Advice on seasoning XTOL-R

[Donald Qualls]

See the X-Tol datasheet - J-109 or its earlier versions.
https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/J-109_Feb_2018.pdf

Okay, now I need to check my bottle to see if Developer Starting Solution (CAT 146 6382) is the Flexicolor starter I have on hand or references the (seemingly obsolete) Xtol starter. The other options listed there are both E-6, and I don't run E-6 (I have some Cinestill E-6 reversing color developer for, at this time, experimental processing, not yet mixed from the concentrates, but it mixes directly to working strength and is intended for "reuse with increased time").

Edit: Okay, I found a 2003 Kodak catalog indicating this was for Selectomat developer:

KODAK PROFESSIONAL Developer Starting Solution Required for making fresh working developer solution from KODAK SELECTOMAT Developer Replenisher. Can also be used with KODAK XTOL Developer in a replenished system. CAT No. Description Price Per Pkg 146 6382 1 quart $26.50

So this is the one that's no longer available, seemingly. Otherwise, I'd have to find the E-6 First Dev starters, which are probably also no longer available (how many commercial E-6 lines are still around, and how much starter would they use in a year?).

 

[Sirius Glass]

What's the difference between keeping 5L of xtol to replenish and keeping 5L of xtol to use one shot at a time?

I mean, do what you want. I've done regular, one shot, and am doing R now. Xtol is great. 1:1 with P3200 is a favorite for shots in ridiculously dark music venues. Lots of ways to use it well, and 1 shot will technically be the most consistent.

But it sounds like you're looking for problems that aren't really problems.

Replenished XTOL provides a better result than 1:1. The other big savings is cost. I use 1 liter of replenished XTOL and the rest is kept as stock XTOL for replenishment.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I use 1 liter of replenished XTOL and the rest is kept as stock XTOL for replenishment.

In my case, I make a 2 L tank solution -- because my Yankee Agitank takes 1.6 L to cover 4x5 film. The cost is a significant item here, since I'd use 800 ml of stock to make up that much 1+1, whether I'm processing twelve sheets or one. Comparatively, I can use just 210 ml of stock as replenisher for a full load, and as little as 17.5 ml if I dev a single sheet in that tank.

 

[pentaxuser]

Replenished XTOL provides a better result than 1:1. The other big savings is cost. I use 1 liter of replenished XTOL and the rest is kept as stock XTOL for replenishment.

On the cost side it appears that the Kodak info allows for 15 films per litre using its table on page one of this thread so that is 75 films. Can I ask what your replenishment method results in developing?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

Can I ask what your replenishment method results in developing?

Standard replenishment is 70 ml per roll (135-36, 120, or 8x10 equivalent in sheet films); with a 2 L tank solution like mine, the remaining three liters of replenisher will process 42 rolls and leave a little -- but at that point I still have a 2 L tank solution. We need to add the 10-12 rolls it takes to season the 2 L tank solution on top of that, of course, so that's 52-55 rolls -- but again, that leaves me still with a 2 L tank solution. The real saving over 15 rolls per liter reusing stock solution with time extension comes in the second 5 L package of replenisher, which will process another 70 rolls. With a 1 L tank solution (which is enough for most users) you'd have 5-6 seasoning rolls, followed by 50 rolls and a little replenisher left, so (very reasonably) about the same capacity.

So, yes, a little less film than reusing stock solution -- but again, at the end of all this, there's still my two liters of replenished stock. And for 1+1, your 5 L package will give 10 L of working solution, which will process only 40 rolls even in stainless tanks (250 ml per roll of 35 mm -- Paterson needs 290 ml, or 500 ml for one or two 120 on a single reel) when used one-shot.

Plus, that wine bag or storage bottle of replenisher can also be used to mix a one-shot at 1+1 (or even 1+3 if you like to risk unevenness) at any time -- say, suspect film on which you don't want to risk your tank solution.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, you sound a bit cultish. Listing the rare need for filtering and consistency as advantages of replenishing is.... new. Replenished Xtol loses a bit of film speed, brings zero improvement to grain, is less consistent vs one-shot, and comes with operational overhead of monitoring activity, keeping 5L of replenisher somewhere, and periodic filtering. The only advantage is cost.

Oh horror! Photrio is run by the replenishment mafia!

