Diluted Xtol, have you read this?

removed account4 · Jan 6, 2019

NB23 said:
Mixing developers is the worst thing one can do because developers work at different ph, therefore mixing them will weaken the solution.

Lots of people will add a “dash” of rodinal to, say, D76 in order to get more grit out of their negatives. No jokes, I’ve read this a lot over the years. It’s just as funny as relying on stand development to reduce grain.

Lotsa myths going on.

IDK
i have been adding a dash of either ansco 130 or dektol ot my caffenol c for 12 + years,
it doesn't weaken any solution, the lasts 5-6 months, 100s of rolls without replenishment
and works swimmingly. i have short-stand developed with it too ( 30 mins ? ) not to reduce grain
but because i had other things to do for 1/2 hour, and didn't have time to deal with agitation .. again
negatives came out great, can't complain .. they weren't lacking density or contrast and made / make
killer contact and enlarged prints and scans ...
but before i added a dash of print developer my negatives sometimes lacked density and contrast
just like they looked when i used xtol ( must be a vit c developer thang ) ... LOL
not really a myth, at least for me ... but as they say YMMV
ps. i just processed another 17-18 rolls using the developer a week or 2 ago, it was mixed around september..

removed account4 · Jan 6, 2019

Peter Schrager said:
John send me your next roll and I'll develop it for you....I'll even pay shipping both ways

Peter Schrager said:
Ok xtol is about $9 per bag. Gives you 5 liters
And stores almost indefinitely in filled proper glass bottles. I get full film speed
I have used it since it was released and have made great negatives and more important killer prints from those negatives. Oh and you mix up in a pail....any developer works I just made this one mine. I could care less about the developer flavor of the week crowd.

that's ok peter, i appreciate the offer, im done with trying new developers since i have one that has done well by me for more than a decade ... and another i have been using for nearly 2 decades .
as they say around here " i'm all set " .. glad the x tol works for you and the others, that's all that matters in the end ..

NB23 · Jan 6, 2019

Your satisfaction ansco sure sounds like my satisfaction with XTOL.

And for having not tested the working ph of each developer and make them work together was a lucky shot for sure.
But doesn’t adding a “dash”, as opposed to adding a “diluted dash equivalent to the diluted main solution” simply make the end solution stronger?
Therefore why not mixing Xtol to a higher solution, making it 4.5 liters instead of 5 liters?

Maybe this whole time you simply disliked the gama value of your negatives and mixed that for a supposed bad developer?

Food for thought.

jnanian said:
IDK
i have been adding a dash of either ansco 130 or dektol ot my caffenol c for 12 + years,
it doesn't weaken any solution, the lasts 5-6 months, 100s of rolls without replenishment
and works swimmingly. i have short-stand developed with it too ( 30 mins ? ) not to reduce grain
but because i had other things to do for 1/2 hour, and didn't have time to deal with agitation .. again
negatives came out great, can't complain .. they weren't lacking density or contrast and made / make
killer contact and enlarged prints and scans ...
but before i added a dash of print developer my negatives sometimes lacked density and contrast
just like they looked when i used xtol ( must be a vit c developer thang ) ... LOL
not really a myth, at least for me ... but as they say YMMV
ps. i just processed another 17-18 rolls using the developer a week or 2 ago, it was mixed around september..

RalphLambrecht · Jan 6, 2019

David Lyga said:
I warn all reading this: if you dare to dilute XTOL you are at risk of obtaining nothing or an image greatly compromised in quality. On the other hand, you just might get a perfect image. Water quality becomes a major concern with this developer. And ... this is one of the few developers out there which shows no visible signs of turning bad. An oxidated (thus useless) XTOL looks just as good as a robust one. I never use this developer. - David Lyga

I used it once with Dmax and got a clear film; never used it again.

Ian Grant · Jan 6, 2019

Apart from the initial packaging issue which was very short lived and rare I've never heard any genuine issues caused by using Xtol, Most developers have a finite shelf life once mixed it's easy to mark a a date on a bottle.

