Developing Hp5 plus with Xtol... Conflicting development times?

[remjet5219]

I hate accordion bottles. When they leak in storage they suck air IN... that's the opposite of good.

I use a 2L brown bottle. I do like Matt, I fill my 3 roll tank whether I have 1, 2, or 3 reels in there, so the brown bottle will be half empty.

While it's going, I fill my replenishment graduate out of a wine bag of unused Xtol. I have lines drawn in sharpee at 70, 140, 210, and 280. I can't miss, 70ml per roll of film.

I pour that in to the brown bottle. Then when development is done I set the working solution storage bottle in the sink. I empty the tank back into the brown bottle and anything that doesn't fit goes down the drain. The bottle is completely and totally full, so there's not enough air on top to matter.

The mechanics of it all now are stupid simple, so I never have to worry about that. I'm only worried about the right times and agitation.

I won't comment about whether 70ml is right or control strips or whatever, people argue that enough.

Yes that's what I'm planning on doing, except I'm using a paterson tank 1L for developing, so my 2L bottle will be half empty everytime I develop, which shouldn't matter right?

 

[remjet5219]

Just to close the loop on this, the MDC lists:
- HP5+ rated 400, in Xtol stock, 8.5 minutes
- HP5+ rated 400, in Xtol stock, 6 minutes, notes = continuous agitation
- HP5+ rated 400, in Xtol 1:1, 12 minutes

Kodak recommended 8.5 minutes and Ilford 8 minutes, in Xtol stock.
So the MDC isn't way off here. In fact, it probably sourced its first number from the Kodak Xtol datasheet. The problem is that it _also_ includes the continuous-agitation number.

It is necessary to review all the times on the MDC rather than narrowing one's search too much. I do look things up on the MDC, but my issue with the MDC is not that it's unreliable, but that it doesn't include source references. Many of its times are in fact identical to datasheets, but knowing which ones are datasheet and which are Some Guy on the Internet would be useful.

Correct.

And I don't disagree with this. If they listed their source it would be easier to trace and ascertain how reliable it is.

 

[Steven Lee]

The only thing I'm confused about is that the times listed are for rotary tubes and large tanks and I'm using a paterson tank.

To convert from rotary to inversion times, look at the stock and 1+1 times in the datasheet. They are given for both rotary and inversion, so you can see the ratio for each emulsion.

 

[koraks]

How do you remove the oxygen from them?

In addition to the suggestion to keep the bottles topped up, keep in mind that XTOL has a pretty massive amount of sulfite in it. Some of the oxygen in a bottle that's not full will gradually dissolve and the sulfite will deal with it (sacrificing itself in the process, turning into sulfate). Since you're aiming at replenishment, the sulfite will also replenish, making up for its loss. The emergence of sulfate will slightly affect pH, but since XTOL is a borate-buffered developer, the pH will be quite stable regardless. As a result, some oxygen left in the top of a bottle won't really hurt a replenished XTOL developer. A (potentially) permanent admission of oxygen through the walls of e.g. an accordion bottle (probably made of polypropylene) will ultimately create problems especially if the developer is kept around unused/unreplenished for a long time.

Btw, the main qualm I have with accordion bottles is the difficulty cleaning them and the risk of leaks in the folds due to 'plastic fatigue'.

 

[Moose22]

Yes that's what I'm planning on doing, except I'm using a paterson tank 1L for developing, so my 2L bottle will be half empty everytime I develop, which shouldn't matter right?

That's literally exactly what I'm doing. The 3 reel patterson tank (3 reels 135 or 2 reels of 120). Takes 500ml per reel of 120 so that's what I put in, even if I'm only doing one or two rolls of 135, I fill it to the top.

Half empty bottle sitting there for 10 minutes doesn't mean a thing.

 

[Thomas71]

Thanks Matt but I already knew what your response would be. I was asking Thomas71 what he believes to be the case based on his comments.

pentaxuser

That's what the Lab told me. I usually develop 10-15 rolls monthly in my kitchen; for such very low volume the Lab suggested me XTOL 1+1 one shot to obtain repeatable results. The Lab develop 20-30 rolls daily; they use XTOL replenished and they have the tools to measure developer strenght (wich I don't have as a hobbyst)

 

[runswithsizzers]

It is necessary to review all the times on the MDC rather than narrowing one's search too much. I do look things up on the MDC, but my issue with the MDC is not that it's unreliable, but that it doesn't include source references. Many of its times are in fact identical to datasheets, but knowing which ones are datasheet and which are Some Guy on the Internet would be useful.

