Advice on seasoning XTOL-R

[MattKing]

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

This is as much a rhetorical comment as anything.
How will you respond if the results obtained by Steven Lee and the results obtained by Andrew O'Neill are identical?
That their difference of opinion relates to what they want from the combination, not the combination itself?

 

[aparat]

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.

Yes, Ilford does recommend Microphen for Delta 3200. I haven't tested it in Microphen, but I am planning to, at some point. I am really curious about how it will perform. In XTOL, Delta 3200 was quite a bit slower than T-MAX P3200.

For Delta 3200, stock XTOL gave a bit of extra speed compared to replenished XTOL (about ISO 880 and ISO 720, respectively, if memory serves me well.)

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

I never figured out how many rolls were developed using the remaining 4 liters, but it is roughly 57 70ml replenishments. When the last of the one liter bottles was getting low, I just mix another 5 liter batch. Thus I have used the replenished XTOL for well over 100 rolls of film.

 

[Steven Lee]

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

Delta 3200 exposed at 1600 and developed in Xtol-R did not give me more shadow detail than similarly exposed and pushed HP5+, but significantly flattened the highlights (peoples faces in interior shots look unnaturally flat). Visually it simply looks like a thin negative.

Microphen, on the other hand, gives you visually fuller and thicker negatives with more shadow detail and wider range of tones. The highlights become better defined, people's faces look 3-dimensional as they're supposed to. In fact, EI3200 looks better in Microphen than EI1600! You still get somewhat crushed shadows, but the highlight compression disappears. To me it's pretty clear that Ilford wants you to expose it at 3200 and be picky with the chemistry for it, just like ADOX wants you to use Adotech for CMS-20.

That's the best I can describe it. Sorry I can't share scans because they are all interior family portraits exposed at 4-5EV.

 

[Moose22]

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.

I'll trust you on that. I haven't done any of the high speed stuff since I got my xtol seasoned. I know you've used it plenty.

I really don't care about cost. It's all super cheap compared to sending it to the lab and, frankly, it just works. Though replensihed, once you have a process down, is ridiculously cheap.

I'm something close to 20 rolls into Xtol replenished now and the process is easier for me than keeping count and doing 15% or another 15%... seriously, I just add 70ml to a graduate for each roll out of a wine bag I stuffed the remaining 3L in when I mixed the xtol.

I think I'm less worried about minutiae than many folks here, I just like something that's easy, consistent, and works for me. Just did some Delta 100 at 11 min and it came out exactly as I expected, so job done.

 

[Moose22]

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

There's no cost benefit for replenished over stock. It's 75 if you never use any xtol one shot or let it sit so long it goes bad. Math in my head is something over 70 rolls at 5L /70ML. So 71 rolls or 75 rolls, it's essentially a wash there, cost wise. Either very affordable, or very affordable.

YMMV. But at the recommended replenishment volume it's essentially the same.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'll trust you on that. I haven't done any of the high speed stuff since I got my xtol seasoned. I know you've used it plenty.

I really don't care about cost. It's all super cheap compared to sending it to the lab and, frankly, it just works. Though replensihed, once you have a process down, is ridiculously cheap.

I'm something close to 20 rolls into Xtol replenished now and the process is easier for me than keeping count and doing 15% or another 15%... seriously, I just add 70ml to a graduate for each roll out of a wine bag I stuffed the remaining 3L in when I mixed the xtol.

I think I'm less worried about minutiae than many folks here, I just like something that's easy, consistent, and works for me. Just did some Delta 100 at 11 min and it came out exactly as I expected, so job done.

Replenished XTOL is easy. Adjusting times is a PITA.

 

[John Wiegerink]

There's no cost benefit for replenished over stock. It's 75 if you never use any xtol one shot or let it sit so long it goes bad. Math in my head is something over 70 rolls at 5L /70ML. So 71 rolls or 75 rolls, it's essentially a wash there, cost wise. Either very affordable, or very affordable.

YMMV. But at the recommended replenishment volume it's essentially the same.

There certainly is to me. I know I save money by not dumping my developer down the drain. Of course I'm talking about when I use my large Yankee 4X5 tank to process 10 or 12 sheets or so. Now I use my SP445 most of the time and much less volume of developer. If I were just doing a couple of rolls of 35mm or 120 it might not make a difference, but a big volume tank is a whole different ballgame.

 

[pentaxuser]

Delta 3200 exposed at 1600 and developed in Xtol-R did not give me more shadow detail than similarly exposed and pushed HP5+, but significantly flattened the highlights (peoples faces in interior shots look unnaturally flat). Visually it simply looks like a thin negative.

Microphen, on the other hand, gives you visually fuller and thicker negatives with more shadow detail and wider range of tones. The highlights become better defined, people's faces look 3-dimensional as they're supposed to. In fact, EI3200 looks better in Microphen than EI1600! You still get somewhat crushed shadows, but the highlight compression disappears.