Xtol is the best film developer Kodak have ever made, gives superb results. I used it always replenished from it's UK launch until about 2008, the only reason I stopped using it was I'd moved abroad and hadn't a darkroom. I was often processing hundreds of sheets and roll of films a year in Xtol, it's such a reliable developer and far better than ID-11/D76. I'd add none of my friends ever had an issue either.

There's too many false stories and opinions by people with little experience. The most economic commercial developer on the market when used replenished.

Ian

Sirius Glass · Jan 6, 2019

I did not finish the statement. Because you are careful and consistent in your lab work, you can get great results. Good lab practices are important.

removed account4 · Jan 6, 2019

NB23 said:
Your satisfaction ansco sure sounds like my satisfaction with XTOL.

And for having not tested the working ph of each developer and make them work together was a lucky shot for sure.
But doesn’t adding a “dash”, as opposed to adding a “diluted dash equivalent to the diluted main solution” simply make the end solution stronger?
Therefore why not mixing Xtol to a higher solution, making it 4.5 liters instead of 5 liters?

Maybe this whole time you simply disliked the gama value of your negatives and mixed that for a supposed bad developer?

Food for thought.

maybe, no clue cause i don't know what any of the gama values of my negatives were
all i know was i'd shoot film in a variety of light conditions bracket my exposures and bracket my processing
all i got was flat film, no matter what i did .. eventually i just used straight undilute xtol nothing really changed except
me, i just decided i wasn't going to expend anymore effort on that so i started using ansco 130 shot film in the same light conditions
and what a difference ! as the photolab index would say " snappy crisp negatives" and that was without even trying...
i didn't add a diluted dash &c just a splash, that i eventually measured to be between 15 and 20cc/L
again, im glad people are stoked about xtol from what i have read for IDK 20 years LOL its great stuff
not to mention watching that orange looking stuff turn clear is almost as much fun as pouring blackblue AH dye into developer and it vanishing ...

Ian Grant · Jan 6, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
I did not finish the statement. Because you are careful and consistent in your lab work, you can get great results. Good lab practices are important.

And that's regardless of what developer you use, you're actually more likely to have D76/ID-11 fail than Xtol

Ian

Kawaiithulhu · Jan 6, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
I did not finish the statement. Because you are careful and consistent in your lab work, you can get great results. Good lab practices are important.

I really wish that everyone could go through at least High School level chemistry + lab, explosions and smoke aside the basic ideas and thought processes are so useful.

KenS · Jan 6, 2019

I "gave up" on Kodak/Ilford developers just after the 'local' photography store closed.. It is still a 2 hour drive to the nearest vendor...which greatly increases the cost per gallon of developer... so I decided to do some 'playing around'.after some 'hunting and reading' about alternatives,,,.. then... after reading Dr Sandy KIng's 'tomes' on Pyrocat HD....and 'investing in the ''raw chemicals" from Art Craft (in NY) for Pyrocat HD which are 'still weighed out' on a somewhat antique three-beam balance ,... doing some 'personal' testing...(the results of which I am more than just 'happy') when used in my BTZS tubes (hand rotated in a Tupperware 'tub' for both 4x5 and 8x10 inch negatives). I honestly believe that I'm now getting 'sharper' grain and good tonal negatives after having had to purchase commercial 'ready to go'developers from 'that' far away

Ken

ericdan · Jan 6, 2019

I developed 65 rolls of Tri-X/P3200 in Xtol 1:1 in 2018.
It looks different from D-76 but I don't know how to explain it. I really like the results.
I used distilled water and mix the powder into 2.5 liters instead of 5 liters. I keep the double stock solution in PET bottles. I use wine preserve inert gas with partially empty bottles. No issues at all so far, but I always test with leaders anyhow.
Wanna try this developer replenished, but I think I don't shoot enough for that.

NB23 · Jan 7, 2019

I don’t want to be argumentative but it sounds like you’re simply over developing your negs. Crisp and sharp negative is a telltale sign of that.

