arrival as a new developer. In my experience of Xtol ( my only developer for about 15 years) it loses its ability quite slowly and is noticeable by turning a straw colour but even then still works

Other than "look" what evidence have you got that the negatives are thinner? What do the prints from those negs you showed us look like. What is it about them that can be attributed to the Xtol you have just used ?

If I may make an observation: You appear to be convinced that there is something wrong with your Xtol and nothing that we have said has changed your mind. That's fine but if that is the case then I hope someone can give you the answer you are looking for. I cannot because I can see nothing wrong and can only keep saying this which is wasting my time and yours or so it appears so will not contribute further

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

 

[Radost]

Is this the "sudden death "syndrome to which you refer? That is largely a myth nowadays and refers to the packaging of Xtol many years ago when it was a recent arrival as a new developer. In my experience of Xtol ( my only developer for about 15 years) it loses its ability quite slowly and is noticeable by turning a straw colour but even then still works

Other than "look" what evidence have you got that the negatives are thinner? What do the prints from those negs you showed us look like. What is it about them that can be attributed to the Xtol you have just used ?

If I may make an observation: You appear to be convinced that there is something wrong with your Xtol and nothing that we have said has changed your mind. That's fine but if that is the case then I hope someone can give you the answer you are looking for. I cannot because I can see nothing wrong and can only keep saying this which is wasting my time and yours or so it appears so will not contribute further

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

No I am not convinced something is wrong. The super fade gray Kodak 400tx label is a new thing for me. I compared to all my previous 400TX negatives and they are all black or very close to black.

 

[Radost]

from these I'd say normal exposure and development but overfixed.

Why do you think it is overfixed? I taught overfixing needs hours to make a difference.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Why do you think it is overfixed? I taught overfixing needs hours to make a difference.

because exposure looked OK to me and due to the dense highlights, development seems at least normal if not over. So, only overfixing seems left. As far as a cure,more exposure or more development seems to be out.

 

[koraks]

but overfixed.

No way. It's virtually impossible to overfix film and it would take HOURS in a normal fixer to get there and even then the effect would be virtually be insignificant.

I taught overfixing needs hours to make a difference.

You're right; ignore the overfixing tangent; it's nonsense. Sorry to be rude about it, but it really is.