Advice on seasoning XTOL-R

[Sirius Glass]

Seasoned XTOL and unseasoned XTOL are so close that one cannot see the difference.

Yet 1:1 Xtol and unseasoned stock Xtol have a huge difference?
I was under the impression that seasoned Xtol is even more fine detailed than 1:1.

No offence Steven, but if you are going to perceive any difference, it will be in acutance, and it is tough to get any sense of acutance from a photo of a grey card!
The differences are small. If they were the only differences between the three different approaches, I wouldn't be such a fan of replenishment, even though I have a small preference for how the films come out.

I was referring to stock XTOL becoming replenished XTOL

Replenished XTOL and 1:1 XTOL are better than stock XTOL. As Matt noted the differences are in acutance and are hard to see, but can be measured. Replenished XTOL is slightly better than 1:1, but replenished XTOL overall is less expensive and long lived while 1:1 is used as one shot development if I remember correctly.

 

[Radost]

I was referring to stock XTOL becoming replenished XTOL

Replenished XTOL and 1:1 XTOL are better than stock XTOL. As Matt noted the differences are in acutance and are hard to see, but can be measured. Replenished XTOL is slightly better than 1:1, but replenished XTOL overall is less expensive and long lived while 1:1 is used as one shot development if I remember correctly.

Yet 1:1 Xtol and unseasoned stock Xtol have a huge difference?
I was under the impression that seasoned Xtol is even more fine detailed than 1:1.

Unless something is wrong with my Consistency 1:1 has so much better tonality, definition and smaller sharper grain.
Stock has a strange contrast grain with trix and hp5 “not the tonality and contrast of the whole picture.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Radost that can't be. either your subject matter / light was very different, or you did not develop to the same contrast. Did you use Kodak or Ilford datasheet times? They are different for stock.

 

[Radost]

@Radost that can't be. either your subject matter / light was very different, or you did not develop to the same contrast. Did you use Kodak or Ilford datasheet times? They are different for stock.

I mainly shoot in the same conditions.
I use XTOL times and Kodak inversions At 68F for stock and 75F for 1:1
Kodak stop bath and ECO neutral fixer
Grain on 1:1 is somehow less defined when zoomed in but a lot finer and sharper when zoomed out. I can especially see it in hair and skin .

 

[Steven Lee]

@Radost sure, the difference in grain is there, but I was primarily referring to your "so much better tonality" comment. Something feels off. When you need a 10x loupe to spot the difference, it hardly justifies the choice of those words. However, do not believe me, trust your own eyes! But if you're curious why Steven and your eyes diverge so much, the answer is the contrast level. I bet your stock and 1+1 results have different HD-LD values.

 

[Radost]

@Radost sure, the difference in grain is there, but I was primarily referring to your "so much better tonality" comment. Something feels off. When you need a 10x loupe to spot the difference, it hardly justifies the choice of those words. However, do not believe me, trust your own eyes! But if you're curious why Steven and your eyes diverge so much, the answer is the contrast level. I bet your stock and 1+1 results have different HD-LD values.

I have been developing in stock for a long time. Ever since I started 1:1 ”Nothing else has changed except 2 different fixers that I use“ my development has so much more resolutions.
I will shoot the same scene with the same camera/lens/exposure to investigate further.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Radost same here. But my view on developer dilutions, and differences between developers in general, has been significantly affected by introducing control strips into my workflow. I started to notice that datasheet and MDC times do not always produce the same contrast. Try exposing an entire roll on the same test scene, chop it up into smaller strips, and develop using -1m, -30sec, 0, +30sec and +1min of datasheet time (5 strips for stock, 5 strips for 1+1, 10 runs total). Makes for a fun weekend project.

 

[Sirius Glass]

@Radost same here. But my view on developer dilutions, and differences between developers in general, has been significantly affected by introducing control strips into my workflow. I started to notice that datasheet and MDC times do not always produce the same contrast. Try exposing an entire roll on the same test scene, chop it up into smaller strips, and develop using -1m, -30sec, 0, +30sec and +1min of datasheet time (5 strips for stock, 5 strips for 1+1, 10 runs total). Makes for a fun weekend project.

MDC would be much more useful if it did not have so many errors and inaccuracies.

 

[Radost]

MDC would be much more useful if it did not have so many errors and inaccuracies.

What is mdc?

 

[David R Williams]

What is mdc?

The “Massive Developing Chart”.

Massive Dev Chart Film Development, Film Developing Database

www.digitaltruth.com

 

[Radost]

The “Massive Developing Chart”.

Massive Dev Chart Film Development, Film Developing Database

www.digitaltruth.com

I avoid using it because it’s temperature conversion is off Kodak recommended times.