A crisp negative is not something that’s desirable. It looks good to the eye but it doesn’t print easily and a lot of the tonality is lost on print. A correct negative will look slightly under developed. Especially tmax 100 and tri-x. For example, a correctly developed Tmax 100 will definitely look under-developed to the naked eye but that’s unimportant because it will print with a full tonal scale. An over-developed Tmax 100 negative will look sharp and crisp and beautiful to the naked eye but it won’t translate on paper. It’s definitely a funny film but thats how Tmax 100 is; a well developed tmax 100 film will always look a little thin.

Even HP5 cannot be judged to the naked eye. My most beautiful HP5 prints come from begatives that are dark and flat on the ligh table and very hard to judge. But the detail and tones I extract from it on a print is amazing.

The only film that I know that can be judged by simply looking at it, is Fomapan 100.

Now I don’t know how your negatives look to the naked eye as I haven’t seen them, but if you say that your negatives are sharp and crisp, I will immediately think over-development.

jnanian said:
maybe, no clue cause i don't know what any of the gama values of my negatives were
all i know was i'd shoot film in a variety of light conditions bracket my exposures and bracket my processing
all i got was flat film, no matter what i did .. eventually i just used straight undilute xtol nothing really changed except
me, i just decided i wasn't going to expend anymore effort on that so i started using ansco 130 shot film in the same light conditions
and what a difference ! as the photolab index would say " snappy crisp negatives" and that was without even trying...
i didn't add a diluted dash &c just a splash, that i eventually measured to be between 15 and 20cc/L
again, im glad people are stoked about xtol from what i have read for IDK 20 years LOL its great stuff
not to mention watching that orange looking stuff turn clear is almost as much fun as pouring blackblue AH dye into developer and it vanishing ...

RalphLambrecht · Jan 7, 2019

jnanian said:
IDK
i have been adding a dash of either ansco 130 or dektol ot my caffenol c for 12 + years,
it doesn't weaken any solution, the lasts 5-6 months, 100s of rolls without replenishment
and works swimmingly. i have short-stand developed with it too ( 30 mins ? ) not to reduce grain
but because i had other things to do for 1/2 hour, and didn't have time to deal with agitation .. again
negatives came out great, can't complain .. they weren't lacking density or contrast and made / make
killer contact and enlarged prints and scans ...
but before i added a dash of print developer my negatives sometimes lacked density and contrast
just like they looked when i used xtol ( must be a vit c developer thang ) ... LOL
not really a myth, at least for me ... but as they say YMMV
ps. i just processed another 17-18 rolls using the developer a week or 2 ago, it was mixed around september..

developer chemistry is for people who know what they're doing.

lantau · Jan 7, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
Of course because you

Los Angeles has very hard water. I have found no problems using tap water for mixing chemicals. Most water sources will work for mixing chemicals, but if one has problems with the water, then use distilled water.

The datasheet mentions that the water supply shouldn't exceed 200ppm of CaCO3. That is how water hardness is stated in the US. That would be '200mg/L calculated CaCO3', a value that is also provided in the periodic analysis reports on the website of my supplier. I have hard water at 240mg/L (9°dH in Germany) and Kodak calls >200 exceptionally hard. But there is even harder water than my tap water.

If your water exceeds 200ppm Kodak recommends treatment to avoid cloudiness when using higher dilutions. I guess that means stock Xtol can handle very hard water. but I generally use demin. Water for photochemicals.

removed account4 · Jan 7, 2019

snip snbip snip

NB23 said:
Now I don’t know how your negatives look to the naked eye as I haven’t seen them, but if you say that your negatives are sharp and crisp, I will immediately think over-development.

thanks for the advice but i'm all set.
ive been extremely happy with my film
for decades and have no reason to change developers
sorry do dissapoint, im not a flavor-of-the-month-photographer
like most people these days seem to be.
i don't change film or developers on a whim &c &c

nope you don't know what my negatives currently look like or looked when i used xtol.
as i have said previously-- for many years
my negatives lacked density and contrast. they were pathetically weak.