The MDC is full of both reliable data and unreliable data, and it can be extremely difficult to differentiate between the two

I think this is the main problem with the Massive Development Chart. Once you start admitting times provided by single random users, who may be using thermometers of unknown accuracy, or non-standard agitation schemes - with no way to differentiate those times from vetted sources - the whole database becomes much less useful.

About a year ago, I contacted Digitaltruth asking about how the data for the Massive Development Chart is curated. My suggestion was to add some kind of footnote to help interpret the reliability of the data. Something like:
a. manufacturer’s recommended time
b. pooled user data (with some defined minimum, like n>20)
c. limited user data available (n=5-20)
... and don't publish any time if n<5

A Mr. Jon Milded, Managing Director of Digitaltruth Photo, Ltd, provided the following reply:
---
"Thanks for your thoughts.

Although some things might seem obvious, I have been running the chart for 25+ years and I can assure you they are not.

First of all, every time is manually examined, unlike every other online database which allows totally unchecked data to be entered. If a time does not look accurate based on other related data, then it is discarded or is put in a separate unpublished area where it can be reviewed at a later data if more information becomes available. If we waited for five separate testers to submit data, very little new data would ever be added and this would restrict people’s ability to find starting points. The key thing here is that all development times are starting points, there is no such thing as an absolute time. There are 20,000+ times in the chart, so it is simply unrealistic to expect every single entry to be as accurate as any other. There will be variance, but every time should be a useful starting point and any time which we discover to be misleading is removed.

You cannot trust manufacturer’s data. Do you know how many manufacturer’s simply copy their data from our chart? Only the data which the manufacturer verifies was tested in their own lab by their own technician’s is truly “official”. As far as I know, there is no manufacturer which lists the source of its own times and almost every one of them combines in-house professional times with externally submitted times from reliable sources. However, just like in our chart, some of this data is not perfect.

Finally, there are several sites and apps which have stolen our data and many people who don’t seem to realised the time and effort which has gone in over 25 years to build the chart and simply think they have free unlicensed access to use it for their own profit. I wish the world was full of ethical people, but running an online site has taught me that there is a very large body of people with no ethics whatsoever. For that reason we cannot publish the source of each time. If we were to do so, someone could easily run a script to harvest the data provided solely by manufacturers and copy that entire section of the chart and publish it for free, despite having done none of the data input which was so time-consuming. Basically, if we publish the sources, the people can rip us off and demonstrate that they have not infringed on the copyrighted data. This has always bothered me as I would love to publish the sources and they are in the database, but they are hidden from any access. All I can suggest is that if you have any questions about sources for specific times, just write to me and ask and I will let you know."
---

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Thomas71 That makes it clearer and the slight change in the wording now makes sense but doesn't really make replenishment for lower volume developing a risky method

Yes tools for measuring developer strength will help and any one-off use of a developer such as at 1+1 or stock and then dumping must in theory be more reliable as it is a one-off process but the difference is really marginal

If you do not want to try replenishment then that's fine but I'd not be put off by what the lab's statement on it seems to have suggested to you what the size of the risk element is as a home processor enthusiast

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

I think this is the main problem with the Massive Development Chart. Once you start admitting times provided by single random users, who may be using thermometers of unknown accuracy, or non-standard agitation schemes - with no way to differentiate those times from vetted sources - the whole database becomes much less useful.

About a year ago, I contacted Digitaltruth asking about how the data for the Massive Development Chart is curated. My suggestion was to add some kind of footnote to help interpret the reliability of the data. Something like:
a. manufacturer’s recommended time
b. pooled user data (with some defined minimum, like n>20)
c. limited user data available (n=5-20)
... and don't publish any time if n<5

A Mr. Jon Milded, Managing Director of Digitaltruth Photo, Ltd, provided the following reply:
---
"Thanks for your thoughts.

Although some things might seem obvious, I have been running the chart for 25+ years and I can assure you they are not.

First of all, every time is manually examined, unlike every other online database which allows totally unchecked data to be entered. If a time does not look accurate based on other related data, then it is discarded or is put in a separate unpublished area where it can be reviewed at a later data if more information becomes available. If we waited for five separate testers to submit data, very little new data would ever be added and this would restrict people’s ability to find starting points. The key thing here is that all development times are starting points, there is no such thing as an absolute time. There are 20,000+ times in the chart, so it is simply unrealistic to expect every single entry to be as accurate as any other. There will be variance, but every time should be a useful starting point and any time which we discover to be misleading is removed.

