Biting into XTOL replenishment - Benefits and Times

[Mainecoonmaniac]

these bags are great for the stock XTOL solution as you dont have to poor thru the spout to fill them, fill them first then seal the bag with the spout. they are cheap and work very well.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06XXN6B1V/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o09_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

They look like the ones I get from my box wine. They're kinda squishy without the box though. They do a good job in keeping air out of developers or wine for that matter.

 

[John Wiegerink]

these bags are great for the stock XTOL solution as you dont have to poor thru the spout to fill them, fill them first then seal the bag with the spout. they are cheap and work very well.

I use a 1.75 liter Jack Daniels bottle to keep the working replenished solution in. i like that its clear so i can see all the grey build up and how much is in it. makes it easier to decide when to filter it

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06XXN6B1V/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o09_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Holy Cow Batman those bags look perfect for the job and they come in different sizes also. I could use my Jim Beam bottle, but it ain't empty yet. Whoops, it is now. Hic-up! Just kidding since I don't drink. I filter my working solution about every month. I never filtered when I first started using Xtol-R, but soon learned my lesson after I saw millions of little particles floating in my "just ready" to use developer. Now I gotta order me a few of those bags. JohnW

 

[Tim Stapp]

I've started filtering my Xtol before every developing session since I had those "millions of little particles" permanently lodge in my FP4+ negatives. I store my 5L of stock solution in recycled 5L wine bags.

JW-let me know if/when you need more. I seem to collect them (I drink cheap wine.) Although, at $13 a box at the store, it might be cheaper to buy and dump the wine, rinse the bag and fill with developer

I also use the bags for my LPD stock solution.

 

[Svenedin]

So I've got the 2 liter bottle to begin an effort into XTOL replenishment. I've been reading up here, so I'm not looking to repeat all the same material. My Hornstein book and plenty of others seem averse to replenishment as opposed to one-use on the basis of this as a cost saving only and complicated with control issues. I get it. Upside seems to be tonality, accutance, and fine grain... and the promise that I get this in a package that develops closer to box speed than my beloved Perceptol. Have I got this right as the benefits?

If so, then it begins with setting up the usual stock solution for developing 2 batches of 1 liter each, replenish that with 235 ML of new stock XTOL and fill with 765 ML (yes, I rounded to a normal number by 1 ML), and pour each of these into the 2 liter replenish bottle. That will give a solution that is about 24% replenished with the balance used once. Of course this is a mix, but this is the point to begin using a re-mix. Ultimately using 1000ML in a stretch, the mix will stabilize with a content of roughly 12% replenished XTOL and the balance remixed. This will happen fairly quickly.

Time adjustment is the thing. My read is that Time for Normal Development will march from the STOCK time (1st use) towards the time for 1:1 mixes (stable use), and the key is then simply establishing the steps in-between. If I have this right? I can probably follow the Kodak J109 pub to determine the times. Thanks!

For large format photographers it seems to me that to use Xtol in anything other than replenished would be an expensive undertaking due to the volumes of developer needed in deep tanks. For the smaller formats I am not convinced. Xtol is not an expensive developer to use one shot (certainly much cheaper than Ilfotech DD-X for example). I am very satisfied with Xtol 1+1 one-shot both in terms of grain and tonality. It is said that the results of replenished Xtol are better than one-shot use but I would be concerned about using a solution that could accumulate debris over time. There are bound to be tiny flecks of emulsion and dust that contaminate the solution. Filtering is advocated but dust particles are not going to be stopped by simple filtering through a coffee filter (which could introduce tiny paper fibres into the solution as well). With a large format negative such contamination may be unimportant but for small formats that require high magnification enlarging this is problematic. I have given up reusing developer for this reason (tiny debris stuck to negatives). It is also said to be convenient to be able to use the replenished Xtol at room temperature but my room temperature is rarely within the acceptable temperature range (I'd have to heat it up anyway).

 

[photog_ed]

I went to Home Depot recently to find a bucket for mixing the 5 liter batches of XTOL. I found this graduated bucket in the paint department. The markings are pretty accurate, too.

Ed

 

[Sirius Glass]

While the replenished developer is in the Jobo, I add the replenishment volume [70ml per roll] to the remainder of the replenished developer. Then I pour the developer from the Jobo into the replenishment bottle until it is full, then I dump the rest.

 

[Svenedin]

I went to Home Depot recently to find a bucket for mixing the 5 liter batches of XTOL. I found this graduated bucket in the paint department. The markings are pretty accurate, too.

Ed

View attachment 197230

That's a great idea. My bucket has no markings so I have to measure the resulting volume of 4 litres + the dissolved powders to accurately make up the volume to 5 litres.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I went to Home Depot recently to find a bucket for mixing the 5 liter batches of XTOL. I found this graduated bucket in the paint department. The markings are pretty accurate, too.

Ed

View attachment 197230

That is what I have done for years.

 

[JWMster]

You guys are amazing. Yes, I filter. No, I haven't had a particle problem (yet). Yes, I agree the paper coffee filters I'm using probably ain't as good as one of those metal types I should probably begin using: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0001IRRL...t=&hvlocphy=9007769&hvtargid=pla-274988584505 .

And yes, I've looked longingly at those same collapsible bottles. They're not expensive - so as kind as it is of you to offer and as much as it's appreciated, info and saving some of the pain and sweat equity in ascending the learning curve is far more precious than the saving a buck ( but thanks for the offer btw! ). You folks are too kind.. Where I've been paused has been over whether these things really work - and I guess you've answered that. You can in fact find some threads here fretting about the valves, and didn't want to have to attach a valve or remove one. Actually, I figured they were re-usable, but I'm not sure about that. Are they?