RalphLambrecht said:
developer chemistry is for people who know what they're doing.

you crack me up ralph.
i guess i certainly don't know what i am doing
especially after IDK 15,000 rolls and sheets through
in the past 20 years, again, problem free..

thanks for the free advice !
===
again, i am happy people are happy with xtol
more power to them !

NB23 · Jan 8, 2019

“Here have some XTOL. DRINK ITTTTT!!”

Me, if we ever meet around a bottle of vodka.

Hey, I once took a mouthful of stock Dektol while trying to siphon it out of a tray.

jnanian said:
snip snbip snip

thanks for the advice but i'm all set.
ive been extremely happy with my film
for decades and have no reason to change developers
sorry do dissapoint, im not a flavor-of-the-month-photographer
like most people these days seem to be.
i don't change film or developers on a whim &c &c

nope you don't know what my negatives currently look like or looked when i used xtol.
as i have said previously-- for many years
my negatives lacked density and contrast. they were pathetically weak.

you crack me up ralph.
i guess i certainly don't know what i am doing
especially after IDK 15,000 rolls and sheets through
in the past 20 years, again, problem free..

thanks for the free advice !
===
again, i am happy people are happy with xtol
more power to them !

Man

removed account4 · Jan 8, 2019

NB23 said:
Man

LOL exactly what i was thinking as i read your post
that, and .. people loves their xtol !

disgussing xtol over vodka sounds great but
methinks i would turn from to
in no time

have a fantastic day/night/morning!

SchwinnParamount · Jan 8, 2019

paulbarden said:
Anyone who uses aging/questionable developer without first testing its activity on a snippet of film beforehand, has only themselves to blame for the outcome, not the developer formula.

Agreed: But at what point should I consider my XTOL "aged" or"questionable"? I don't have any guidance on aging or questionably from the manufacturer. Not sarcastic here. I haven't ever considered this before, having in the past had the budget for ridiculous wastage of chemicals... Now that I am closer to retirement, I really need to consider frugality in my darkroom.

MattKing · Jan 8, 2019

John M Austin said:
Agreed: But at what point should I consider my XTOL "aged" or"questionable"? I don't have any guidance on aging or questionably from the manufacturer. Not sarcastic here. I haven't ever considered this before, having in the past had the budget for ridiculous wastage of chemicals... Now that I am closer to retirement, I really need to consider frugality in my darkroom.

The Kodak data sheet is here: http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/J-109_Feb_2018.pdf
On page 2, it indicates as follows:

"STORING SOLUTIONS
Storage of Mixed Solutions
Store mixed KODAK PROFESSIONAL XTOL Developer in full, tightly closed containers or in a replenisher tank with a floating lid. To maintain shelf life, minimize the amount of air space in the storage container. Partially filled containers allow oxidation of the solution.
STORAGE LIFE OF UNUSED SOLUTIONS
In Full, Tightly Closed Container Container: 6 months
In In Partially Filled, Tightly Closed Container: At least 2 months
In Replenisher Tank with Floating Lid: Indefinitely if new solution is added to replaced that used by the processor
Note: If you use XTOL Developer diluted 1:1, dilute it just before you use it, and discard it after processing one batch of film. Do not reuse or replenish this diluted solution."

I am a strong proponent of using X-Tol replenished - and floating lids and large tanks are not necessary. It is a tremendously good developer when you use it that way, it will last for a long time if you are diligent, and it ends up being really inexpensive - one 5 litre package will cost you around $10.00 and will process about 70 rolls of film.

This thread has lots of useful discussion: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/using-and-replenishing-xtol.144796/

rbultman · Jan 8, 2019

John M Austin said:
Agreed: But at what point should I consider my XTOL "aged" or"questionable"? I don't have any guidance on aging or questionably from the manufacturer. Not sarcastic here. I haven't ever considered this before, having in the past had the budget for ridiculous wastage of chemicals... Now that I am closer to retirement, I really need to consider frugality in my darkroom.

