All one needs to know about XTOL versus other developers

Sirius Glass · Mar 3, 2017

Patrick Robert James said:
I am not a user of XTol. ... and combine that with the fact that it tends to die a quick and painful death....

I save that kind of baseless talk to fertilize garden plants and lawns. Do you package that for more efficient distribution?

bvy · Mar 3, 2017

The point is other developers are more tolerant of careless keeping and storage. It's hardly "baseless" or "hooey." There are enough reports here and elsewhere of the developer working just fine one day and not at all the next. I can also speak from personal experience.

dasBlute · Mar 3, 2017

Anecdotal 'evidence' from a small, self-selected group does not have statistical weight.

p(XTOL fails) = (#fails)/(#fails + # successes)

do you know the bottom number? how many units of XTOL did Kodak ship? Over what period of time?
Asserting 'facts' without that kind of knowledge is *hooey*.

bvy said:
The point is other developers are more tolerant of careless keeping and storage. It's hardly "baseless" or "hooey." There are enough reports here and elsewhere of the developer working just fine one day and not at all the next. I can also speak from personal experience.

Old-N-Feeble · Mar 3, 2017

All too often 'facts' are passed along in perpetuity without basis of scientific analysis. Parrots repeat what they've been told without understanding what the words mean. Does this mean XTOL haters are wrong? I don't know... I've no experience with it.

Gerald C Koch · Mar 3, 2017

dasBlute said:
Anecdotal 'evidence' from a small, self-selected group does not have statistical weight.

p(XTOL fails) = (#fails)/(#fails + # successes)

do you know the bottom number? how many units of XTOL did Kodak ship? Over what period of time?
Asserting 'facts' without that kind of knowledge is *hooey*.

Kodak took the complaints as serious and spent a good deal of time and energy to find a solution. You might say that they were the people to convince. Paterson experienced the same problem with their FX-50 developer which was pulled never to return.

When ascorbic acid developers like Xrol became popular I mixed up a batch. It may have been the Mytol formula. It worked fine and was completely dead the next day.

bvy · Mar 3, 2017

dasBlute said:
Anecdotal 'evidence' from a small, self-selected group does not have statistical weight.

p(XTOL fails) = (#fails)/(#fails + # successes)

do you know the bottom number? how many units of XTOL did Kodak ship? Over what period of time?
Asserting 'facts' without that kind of knowledge is *hooey*.

I don't know the bottom number. No one does. Even if we did it would be meaningless. There are too many variables involved (mixing, storing, handling, etc.). It doesn't fail like a raffle drawing. I'm suggesting it fails for a very real and explainable reason.

And I for one put a lot of weight on "anecdotal evidence," especially in cases like this where no such statistics can be known. I read product reviews before I make a purchase. I call references before I hire someone. I check APUG before I try a new film or developer. If people are reporting that their XTOL failed on them quite suddenly, are they wrong?

John Wiegerink · Mar 3, 2017

horacekenneth said:
Do they sell those for chemicals or are they literally just repurposed wine bags?

With the tank I get the chemicals from a spout, so no new air introduced, but the floating lid isn't a perfect seal and there's 3.5 gallons worth of air floating above my 1.5 gallons of ecopro in that 5 gallon tank (the tank has a lid in addition to the floating one).

Recycled wine bags. If you are using a spout it should be darn good then.

dasBlute · Mar 4, 2017

BS, some people do know that number, just no one you know. The math is not meaningless.

My statement was a response to a statement that began: "XTOL tends to...", thus the speaker
purported to have that very knowledge. Sure, it -and many other developers- can fail
*in response to user error*. Alert the press. But it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

The internet is awesome, plenty of places to find good information, and this is one of them.
Are those who've had issues with XTOL wrong? No. But how many people had no issues and
never said anything about it? Am I going to go into every "Let's hate on XTOL" thread
[they come up pretty regularly] and provide a contrary opinion? No, I got tired of it, and
I'll bet I'm not the only one. To some, it feels good to bash the Big Yellow, it's edgy,
subversive, shows pluck, maybe some street cred,
"yeah, I used to use D-76, but that was soooo long ago..."