That's the best I can describe it. Sorry I can't share scans because they are all interior family portraits exposed at 4-5EV.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply, Steven. Interesting point about D3200's shadow detail in Xtol-R at 1600 v HP5+ pushed shadow detail and something for me to remember. It would appear that Microphen might well be the best developer to take advantage of D3200's speed and I understand why your pics have to remain private

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

There's no cost benefit for replenished over stock. It's 75 if you never use any xtol one shot or let it sit so long it goes bad. Math in my head is something over 70 rolls at 5L /70ML. So 71 rolls or 75 rolls, it's essentially a wash there, cost wise. Either very affordable, or very affordable.

YMMV. But at the recommended replenishment volume it's essentially the same.

That was essentially my conclusion as well Of course there are the other considerations as stated by Xtol-R users but I probably need to avoid asking any further questions on this

pentaxuser

 

[Radost]

There's no cost benefit for replenished over stock. It's 75 if you never use any xtol one shot or let it sit so long it goes bad. Math in my head is something over 70 rolls at 5L /70ML. So 71 rolls or 75 rolls, it's essentially a wash there, cost wise. Either very affordable, or very affordable.

YMMV. But at the recommended replenishment volume it's essentially the same.

I get 33 rolls with Paterson and 1:1 one shot. But considering the difference is just $6 I don’t know if it is worth it.

 

[Moose22]

I get 33 rolls with Paterson and 1:1 one shot. But considering the difference is just $6 I don’t know if it is worth it.

Are you sure! It's six whole dollars!

Obviously you get half that out of 120, and sheet film less. And some folks may care about the economy for other reasons, like having to mix up another gallon less often. But my perspective is that cost is the least of the reason for me to choose one developer over another.

All of it works, folks should use what they like best, and it is hard for me to argue the genuine benefits of anything other than "if it looks better in your opinion, use that."

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

I apologize for my tone. That wasn't intended as an insult -- it was simply an observation that while your calculations may be correct (that using Xtol stock with increased time as the capacity is used is actually a few percentage points more economical than replenishing), if that level of saving is critical, there's a problem that won't be solved by getting five more rolls out of a 5 L jug of Xtol. It's like the American not-joke about someone driving across town to save two cents a gallon on gasoline.

FWIW, even without the access I once had to paracetamol tablets at 1.1 US cents per 500 mg tablet, I can still beat either usage of Xtol for economy by mixing my own Parodinal. Parodinal, however, won't do some of the things Xtol will -- it's not a very low fog developer, it certainly doesn't soften grain in any way, and it loses speed instead of gaining a little -- but it certainly is cheap to use, especially if you can find the big 500 caplet bottles of extra strength "not Tylenol" at a good price.

Obviously you get half that out of 120

That's only the case if you don't double-load your 120. Two rolls of 120 in a reel in a Paterson is actually slightly more efficient (2 rolls in 500 ml vs. 2 rolls in 580 ml) than 35 mm. And sheet film in an SP-445 is a little more efficient still, providing you always process four sheets. And twelve sheets in a Nikor tank (in about a liter) isn't much worse.

But sheet film in a tank that uses the same volume to cover one sheet or a full load (Yankee Agitank, Paterson with a Mod54 or similar, Nikor with its cage, etc.) is where replenishment really shines. A single sheet in my Yankee Agitank (1.6 L to cover 4x5) costs 1/4 as much to process as a roll of 35 mm or 120 -- instead of six times as much as 35 mm if I use one-shot.

 

[Radost]

Are you sure! It's six whole dollars!

Obviously you get half that out of 120, and sheet film less. And some folks may care about the economy for other reasons, like having to mix up another gallon less often. But my perspective is that cost is the least of the reason for me to choose one developer over another.

All of it works, folks should use what they like best, and it is hard for me to argue the genuine benefits of anything other than "if it looks better in your opinion, use that."

1+1 120 is 250 per film. So 20 120 films with 5 liters.
I heard people use to roll 2 120 on a Paterson tank but I remember a friend that I respect telling me not to use diluted developer with 2 120 films in a paterson.

 

[MattKing]

I heard people use to roll 2 120 on a Paterson tank but I remember a friend that I respect telling me not to use diluted developer with 2 120 films in a paterson.

Depends on the tank, and depends on the developer.
With X-Tol, you need at least 100 ml of stock X-Tol to develop one roll. 1 + 1 in a 500 ml tank is still enough to develop 2.5 rolls.
D-76, on the other hand needs more ~ 240 ml per roll. Diluted 1 + 1 in a 500 ml tank, gives you enough to develop one roll.

 

[Moose22]

1+1 120 is 250 per film. So 20 120 films with 5 liters.
I heard people use to roll 2 120 on a Paterson tank but I remember a friend that I respect telling me not to use diluted developer with 2 120 films in a paterson.

I had trouble double loading my reels when I tried. But yes, you can do that, too.

Sill the same advice. It's very affordable no matter how you do it. In my case, I tend to never have more than two rolls of the same 120 film, so I do it my way -- always use a liter (at Matt's suggestion) whether I have 1, 2 or in the case of 135) 3 rolls in the tank.

