I am set up to use the replenishing method of replacing 70ml per film roll on my working solution. Do you find this method very unreliable?
Thanks!
So is there a replenishment rate that ensures it does not lose its strength and if so what is that rate 80ml, 85ml or more?.
Stock solution replenished with "70ml method" tends to loose its original strenght development after development. How much does it weaken? It depends on the negative developed: if you develop a night scene the level of developer exhausion is lower than in case of a bright sun scene.
A pro-lab that I know uses XTOL replenished for massive works; it's cheap and reliable for high volume works.
So is there a replenishment rate that ensures it does not lose its strength and if so what is that rate 80ml, 85ml or more?
If replenishment causes a loss of strength then how does the pro-lab manage to use it for massive works which I assume you mean as high volume development? Shouldn't the loss of strength be even quicker and more risky?
pentaxuser
XTOL 1+1 one shot gives repeatable results.
Stock solution replenished with "70ml method" tends to loose its original strenght development after development. How much does it weaken? It depends on the negative developed: if you develop a night scene the level of developer exhausion is lower than in case of a bright sun scene.
A pro-lab that I know uses XTOL replenished for massive works; it's cheap and reliable for high volume works. The same lab suggests to use one-shot 1+1 diluition for more precise low quantity works
Ok another question...
Do I need to adjust my developing times when using the replenish method?
Use the Kodak published development times for replenished XTOL. Those times are close the the 1:1 times interestingly.
I have used replenished XTOL in low volumes and I have never had a problem with it. It is always exactly as it should be when one follows the replenishment with 70ml per roll and stick the the replenishment development times.
Date | DMax | DMin | LD | HD | HD-LD |
03/29/2022 | 1.53 | 0.29 | 0.38 | 1.08 | 0.7 |
06/11/2022 | 1.71 | 0.29 | 0.41 | 1.22 | 0.81 |
10/17/2022 | 1.58 | 0.28 | 0.37 | 1.10 | 0.73 |
02/12/2023 | 1.61 | 0.28 | 0.4 | 1.14 | 0.74 |
06/19/2023 | 1.54 | 0.29 | 0.38 | 1.09 | 0.71 |
Thank you!remjet5219, on a more serious note about the replenishment method and its reliability, it was my impression that while it drew a lot of discussion ( when does a thread on Photrio never draw a lot of posts?) there was a remarkable degree of agreement that properly done it was a reliable method
pentaxuser
Datasheet is only for Rotary development in replenished.
Small tank is only for 1:1 and full strength in those datasheets. This is where it gets confusing for people. That said, I've been using 1:1 times for non-rotary small tank and hoping for the best.
This is so interesting. How do you detrmine how to adjust your replish amount based on these readings? In other words, how do these translate into ml of replenishment?Sirius, something is not right. Either you are not mentioning some critical detail, or just not telling the whole story. Because my personal experience measuring control strips, Kodak datasheets, and common sense will all say: if you always, 100% of the time, replenish with exactly 70ml, the activity level will drift. Periodic adjustments are required if you want consistent results.
This is true for all replenished systems, because the amount of byproduct released back into a working developer varies with film speed, film manufacturer, exposure and subject matter. Unless you shoot the same grey card on HP5+ and develop exactly the same number of rolls per week, you cannot possibly have a stable solution by replenishing with a fixed amount.
Here are my control strip readings showing the swings. Normally I replenish with the same amount, but I had to make 4 corrections since March 2022:
Date DMax DMin LD HD HD-LD 03/29/2022 1.53 0.29 0.38 1.08 0.7 06/11/2022 1.71 0.29 0.41 1.22 0.81 10/17/2022 1.58 0.28 0.37 1.10 0.73 02/12/2023 1.61 0.28 0.4 1.14 0.74 06/19/2023 1.54 0.29 0.38 1.09 0.71
The activity jumps were caused by batches of low speed film exposed after a vacation/event, or just different film, i.e. not HP5+ which is my usual. I do not shoot films faster than ISO 400 and never push, maybe that's my activity level never dipped.
@remjet5219 I try to add a control strip to every run if there's room in the tank, which is about 30% of the time. When the readings get too hot I just skip replenishing until they get back to normal. When the reading goes down, start replenishing with 100ml until it gets back. There are no hard rules, as I said it really depends on film speed and what I shoot. That jump to 0.81 in June of last year - that's me developing a bunch of FP4+ from the Hawaii trip, and since the tank was always 100% utilized I didn't see the density for quite a few rolls. But from the eyeballing perspective, it was "fine".
Replenishing is a pain in the ass. There are no image quality benefits, only a slight speed loss. But taking old chemicals to my local hazmat is even bigger pain in the ass, so I picked the lesser pain.
Thank you!
I am going to try it. It's a bit confusing about how to properly do it for a small 1l tank and using 1L working solution. At least for the first few before it gets "seasoned". Also confusing that Kodak published replenish times but only for rotary tubes and big tanks. I am probably going to be doing a 1 + 1 development times from now on and hope for the best.
My bottle is 1/2 gallon, so about 1,900ml and I am considering doubling it to smooth out the jumps. 1L seems too low.How forgiving is this process? I am using a 1000ml working solution accordion bottle and I just developed my first two rolls with it.
Would you recommend I gradually increase my development time to 1+1 for the first 6 rolls until my working solution is "seasoned"?
I am using a 1000ml working solution accordion bottle
How do you remove the oxygen from them? I chose the accordion bottles because I can squeeze the oxygen out. But I can see how they would allow oxygen to seep back in through the plastic caps. Thanks for the link!Agree with Matt. Those bottles are not good. I recommend amber glass jars. They are completely impenetrable for oxygen. I've had Xtol-R kept in them for years without problems, as well as C-41 developer for 9+ months.
I understand and agree with your method. I'm gonna try it Steven, just ordered one. I'll pour 1000ml into my paterson tank from this bottle and replenish from my stock solution (which I have in 2L accordion bottles... eeek may need to change to the wine storage bags). In theory this working bottle should last me a really long time (years?).@remjet5219 For storing the working batch of Xtol you don't need to because they will be full, literally filled to the brim, 100% of the time.
Yep, years. The longest I've done was 2 years, and then it got ruined by a defective bag of Xtol, not by oxidation. BTW, I agree with your decision to move to wine bags. They are perfect for storing replenisher because they allow pouring without letting any oxygen in. Besides, having that little tap is super convenient for pouring precise amounts. I use the AstraPouch brand, also available on Amazon.
My bottle is 1/2 gallon, so about 1,900ml and I am considering doubling it to smooth out the jumps. 1L seems too low.
In the Xtol datasheet they have a capacity table in the sub-chapter about reusing the developer without replenishment. That table contains the number of rolls per 1L with development time adjustments. That's all you need: simply keep reusing the developer until the development time matches Xtol-R time in the datasheet, adjusting for agitation. Once you hit the Xtol-R activity level, you have a fully seasoned solution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?