XTOL rocks, there I said it. Yes, I keep it in airtight bottles with very little air in them.
Oxidation happens. Works for me, and I'm not alone, there are others out there too...
we're quiet and we're busy.

-Tim

bvy said:
I don't know the bottom number. No one does. Even if we did it would be meaningless. There are too many variables involved (mixing, storing, handling, etc.). It doesn't fail like a raffle drawing. I'm suggesting it fails for a very real and explainable reason.

And I for one put a lot of weight on "anecdotal evidence," especially in cases like this where no such statistics can be known. I read product reviews before I make a purchase. I call references before I hire someone. I check APUG before I try a new film or developer. If people are reporting that their XTOL failed on them quite suddenly, are they wrong?

pentaxuser · Mar 4, 2017

If it does fail for a good reason then I am surprised that reason doesn't manifest itself a lot more frequently. Surely if it happened at statistically significant then there would be a real dent in Xtol sales or like the Paterson example given Kodak would have had to withdraw it.

In terms of quoting failures all a forum can ask is that for the sake of newcomers who might be seeking advice about trying it then those quoting failure should give as many details as possible so the seeker of wisdom and truth can arrive at a balanced decision

pentaxuser

bvy · Mar 4, 2017

dasBlute said:
The internet is awesome, plenty of places to find good information, and this is one of them.
Are those who've had issues with XTOL wrong? No. But how many people had no issues and
never said anything about it?

Exactly. You only hear from people when they have problems. And in this case, we hear from them in greater proportion.

dasBlute said:
XTOL rocks, there I said it. Yes, I keep it in airtight bottles with very little air in them.
Oxidation happens. Works for me, and I'm not alone, there are others out there too...
we're quiet and we're busy.

It rocks for me too. I was burned by it once, figured out why, fixed the problem, and moved on. It fails quickly when stored poorly. Other developers I've used were more forgiving. This is my experience, and it's not an isolated one. A newcomer to XTOL reading this doesn't need statistics; they just need to know to store it smartly.

Sal Santamaura · Mar 4, 2017

bvy said:
...it fails for a very real and explainable reason...

It can fail for several reasons, including oxidation and metallic contaminants in water. However, all are preventable:

Mix with distilled (real steam-distilled, not merely filtered and labeled "for distilled water uses") water
Store the five liters in 20 250ml glass bottles with teflon-lined caps
Use one 250ml 'dose' -- or more if necessary for a batch that exceeds 200 square inches -- one-shot when developing film
Use a coffee filter before processing film to remove the white, filamentary precipitate that forms in stock solution.

Following this protocol, I've measured no sensitometric performance difference in film developed with freshly mixed XTOL and stock that's up to one year old.

dasBlute said:
...Am I going to go into every "Let's hate on XTOL" thread [they come up pretty regularly] and provide a contrary opinion? No, I got tired of it, and I'll bet I'm not the only one...

You're not. I occasionally abstain, but usually can't stand to see the product trashed and eventually jump in.

If one likes the results XTOL provides, there's no reason to avoid it. Just deal with it appropriately. If XTOL's results don't appeal, why not simply use something else rather than run down its reputation in forums?

Gerald C Koch · Mar 4, 2017

The "sudden death" problem with Xtol appears to have been solved some time ago by Kodak. Geoffrey Crawley who developed the FX-50 formula proposed FX-55. In this particular formulation the dry developing agents are added to the developer just before use.

If you mix your own ascorbic acid developer then you should remain aware of the Fenton reaction and incorporate a chelating agents like salicylic acid and TEA in it. See the DS-10 and DS-12 formulas for the amounts to use. (Let me again remind people not to use EDTA.) By not using a chelating agent you may experience the problem. I say 'may' because the problem is complex depending in part on water and chemical purity.

It seems inappropriate to continue to thrash this old problem again and again. There is a remedy for those that mix their own and no problem should exist for commercial products today. Enough already!