On this, we shall disagree.
But understand that I prefer a replenishment regimen to one-shot.
And I really don't like a regime that involves re-use plus time change over time with use.
I like having no issues with waste when developing small amounts of film in large tanks.
I like always being able to use the developer at ambient temperature without having to carefully control the temperature of diluting water.
I like the ability to keep a backup bag of powder developer on the shelf, for eventual mixing up of the next batch of replenisher, when my last bottle of replenisher gets low - no disruptions to workflow because of having to mix up more developer.
I do see some small differences in the results vs. 1+1 used one shot, but they wouldn't be enough to decide the issue.
I've had no problems with functional consistency in the years I've been using a replenishment regime. And the operational overhead of monitoring activity isn't really any different for me than the operational overhead of monitoring my exposures and development using a non-replenished regimen.
And yes, I prefer the cost - ~70 rolls from a package, rather than ~40.
And by the way, I've been posting similar responses since long before becoming a moderator. The two aren't connected at all.

 

[Steven Lee]

I like having no issues with waste

Great and rarely mentioned point. BTW I was just trying to be funny

 

[MattKing]

Plus, that wine bag or storage bottle of replenisher can also be used to mix a one-shot at 1+1 (or even 1+3 if you like to risk unevenness) at any time -- say, suspect film on which you don't want to risk your tank solution.

This too.
Us happy users like the results, find the routine convenient and easy, enjoy the flexibility and appreciate the economy.

 

[MattKing]

Great and rarely mentioned point. BTW I was just trying to be funny

Well, maybe not a cult then - how about a fan club!

 

[pentaxuser]

And yes, I prefer the cost - ~70 rolls from a package, rather than ~40.
.

Purely on cost grounds, Matt, is your 70 rolls based on different figures compared to Donald's who mentions 50 + on the first 5L of Xtol but 70 on the second and subsequent 5Ls? However even 70 doesn't quite match the 75 films of 15 per litre x 5 L for re-use

So I am at a loss to see where the cost advantages lie in replenishment or am I missing something in getting to my conclusion?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[aparat]

I hope this doesn't dissuade people from using XTOL-R, but I have found that stock XTOL gives more film speed, by about 1/4 to 1/3 stops, at least with the films I tested, most recently Delta 100. The difference is very small, probably not worth worrying about:

 

[MattKing]

Purely on cost grounds, Matt, is your 70 rolls based on different figures compared to Donald's who mentions 50 + on the first 5L of Xtol but 70 on the second and subsequent 5Ls? However even 70 doesn't quite match the 75 films of 15 per litre x 5 L for re-use

So I am at a loss to see where the cost advantages lie in replenishment or am I missing something in getting to my conclusion?

Thanks

pentaxuser

There is much less consistency in the results obtained when one re-uses each litre for 15 rolls than when one uses a replenishment regimen. The amount of development byproducts in the developer by the end means it responds quite differently than when it is fresh and unused at the beginning.
And the need to adjust development time as one goes is, IMHO a PITA!
And as far as my figures are concerned, I just pay attention to the second and subsequent packages. I'm more than four years into my current working solution, so the "investment" in that first two litres from the first package has long been amortized!

 

[Donald Qualls]

So I am at a loss to see where the cost advantages lie in replenishment or am I missing something in getting to my conclusion?

If you're so tight that five fewer rolls out of 5 liters of developer (and still have two liters of tank solution left) is too much extra cost for you, then your opinion doesn't carry much weight -- with film prices going up and up, you'll be out of this hobby before long.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I hope this doesn't dissuade people from using XTOL-R, but I have found that stock XTOL gives more film speed, by about 1/4 to 1/3 stops, at least with the films I tested, most recently Delta 100. The difference is very small, probably not worth worrying about:

View attachment 328599 View attachment 328598

I noticed the same thing. I've seen people here on Photrio say that Kodak TMAX 400 is a true ISO 400 film, but the best I was able to muster with replenished xtol and my unscientific but still pretty rigid setup was 320. I didn't run full strength to see if there was a difference, but still, replenished didn't seem to give quite the same film speeds as what has been claimed elsewhere with different developers for a given film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

On the cost side it appears that the Kodak info allows for 15 films per litre using its table on page one of this thread so that is 75 films. Can I ask what your replenishment method results in developing?