I actually have a roll of 120 I exposed to light that I kept for learning purposes. Meant to use it to show a friend how to load reels. Maybe next time I pork a roll of 120 doing something dumb I'll practice double loading in the light and see if I can learn how to do that and keep them from overlapping. Always nice to have options to save developer on one shots or be able to do more than 2 rolls at a time.

 

[MattKing]

Maybe next time I pork a roll of 120 doing something dumb I'll practice double loading in the light and see if I can learn how to do that and keep them from overlapping.

This is for the AP clone plastic reels designed to fit Paterson tanks. Most likely the same applies to the Paterson reels.
Load the first roll.
Use the flat surface of your fingernail pushed against the trailing edge of the roll to move the roll all the way to the centre of the reel. It should push easily
Load the second roll until the last part is just fully into the reel - past the ball bearings. There should be a healthy gap between the rolls now, but there is no way to confirm that in the dark.
And then for the next two steps, don't rotate or twist the tank very much when you agitate. That seems to prevent the film from moving much within the reels.
Pre-wash/rinse the film in the tank, with water that is the same temperature as the developer. Use the same agitation as you use with the developer. I've always done it for 3 minutes, but I don't think that matters.
Develop the film normally.
Then for the rest of the steps, agitate normally - you can use more twisting or rotation now. I actually use continuous reversing rotary agitation for all these subsequent steps.
I expect film in the developer is much more slippery than when it is in the later parts of the process, thus more likely to move and overlap.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply Donald and no problem. It was just that my maths which can be wrong suggested that as has been said, it was about equal in terms of cost between the re-use and replenishment method so I was puzzled when I saw a cost advantage being mentioned for Xtol-R and wanted to find out if I had miscalculated or overlooked some cost aspect of Xtol-R which clearly gave it a cost advantage

My post was designed to be confined to that aspect alone but I wasn't ignoring or dismissing the other benefits that were mentioned by those who were happy using Xtol-R

pentaxuser

 

[Radost]

Ok.
I WAS WRONG.
I found a VERY GOOD reason to use Seasoned XTOL.
I have been experimenting with HP5+ bulk loading. “Got 100 feet that expires in 2025 for $70”
And experimenting with 4-5 and 9-10 frames waist a lot of chemistry when using one shot 1:1 xtol.
I will also approach the seasoned XTOL the same way I started using my fixer “filtering everytime it gets back in the bottle. $15 for 100 filter is a small price to pay to ensure my chemistry is clean.

 

[Steven Lee]

I tried different types of coffee filters and found them cumbersome. Some clog almost instantly. Others take forever to put my 3L bottle through, aerating the developer in the process. Now I just dump the bottom 10% of the working bottle once a year, which basically means slightly different mechanics when replenishing. Much easier. Same results.

 

[Cubao]

To me it's pretty clear that Ilford wants you to expose it at 3200 and be picky with the chemistry for it

Could you give me a hint how exactly are you developing D3200 in Microphen? Stock or 1+1, times, agitation? Thank you

 

[npl]

Ok.
I WAS WRONG.
I found a VERY GOOD reason to use Seasoned XTOL.
I have been experimenting with HP5+ bulk loading. “Got 100 feet that expires in 2025 for $70”
And experimenting with 4-5 and 9-10 frames waist a lot of chemistry when using one shot 1:1 xtol.
I will also approach the seasoned XTOL the same way I started using my fixer “filtering everytime it gets back in the bottle. $15 for 100 filter is a small price to pay to ensure my chemistry is clean.

In theory, by developing only a small number of frames an not a whole 36exp. roll, less replenishement is needed each time than the standard 70ml that kodak suggest. Like 10ml for 5 frames. Has anyone have experience doing this ?

 

[pentaxuser]

In theory, by developing only a small number of frames an not a whole 36exp. roll, less replenishement is needed each time than the standard 70ml that kodak suggest. Like 10ml for 5 frames. Has anyone have experience doing this ?

Excellent question for those of us, me included, who wish to exercise prudence with his finances

pentaxuser

 

[Steven Lee]

Could you give me a hint how exactly are you developing D3200 in Microphen? Stock or 1+1, times, agitation? Thank you

Stock, using the agitation method from the datasheet:

Agitation
Intermittent agitation is recommended for use in spiral tanks and deep tanks. With spiral tanks, invert the tank
four times during the first 10 seconds, then invert the tank four times again during the first 10 seconds of each
further minute.

 

[Moose22]

In theory, by developing only a small number of frames an not a whole 36exp. roll, less replenishement is needed each time than the standard 70ml that kodak suggest. Like 10ml for 5 frames. Has anyone have experience doing this ?

I'm not an expert. But, I figured it was 70ml for a 36 shot roll or a 120 roll. I did a couple of 20 and 25 shot rolls (I'm not always perfect counting clicks when I hand roll) and figured three of those was about two of 36 shot rolls so only replenished 140ml when I did 3 in a tank.

I don't know if this is correct, but it just made sense to me.

If I was doing 10 shot rolls I'd probably think about 20ml replenishment. I'd love to hear what more experienced users have to say on the matter.