As a postscript let me point out AGAIN that the sudden death syndrome IS NOT DUE TO AERIAL OXIDATION. (I keep using the term Fenton reaction rather than Fenton oxidation for this very reason.) If anything Xtol is less effected by air than a higher pH developer like D-76. If I were using Xtol it would divide the five liter size into five one liter bottles. The one liter bottles are handier to work with than another size. PET plastic bottles would work fine.

Mr Bill · Mar 4, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
By not using a chelating agent you may experience the problem. I say 'may' because the problem is complex depending in part on water and chemical purity.

A comment regarding water quality - I don't recall if I ever mentioned it here before. Short version: if your water supply comes from a river that is subject to periodic high levels, and can be turbid at those times, you might find elevated iron levels at those times.

Here's the long version: I spent years overseeing the "process control" at a very large processing lab. By some chain of events, when the C-41 process (color neg) was new, we found that it was sensitive to iron in the water.

At some point years later, we found our C-41 control charts starting to drift downward in the same manner. One of the first things we did was have our in-house chem lab screen the incoming water - the iron level was several times higher than the normal as reported by the city water department. This is potentially disastrous for a processing lab, so I called my contact at the water department.

I told him what we were estimating for iron levels, and he said yes, that's about right. I said huh?, or something like that. He said, well, the river is pretty high. (The city is on a large river, and that's where the water comes from.) I'm still confused, and asked if the iron is coming from sediment or something? He says no, they are adding the iron themselves, to control turbidity in the drinking water.

It turns out that this is a common practice in the US. They add ferrous sulfate or similar (as I recall) and this helps flocculate whatever causes the turbidity, so it can settle out or be filtered. It's pretty much a cosmetic thing - who wants to drink muddy-looking water? And when the river runs high and fast, it stirs up a lot of sediment so that higher levels of the flocculant are needed. So the city water ends up with higher than normal iron content (these sorts of levels are never a problem for drinking water).

So anyone who uses city water coming from a river, and uses an iron-sensitive process should be aware of this potential issue.

As a note of interest, this method was allegedly developed for the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair. The Missouri River (aka the Big Muddy) joins the Mississippi just upstream of St. Louis, and this is where the city's water comes from. The city wanted to put its best foot forward and wanted crystal clear drinking water for the fair. So they hired a chemist who developed the clarification process, which was a great success. Apparently it worked so well it was adopted across the US as a standard method.

Arklatexian · Mar 4, 2017

MattKing said:
No.
EDIT:
It is cheap and easy to use. Mix it up using good water and clean bottles/bags. Store it properly and use it for up to six months. After six months, either discard it, or do clip tests before use.

In my darkroom, "using good water" means using distilled water and since I started doing so my developers stock solutions last. Out tap water has a PH of 7, no iron, etc. But there seasonal changes in the lakes where our water comes from and I am sure chemicals are added from time to time so why take a chance? Distilled water doesn't have these problems. It is consistent and I find that film is more expensive. Distilled water at the grocery store cost less than an in-date roll of b&w 120/135..........Regards!

Arklatexian · Mar 4, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
The tests were done scientifically, not with the alternative facts used by marketing and certain politicians.

Sirius Glass, are you telling me that all businesses are NOT liars and thieves? Why I do declare!......Regards!

Gerald C Koch · Mar 4, 2017

Where I live the water comes from a lake. During the summer the tap water can be the color of weak tea and you can taste the weeds. BLECH! I don't want to drink it let alone mix developer with it. As WC Fields once put it. "Water? Never drink water. Fish fuck in water!"

Sirius Glass · Mar 4, 2017

oldtimermetoo said:
Sirius Glass, are you telling me that all businesses are NOT liars and thieves? Why I do declare!......Regards!

The only big liar is the Commander-In-Chief.

traveler_101 · Mar 5, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
View attachment 174220

Despite the suggestion elsewhere in this thread that charts like this are merely marketing tools, I am (perhaps naively) hoping that the promise of less grain proves correct. I have XTOL for Foma products and am about to mix up a batch to use for Fomapan 400 (35mm) with the hope of taming the grain a bit. Anyone ever try that combo?

mgb74 · Mar 5, 2017

My issue with the chart is that it only addresses xtol and d-76 at full strength, rather than any of the other recommended dilutions.