 

[Radost]

Update:
After 15 rolls of Xtol-R development i started loosing sharpness and got dirt all over the solution.
The negatives started looking under developed. Even with the replenishment.
I dont prewash.
I went back to 1:1. A bit more waist “especially 120” but cleaner and more consistent.
It sucks I ruined 2 rolls of Tmax 3200

 

[Donald Qualls]

Update:
After 15 rolls of Xtol-R development i started loosing sharpness and got dirt all over the solution.
The negatives started looking under developed. Even with the replenishment.
I dont prewash.
I went back to 1:1. A bit more waist “especially 120” but cleaner and more consistent.
It sucks I ruined 2 rolls of Tmax 3200

This seems odd. I used replenished Xtol long enough to consume a couple liters of replenisher and only started seeing a change in my negatives after getting into a bottle of replenisher that had been diluted incorrectly (I only have a 4L mixing vessel, so had to add water as I bottled the developer and messed it up).

 

[Radost]

In fact the bottle is so dirty a hot water rinse can not clean the bottom.

 

[Anon Ymous]

In fact the bottle is so dirty a hot water rinse can not clean the bottom.

That's pretty much normal in my experience. Some gray solids and possibly gelatinous mass settles at the bottom of the bottle and you can occasionally filter the solution and rinse the bottle. It won't clean the bottle, but it also won't matter. In the end, there are other reasons for abandoning replenishment, but cleanliness isn't one of them. I didn't have any serious issues when I did.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Update:
After 15 rolls of Xtol-R development i started loosing sharpness and got dirt all over the solution.
The negatives started looking under developed. Even with the replenishment.
I dont prewash.
I went back to 1:1. A bit more waist “especially 120” but cleaner and more consistent.
It sucks I ruined 2 rolls of Tmax 3200

Either add more stock solution because you were not adding 70ml/roll or use the replenish times which are longer than stock times.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Mine is still going strong after almost three years of replenishing...even though there is a by-product build up on the bottle wall, and bottom is stained black... I do find myself however, going back to good old staining developers

 

[Steven Lee]

Update:
After 15 rolls of Xtol-R development i started loosing sharpness and got dirt all over the solution.
The negatives started looking under developed. Even with the replenishment.
I dont prewash.
I went back to 1:1. A bit more waist “especially 120” but cleaner and more consistent.
It sucks I ruined 2 rolls of Tmax 3200

Was T-Max 3200 the only film you've developed? I do not have much experience with it, but I have plenty of experience of running Xtol-R. It is slightly less potent than stock, i.e. you lose a tiny bit of speed. And, more importantly here, for some reason it does not work with Delta 3200. I have not done any measurements, but visually it's easily more than a stop slower than DD-X or Microphen with that film. Just can't build any density.

If T-Max 3200 is similar to Delta 3200, this may explain what you're seeing.

XTol-R is great for the common ISO 400 films. For ISO 50-100 I would recommend something like Ilfosol (sharp). For fast designed-for-pushing Delta 3200, I'd use Microphen or DD-X, or perhaps TMax developer for T-Max 3200, if you prefer Kodak?

 

[Radost]

Either add more stock solution because you were not adding 70ml/roll or use the replenish times which are longer than stock times.

Everything was done exactly per Kodak document. Increase time by 3% In 2L. Started seasoning after 10 rolls because I started noticing a little sloppy detail. But after running the 2 tmax3200 ”roll 17-18 at @1200 it gave me absolutely unacceptable results.Lost 1 1.5 stops and a lot of sharpness.
Using the same Xtol at 1:1 I ideally got me cleaner sharper results.
I am willing to use more developer to have consistency And cleanliness.

 

[Radost]

Was T-Max 3200 the only film you've developed? I do not have much experience with it, but I have plenty of experience of running Xtol-R. It is slightly less potent than stock, i.e. you lose a tiny bit of speed. And, more importantly here, for some reason it does not work with Delta 3200. I have not done any measurements, but visually it's easily more than a stop slower than DD-X or Microphen with that film. Just can't build any density.

If T-Max 3200 is similar to Delta 3200, this may explain what you're seeing.

XTol-R is great for the common ISO 400 films. For ISO 50-100 I would recommend something like Ilfosol (sharp). For fast designed-for-pushing Delta 3200, I'd use Microphen or DD-X, or perhaps TMax developer for T-Max 3200, if you prefer Kodak?

I also had a roll of Delta not looking as sharp. But honestly it is not a film i am familiar with.
Is illfosol as sharp as XTOL for slow films?
I did DD-X with TMAX400-100 and even HP5+ and got less detail especially with the Tmax400 and HP5+
I am really amazed how sharp HP5+ in XTOL 1:1 is. Even at 1600.

 

[Radost]

Mine is still going strong after almost three years of replenishing...even though there is a by-product build up on the bottle wall, and bottom is stained black... I do find myself however, going back to good old staining developers

This is what was concerning to me. All the gunk inside after just 18 rolls.

 

[removedacct3]

This is what was concerning to me. All the gunk inside after just 18 rolls.

XTOL is in good company. Replenished D-23 has the same issue

 

[Sirius Glass]

Mine is still going strong after almost three years of replenishing...even though there is a by-product build up on the bottle wall, and bottom is stained black... I do find myself however, going back to good old staining developers

I have similar results after three or four years. The Replenished XTOL is still going strong.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Xtol-R's gunk is what gives film its look

 

[mshchem]

An example of why labs use filtration and control strips.

I've never had problems, HC-110 or XTOL, I never developed film over ISO 400 either.