FWIW, I was drawn to XTOL-R as offering tonality and contrast consistent with Perceptol in many respects, but without the sacrifice in ISO speed. And as much as I liked the Pyrocat-HD in my few uses of it, side-by-side comparison with XTOL suggested the differences were really less striking than all the pyrocat-hd buzz suggested. And with a JOBO, I've put my fickleness over developers to bed, and I'm happy to say the output is good enough to push my attention elsewhere. Nice to have a stop back I'd otherwise given up toe Perceptol, too. And I like that.

Where I'm still squishy and haven't settled down yet is exactly which films in the 400 speed and 100-ish speed B&W departments I like best. Actually, I thought I'd settled (with Kodak TMY-2 and Ilford FP4) until satisfaction with Ilford's Delta 3200 led me to really reconsider the whole mess with a focus on Delta films. New offerings like Bergger's Panchro 400 and Ferrania P30 were fun to toy with, too. But longer term, unless my heart gets pulled somewhere, I'm tending to think I'll settle the mess down and go with the Delta's for B&W and Kodak Panchro's for color... but we shall see what we shall see, and the eyeballs rule. Yeah, I like slide film, but there aren't many choices there, and my efforts to remove the magenta from Fuji Velvia push me towards results that look like.... Portra! So why not cut to the chase and go there from the start?

 

[John Wiegerink]

JW,
I still use Pyrocat-HDC if I'm shooting really bright scenes like glaring snow or want to hold detail in nice white fluffy clouds while maintaining decent shadow detail. Pyrocat-HDC seems to make that much easier for me with basically no N- development. I'm not saying you can't hold the high values with Xtol-R, but what I am saying is that Pyrocat-HDC just makes it much, much easier. It's funny to me that you show the link to the gold coffee filter.. I started out with a ribbed funnel and a white coffee filter. It seemed to work just fine except it was slow due to the filter conforming to the sides of the funnel. Thus, the only place that was allowing fluid through was the little round circle hole at the bottom. Once that was covered with sludge it was then just drip-drip. So, I bought my wife a new Gold filter and took her old one to the darkroom. Now I use a brown funnel paper coffee filter inside the gold filter, which then sits inside the funnel. It works perfect since the developer fluid can exit the paper filter through the gold filter from all sides. Works for me and that's all I care about. I think you'll be hooked on Xtol-R once you get your ratios all figured out. I know I'm hooked. JohnW

 

[JWMster]

John: Yes, the paper coffee filter alone is kind of a problem as it slides around and slowly drains. The "gold" metal filter looks like a good solution and a paper filter inside even better. Not sure I know Pyrocat-HDC.... and it's unclear exactly the difference, but if it's just the glycol, that's the version I used from PhotoFormulary and found it quite satisfactory. Kind of got put off about it as a result of Gerald Kock's refrain warning about the health risks... as that's the last thing I need... worries about clean-up after a spill. Study of side-by-sides of XTOL and Pyrocat-HD drove me to try XTOL, and Ian Grant pushed the suggestion as well. By comparison, I like the relatively benign handling of XTOL and the ease of prep (once mixed up into a working solution and stored) in just pouring out what you need and you're ready to go. Pre-mix once vs. very exacting, measurement of highly dilute quantities....of rather toxic stuff, well... I'm just not nearly as bothered with XTOL and the results are generally indistinguishable. Surely as you cite, there are times and places for Pyrocat-HDC as "better", but its snowing here today, and I'm not running out with my camera (yet).. And yes, Gerald's other refrain on the size of my replenishing container eventually got to me, too.... ergo the move to a larger container. Clearly, I read what he and so many others write here more carefully and it sinks in... even if not immediately. THanks!

 

[John Wiegerink]

JW,
Pyrocat-HDC is just another HD variant. I switched from HD to MC and now have settled on HDC, but they are all pretty much the same. Yes, protective hand gear and ventilation are a must for me with any of the pyro based developers. Whereas Xtol-R is much friendlier to ones body. I also chose to use at least a gallon jug for my working stash since I figured a smaller amount might be more likely thrown off by a little miss step in adding amount of replenisher and therefor be a little more stable. All-in-all you can't go wrong with Xtol replenished or straight. I also like the fact that I can shoot at box speed with most films. JohnW

 

[Sirius Glass]

And yes, I've looked longingly at those same collapsible bottles. They're not expensive - so as kind as it is of you to offer and as much as it's appreciated, info and saving some of the pain and sweat equity in ascending the learning curve is far more precious than the saving a buck ( but thanks for the offer btw! ). You folks are too kind.. Where I've been paused has been over whether these things really work - and I guess you've answered that. You can in fact find some threads here fretting about the valves, and didn't want to have to attach a valve or remove one. Actually, I figured they were re-usable, but I'm not sure about that. Are they?

I use collapsible bottles for XTOL and I have lost some of the developer because they leak. Beware!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I use collapsible bottles for XTOL and I have lost some of the developer because they leak. Beware!

Are you talking about those old Falcon accordion bottles? The collapsible wine bladders I use haven't leaked on me yet.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I use collapsible bottles for XTOL and I have lost some of the developer because they leak. Beware!

I used to use the Falcon collapsible bottles also. Yup, they will eventually start leaking. Mine went into the trash years ago. JohnW

 

[Sirius Glass]

Are you talking about those old Falcon accordion bottles? The collapsible wine bladders I use haven't leaked on me yet.

Accordion bottles. I do not know the brand. FreeStyle sells them.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Accordion bottles. I do not know the brand. FreeStyle sells them.

Never liked them. I had one with a bad seal where the cap is and they will expand on their own allowing more air to creep in.