You cannot trust manufacturer’s data. Do you know how many manufacturer’s simply copy their data from our chart? Only the data which the manufacturer verifies was tested in their own lab by their own technician’s is truly “official”. As far as I know, there is no manufacturer which lists the source of its own times and almost every one of them combines in-house professional times with externally submitted times from reliable sources. However, just like in our chart, some of this data is not perfect.

Finally, there are several sites and apps which have stolen our data and many people who don’t seem to realised the time and effort which has gone in over 25 years to build the chart and simply think they have free unlicensed access to use it for their own profit. I wish the world was full of ethical people, but running an online site has taught me that there is a very large body of people with no ethics whatsoever. For that reason we cannot publish the source of each time. If we were to do so, someone could easily run a script to harvest the data provided solely by manufacturers and copy that entire section of the chart and publish it for free, despite having done none of the data input which was so time-consuming. Basically, if we publish the sources, the people can rip us off and demonstrate that they have not infringed on the copyrighted data. This has always bothered me as I would love to publish the sources and they are in the database, but they are hidden from any access. All I can suggest is that if you have any questions about sources for specific times, just write to me and ask and I will let you know."
---

Thanks for giving us his reply.

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I have not had enough drift to matter. I do not use control strips.

 

[Sirius Glass]

@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.

Replenishing is easy. The change is speed loss is so small it is not worth noting. My hazardous waste disposal is near by. If "taking old chemicals to my local hazmat is even bigger pain in the ass" you should take your film to be processed by someone who cares about the environment. The rest of us have to live on this planet.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks! I'll give that a try. My last question for you is: How forgiving is this process? I am using a 1000ml working solution accordion bottle and I just developed my first two rolls with it. I am planning on replenishing 140ml and developing my thrid and fourth rolls at 1+1 time. Would you recommend I gradually increase my development time to 1+1 for the first 6 rolls until my working solution is "seasoned"?

Very forgiving. Instead of waiting to develop several rolls before starting replenishment, I just replenish starting at the first roll and that has never been a problem.

 

[Sirius Glass]

These are bad news! They are often highly oxygen permeable, and they are just about impossible to properly clean.

I found that the accordion bottle leaking air too easily. I use StopLossBags. See StopLossBags.com

 

[MattKing]

I see the chart. I guess I'll mix my 1L (already used for 2 rolls) into my new 2L container (that gets delivered tomorrow- thanks!), process at normal times for my next 4 rolls, then change my time to 10 1/2 minutes at 20C?

For those next 4 rolls, increment your time 1/5 of the time difference between the stock X-Tol times and the 1 + 1 times. For example, if the time difference in total is 2.5 minutes, increase the time by 0.5 minutes (30 seconds) each roll.it is really helpful to have a wide mouth container bigger than 1 litre to pour the just used developer into at the end of the development stage. I use a 2 litre Paterson graduate for that purpose, but any easily handled and easily cleaned container will do. That permits you to wait until it is convenient before you pour the requisite amount of the recently used developer back into the working solution bottle (after the correct amount of replenisher has been added to that bottle). Otherwise, things can be rushed.

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

Can I ask what you do with the discarded Xtol chemical when not replenishing? I understand why you may need to take old chemicals to the local hazmat but doesn't the same apply to your "use once and dump" chemical as well?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Steven Lee]

Replenishing is easy.

If you do it properly, it is not. You just don't bother.

The change is speed loss is so small it is not worth noting.

If your standards are too low, perhaps you shouldn't be giving advice to people?

My hazardous waste disposal is near by. If "taking old chemicals to my local hazmat is even bigger pain in the ass" you should take your film to be processed by someone who cares about the environment. The rest of us have to live on this planet.

Practice reading comprehension. Not only it will allow you to interpret fellow photrio members comments in a more charitable way, it may also help with datasheets and camera manuals. I replenish specifically to reduce the frequency of hazmat trips. Reduced environmental impact is the only benefit of replenishing.

 

[Steven Lee]

Can I ask what you do with the discarded Xtol chemical when not replenishing? I understand why you may need to take old chemicals to the local hazmat but doesn't the same apply to your "use once and dump" chemical as well?

In California we have to take everything to hazmat. Replenishing allows to dramatically cut the frequency of hazmat trips, because you're only accumulating 70-100ml of used developer per roll. I keep a bunch of milk jars with old chemicals in a shed and take them once a year or so. Most of it is C-41 though, because I use that one-shot, just like you said.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you do it properly, it is not. You just don't bother.



If your standards are too low, perhaps you shouldn't be giving advice to people?