Sirius Glass · Mar 5, 2017

The chart is guidance, a starting point. It was never intended to answer all questions for all situations and for all people. It guided me to start with stock XTOL and later I migrated to replenished XTOL which is even better.

bvy · Mar 5, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
The chart is guidance, a starting point. It was never intended to answer all questions for all situations and for all people. It guided me to start with stock XTOL and later I migrated to replenished XTOL which is even better.

Truthfully, it's what turned me on to XTOL also.

Sirius Glass · Mar 5, 2017

bvy said:
Truthfully, it's what turned me on to XTOL also.

I dump XTOL if the bottle has let air in. I also use test strips if I have not recently used the developer. But then I always did that for all developers since I was a teenager, so I have not found that any developer has failed me. I call it good lab technique.

fhovie · Mar 9, 2017

Andrew O'Neill said:
Xtol is indeed an excellent developer...but it doesn't compare to Pyrocat-HD.

As big a fan as I am for Pyrocat - my developer of choice for 4x5, XTOL and variants are very good for roll film - where a little extra speed and sharpness with soft grain is a bonus. I make both brews as the two developers I use for film. - Pyrocat - PC-Glycol is what I have used for 4x5 and larger exclusively for two decades now and have found none better for sheet film where sharpness is the main goal. MyTOL - a vitamin C version made in a stock solution with TEA is a really excellent homebrew for 120 and 35mm films. Both the Pyro and MyTOL have a shelf life of 6 years - so I generally make several liters of stock at a time.

fhovie · Mar 9, 2017

bvy said:
I had the developer go bad on me also. This was about a month after purchasing and mixing it. I had a small sample in a soda pop bottle with most of the air squeezed out. This had been good enough for other developers (D76, Perceptol), but not for XTOL. I clip tested and the clip darkened. I remember questioning if the clip was dark enough. It wasn't. It's the only reason I got anything at all on the film -- a VERY thin negative that I was only able to recover digitally. I almost swore it off at that point, but decided I liked the results and versatility too much to do that. I've since invested in a quantity of glass bottles with polyseal caps from Specialty Bottle.

Lessons? Always do a clip test, and look for the clip to go black, not merely just darken. Keep a reference clip for comparison. Also, I would suggest that glass bottles with good caps filled to capacity are the only way to store XTOL.

The only film developers I would consider not using as one shot would be D-76 full strength (better to use it 1:1 and chuck it) Microdol - maybe a few weeks and Split D-23 which can last a long time. The problem is that METOL and Phenidone both oxidize rapidly and as soon as they are dissolved in water, the clock starts ticking. Purging the air out of a glass bottle might help a little but water is Oxygen so - . MyTOL is easy to make and cheap too. The version I make uses mostly Vitamin C crystals from the local grocery store, Triethanolomine - easy to get online and a few other common photo chems. One shot developers are really the way to go. - In fact, when you buy chems in bulk and make your own, you can make everything one shot and then developer failures are very rare.

bvy · Mar 9, 2017

fhovie said:
The only film developers I would consider not using as one shot would be D-76 full strength (better to use it 1:1 and chuck it) Microdol - maybe a few weeks and Split D-23 which can last a long time. The problem is that METOL and Phenidone both oxidize rapidly and as soon as they are dissolved in water, the clock starts ticking. Purging the air out of a glass bottle might help a little but water is Oxygen so - . MyTOL is easy to make and cheap too. The version I make uses mostly Vitamin C crystals from the local grocery store, Triethanolomine - easy to get online and a few other common photo chems. One shot developers are really the way to go. - In fact, when you buy chems in bulk and make your own, you can make everything one shot and then developer failures are very rare.

To clarify, I use it one shot, 1+1. This was virgin stock developer that failed. I still blame it on storing it somewhat carelessly. It was in a small drink bottle, about two-thirds full, squeezed and sealed to minimize the airspace.

All one needs to know about XTOL versus other developers

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency