All one needs to know about XTOL versus other developers

[Sirius Glass]

 

[Ian Grant]

I actually agree with Kodak - having used all those developers except Duraflo RT with various films over the years, Xtol is very definitely Kodak's best film developer.

Ian

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Shhh... don't tell David.

 

[OptiKen]

I have been using Xtol one shot (1:1) and been impressed with the results. I want to try stock in a replenished system but don't go through enough film to justify, I suppose.
Maybe............
(obvious solution is go out and shoot more)

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have been using Xtol one shot (1:1) and been impressed with the results. I want to try stock in a replenished system but don't go through enough film to justify, I suppose.
Maybe............
(obvious solution is go out and shoot more)

I don't go through a ton of film either and I use it replenished with no problems. Replenished Xtol has big benefits to me in that I can use my large Yankee 4X5 tank and don't have to dump the used developer down the drain. It goes right back in the jug and is topped off with fresh. Simply amazing! If I don't used the stack for a while I just dump off a little and add 70ml to 90 ml depending on how long it's been since last used. I would not go back to "one shot" Xtol if somebody paid me to. Well. it depends on how much they paid me of course????

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Xtol is indeed an excellent developer...but it doesn't compare to Pyrocat-HD.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Xtol is indeed an excellent developer...but it doesn't compare to Pyrocat-HD.

Very different animals.

 

[Jim Noel]

I hated it and threw iot away half way through my first batch when it went dead in two weeks.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The problem with the diagram is that it provides no metrics. It is all relative. Awhile back one poster tried to read metrics into the graphs. He decided that developer A provided 2.3X less grain than developer B. I can see him with a ruler trying to do this. The diagram is not intended for that purpose. You must read and heed the caveats in the beginning paragraph.

 

[OptiKen]

I hated it and threw iot away half way through my first batch when it went dead in two weeks.

How long ago was that and was it kept air-tight?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

How long ago was that and was it kept air-tight?

I would hazard a guess that the previous poster experienced the Fenton reaction and not typical aerial oxidation. So not excluding air was not the problem. The reaction is catalyzed by iron (III) ions. It is this reaction that is blamed for the sudden death of ascorbate developers like Xtol. There is a good description of the reaction in the following article.

http://flipper.diff.org/app/pathways/info/6861

 

[John Wiegerink]

Xtol is indeed an excellent developer...but it doesn't compare to Pyrocat-HD.

Andy,
I won't argue with at all on this one. They can't compare for a good reason..........one is a staining developer and one is not. That's why I use both1 Well, not Pyrocat-HD, but Pyrocat-HDC and Xtol.

 

[pentaxuser]

Gerald, my knowledge of chemistry is far too weak to be able to discern answers from the link you provide but it left me wondering why Jim Noel might have experienced the Fenton reaction in as little as 2 weeks. Is the reaction triggered by certain things or is it time-bounded? I have kept Xtol in winebags for over 18 months, using it as one-shot each time with no noticeable deterioration

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Gerald, my knowledge of chemistry is far too weak to be able to discern answers from the link you provide but it left me wondering why Jim Noel might have experienced the Fenton reaction in as little as 2 weeks. Is the reaction triggered by certain things or is it time-bounded? I have kept Xtol in winebags for over 18 months, using it as one-shot each time with no noticeable deterioration

Thanks

pentaxuser

The Fentol reaction is catalyzed by iron or copper ions. These can be from the water used for mixing or even from contaminants in the packaged product. Under the right conditions the reaction can completely destroy ascorbate in a matter of hours. Early batches of Xtol had this problem. Kodak was never able to pin point the cause but modified the formula and eliminated the 1 liter size bag. The poster did not give a date for his experience so I would postulate that it was from one of the initial batches.

The reaction can be slowed by the inclusion of certain chelating agents. However it can never be completely stopped. Ryuji Suzuki found that salicylic acid could be used to chelate iron ions and TEA copper ions. Useful information for those that mix their own. However the very common chelating agent EDTA actually speeds up the reaction. Kodak had to investigate many agents before settling on pentetic acid.

 

[bvy]

I love that there's a right and a wrong sudden death.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Ascorbic acid based developers like Xtol produce finer grain than those using hydroquinone. I assume that Kodak has solved the problem. However I have this nagging doubt that the problem may still crop up. Since I am not adverse to grain and have my own favorite developer I do not use it.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Gerald for the explanation.

pentaxuser

 

[bvy]

The problem with the diagram is that it provides no metrics. It is all relative. Awhile back one poster tried to read metrics into the graphs. He decided that developer A provided 2.3X less grain than developer B. I can see him with a ruler trying to do this. The diagram is not intended for that purpose. You must read and heed the caveats in the beginning paragraph.

That was me, and that wasn't quite my methodology. My point was that HC-110 is the lowest in two categories and right in the middle in the third category. And these are relative comparisons. The takeaway (mine anyway) from such a visual is that HC-110 is a middle-of-the-road performer relative to the other options shown. If I had to guess, Kodak introduced this visual around the time they introduced XTOL.

Anyway, I use both and I like both for different reasons.

 

[pentaxuser]

Maybe Jim Noel will give us the circumstances surrounding his Xtol's sudden and very premature death. Xtol would appear unfortunately to suffer from the "give a dog a bad name" syndrome which is always a pity if the "dog" has been reformed. There may be good "non Kodak" reasons why some users of Xtol may still experience its premature death but by and large Kodak would appear to have solved the issue.

When newcomers are looking for a developer and the name of Xtol comes up or is suggested by them, then it is to be hoped that those who have suffered qualify their experience so the newbies or seekers of new developers can possess all the relevant information for a decision

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I know nothing about xtol. I f it does go bad, does it at least start to turn brown to clue you in?

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.

 

[bvy]

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.

 

[Jim Noel]

How long ago was that and was it kept air-tight?

Yes it was airtight in glass bottles. I think the stuff is pure junk when compared with any of the other 6 developers I keep on hand at all times.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes it was airtight in glass bottles. I think the stuff is pure junk when compared with any of the other 6 developers I keep on hand at all times.

One man's junk is another man's treasure! I'd probably feel the exact same way if I had been burnt by dead Xtol, but knock on wood, it hasn't happened yet.

 

[OptiKen]

I can't bake pies, either

 

[David Brown]

If I had to guess, Kodak introduced this visual around the time they introduced XTOL.

Yes, I think that's exactly when this chart was developed, and for marketing purposes.

 

[Trask]

For those who replenish, what are you using as replenisher -- a separate batch of Xtol? If so, how can you be sure that the replenisher hasn't gone bad? I ask, trying to figure out how one can keep an Xtol replenishment system going long-term if the developer may suddenly die and the replenisher may suddenly die.