Practice reading comprehension. Not only it will allow you to interpret fellow photrio members comments in a more charitable way, it may also help with datasheets and camera manuals. I replenish specifically to reduce the frequency of hazmat trips. Reduced environmental impact is the only benefit of replenishing.

I do it properly. It is not rocket science. My standards meet the requirements to hand chemistry and photography expected by Kodak. If you want to expend more effort, that is your decision and that is your personal business.

 

[Steven Lee]

My standards meet the requirements to hand chemistry and photography expected by Kodak.

You don't know whether they meet Kodak standards. You never measured. Your results meet your standards, and that's OK. Just be very clear about that when you offer advice.

 

[remjet5219]

In California we have to take everything to hazmat. Replenishing allows to dramatically cut the frequency of hazmat trips, because you're only accumulating 70-100ml of used developer per roll. I keep a bunch of milk jars with old chemicals in a shed and take them once a year or so. Most of it is C-41 though, because I use that one-shot, just like you said.

I take everything to hazmat but I have also heard that Xtol is not that hazardous to the environment, it’s really the fixer which accumulates silver. Is that right?

 

[remjet5219]

You don't know whether they meet Kodak standards. You never measured. Your results meet your standards, and that's OK. Just be very clear about that when you offer advice.

Just to clarify, if I were to just start replenishing from my first roll instead of properly seasoning and measuring, would the inconsistency be so large that it couldn’t be fixed in photoshop? As a beginner to replenishing I’m inclined to do the simplest and learn along the way to make my process more intricate as I continue to understand it more.

 

[pentaxuser]

In California we have to take everything to hazmat. Replenishing allows to dramatically cut the frequency of hazmat trips, because you're only accumulating 70-100ml of used developer per roll. I keep a bunch of milk jars with old chemicals in a shed and take them once a year or so. Most of it is C-41 though, because I use that one-shot, just like you said.

Thanks I asked the question because my original reading of your statement was that replenishment was a pain as it involved taking old chems to the hazmat so you take the lesser pain which I had assumed was one-off developer and dump and not taking it to the hazmat since you mentioned "lesser pain ". Hence my question

I just wrongly had the impression that you didn't do replenishment at all as you saw no advantage in it but as everything goes to hazmat then despite its pain it is the lesser of two evils as it saves on hazmat journeys

Things are a little different in the U.K. where especially with Xtol and the amount of chemicals produced by the relatively few home processing enthusiasts in relation to the amount of sewerage and effluent produced by the population at large it is acceptable to dump them down the main drain for waste

pentaxuser

 

[tom williams]

I take everything to hazmat but I have also heard that Xtol is not that hazardous to the environment, it’s really the fixer which accumulates silver. Is that right?

From the Sino-Promise XTOL SDS:
6. Accidental release measures
Environmental precautions Avoid discharge into drains, water courses or onto the ground.

13. Disposal considerations
Collect and reclaim or dispose in sealed containers at licensed waste disposal site. Dispose of
contents/container in accordance with local/regional/national/international regulations.

 

[Steven Lee]

would the inconsistency be so large that it couldn’t be fixed in photoshop?

Photoshop is a superweapon. Almost everything can be fixed in Photoshop. Inconsistency becomes an issue is in situations when other confounding errors are present, for example your exposure and scene contrast may put you right on the edge of losing the highlights, and a bump in developer activity may just be the last straw that makes a Photoshop recovery unlikely. [1]

But for an average negative this doesn't apply. I would even say that for an average negative in Photoshop even the choice of developer doesn't matter much. Bend that curve to your will.

I take everything to hazmat but I have also heard that Xtol is not that hazardous to the environment, it’s really the fixer which accumulates silver. Is that right?

I am no chemist, but the page on the DTSC website lists photo chemicals and "photo processing waste" as toxic materials (with a code number) that must be recycled properly. So I follow the instructions. They do not discriminate fixer vs bleach vs developer. Besides, from a practical perspective this makes no difference: if you're already collecting fixer for a hazmat trip, might as well take the developer too.

[1] IMO the pattern is that everything we make is an outcome of sequences of decisions. No step is usually too critical, but errors can accumulate and form a critical mass. Photography is already plenty exposed to chance, why add additional variability by not developing properly, especially when it's indeed not a rocket science?

 

[remjet5219]

So we can generally agree that with replenished formula a safe bet is the small tank 1:1 development times?

Steve, I tried doing the ratio conversions from rotary tubes like you suggested but the numbers don't seem that easy (25:34, 3:4, etc) that I don't want to get it wrong.