Thanks

pentaxuser

I have used replenishment XTOL for over 100 rolls of film and it is still going strong. Follow the 70ml per roll as outlined in the PDF.

 

[Craig]

So I am at a loss to see where the cost advantages lie in replenishment or am I missing something in getting to my conclusion?

The biggest difference is in large tanks for processing sheet film. When you need the volume of developer to cover the film then replenishment makes it much easier to have the necessary volume, plus consistency of results.

 

[Steven Lee]

I hope this doesn't dissuade people from using XTOL-R, but I have found that stock XTOL gives more film speed, by about 1/4 to 1/3 stops, at least with the films I tested, most recently Delta 100. The difference is very small, probably not worth worrying about

Did you add Delta 3200 to your testing? I could not get it to work with Xtol-R and switched to Microphen (massive difference) but I never tried Delta 3200 in stock Xtol so it could just be unrelated to replenishment.

 

[pentaxuser]

If you're so tight that five fewer rolls out of 5 liters of developer (and still have two liters of tank solution left) is too much extra cost for you, then your opinion doesn't carry much weight -- with film prices going up and up, you'll be out of this hobby before long.

Whoa, Donald, there is no need to make what appears to be an unwarranted jib at what you term me being "tight" and what the consequence will be in terms of my hobby, when my interest was in finding out which process, the replenishment or re-use one is the most cost effective and that is all I was trying to do.

All I said was that my calculations appeared to show that there is no cost saving in replenishment in response to Matt's comment about a cost saving and I was simply seeking to find out if I had overlooked anything in my calculations. I mentioned your earlier response on this aspect which was welcome but frankly I do not welcome where your latest response seems to be leading

I have said nothing to warrant your latest response

I hope you can continue in the way you have dealt with all my previous questions but, yes, I will continue to ask questions whenever I cannot work out why someone appears to have come to a conclusion that I have difficulty in understanding


pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Did you add Delta 3200 to your testing? I could not get it to work with Xtol-R and switched to Microphen (massive difference) but I never tried Delta 3200 in stock Xtol so it could just be unrelated to replenishment.

If I may add my own experience here. I have used stock Xtol with D3200 but only at 1600 and it seemed to work fine

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Xtol-R works totally fine with Delta 3200, even up to 1600.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I couldn't help myself, so I slapped together a video on how I make Xtol-R. Sorry.

 

[Steven Lee]

Xtol-R works totally fine with Delta 3200, even up to 1600.

If you only developed this film in Xtol-R, you haven't discovered its purpose then. It wasn't totally fine. Try Microphen. Even your choice of words is telling: "even up to 1600"? It was a headscratcher for me, as I saw no point in Delta 3200 because it is more expensive and couldn't outperform pushed HP5. Until I stopped using Xtol-R with it. Also, I am convinced it wasn't meant to be exposed at 1600 or lower. Shoot it at 3200. Develop in Microphen, experience a-ha moment.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If you only developed this film in Xtol-R, you haven't discovered its purpose then. It wasn't totally fine. Try Microphen. Even your choice of words is telling: "even up to 1600"? It was a headscratcher for me, as I saw no point in Delta 3200 because it is more expensive and couldn't outperform pushed HP5. Until I stopped using Xtol-R with it. Also, I am convinced it wasn't meant to be exposed at 1600 or lower. Shoot it at 3200. Develop in Microphen, experience a-ha moment.

Don't assume. I've developed it in several developers, including umpteen staining developers. It's better at EI 1600... for MY purposes.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have used replenishment XTOL for over 100 rolls of film and it is still going strong. Follow the 70ml per roll as outlined in the PDF.

Yes Sirius but the 70ml per roll was never in contention as far as I am concerned. On the other hand I am presuming that over 100 rolls is not a figure derived from one pack of 5L. If I am wrong in this assumption, let me know

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

If you only developed this film in Xtol-R, you haven't discovered its purpose then. It wasn't totally fine. Try Microphen.

When you did try Xtol-R at 1600 what were you unable to achieve? A pic if you have one would be helpful. I don't want to get into Xtol-R v Microphen in terms of which is better at 3200 but simply to work out why it worked for Andrew but not for you

I am trying to get to why it works/worked for Andrew and not for you because only that way can an outsider such as I, begin to make up his mind if there is a problem with D3200 at 1600 in Xtol-R

Thanks

pentaxuser