It depends on how you store it. I take the view that it's not that expensive so if I haven't touched it for 6 months, I pitched it and make more. I'm in the "I've never had a problem with XTOL" camp. After losing a couple of films with an alternate home brew developer, I switched back to XTOL and always run a film test at the start of a developing session. I just mix up the chems and immerse 1/2 of a short piece of film (a few inches) in the 1:1 solution. I leave the other half in air. I "develop for the recommended time, then stop and fix per usual. If the test strip is half black and half clear, that means my chems are working ok. This has been my process for about 10 years.

Andrew O'Neill · Jan 8, 2019

MattKing said:
The Kodak data sheet is here: http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/J-109_Feb_2018.pdf
On page 2, it indicates as follows:

"STORING SOLUTIONS
Storage of Mixed Solutions
Store mixed KODAK PROFESSIONAL XTOL Developer in full, tightly closed containers or in a replenisher tank with a floating lid. To maintain shelf life, minimize the amount of air space in the storage container. Partially filled containers allow oxidation of the solution.
STORAGE LIFE OF UNUSED SOLUTIONS
In Full, Tightly Closed Container Container: 6 months
In In Partially Filled, Tightly Closed Container: At least 2 months
In Replenisher Tank with Floating Lid: Indefinitely if new solution is added to replaced that used by the processor
Note: If you use XTOL Developer diluted 1:1, dilute it just before you use it, and discard it after processing one batch of film. Do not reuse or replenish this diluted solution."

I am a strong proponent of using X-Tol replenished - and floating lids and large tanks are not necessary. It is a tremendously good developer when you use it that way, it will last for a long time if you are diligent, and it ends up being really inexpensive - one 5 litre package will cost you around $10.00 and will process about 70 rolls of film.

This thread has lots of useful discussion: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/using-and-replenishing-xtol.144796/

Is that $10 Canadian, Matt? I thought I saw it for much more at Beau Photo a few years back...

MattKing · Jan 8, 2019

Andrew O'Neill said:
Is that $10 Canadian, Matt? I thought I saw it for much more at Beau Photo a few years back...

$10.00 USD Andrew.
It is about $20.00 CDN at Beau now, I believe.

SchwinnParamount · Jan 9, 2019

Oh gosh, Matt and Andrew are both in BC. How far are both of you from Seattle? (not to be a thread thief...)

MattKing · Jan 9, 2019

John M Austin said:
Oh gosh, Matt and Andrew are both in BC. How far are both of you from Seattle? (not to be a thread thief...)

Quite close.
Using Glazer's in Seattle as a reference location, the Peace Arch border crossing is about 90 miles from there, and I live just a few miles from the border crossing. Andrew is just a bit farther.
Come to think of it, I think I bought my most recent $10.00 USD package of X-Tol from Glazer's.

SchwinnParamount · Jan 9, 2019

MattKing said:
Quite close.
Using Glazer's in Seattle as a reference location, the Peace Arch border crossing is about 90 miles from there, and I live just a few miles from the border crossing. Andrew is just a bit farther.
Come to think of it, I think I bought my most recent $10.00 USD package of X-Tol from Glazer's.

Oh gosh Matt, I bought about $50 in XTOL from Glazer's 2 months ago. It would be AWESOME if you, Andrew, and I could coordinate some kind of trip where we all have our cameras. My youngest son attends Western Washington U in Belling ham and I go there about once a month to deliver care packages. Meet there?

Diluted Xtol, have you read this?

removed account4

removed account4

NB23

RalphLambrecht

Ian Grant

Sirius Glass

removed account4

Ian Grant

Kawaiithulhu

KenS

ericdan

NB23

RalphLambrecht

lantau

removed account4

NB23

removed account4

SchwinnParamount

MattKing

Moderator

rbultman

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

MattKing

Moderator

SchwinnParamount

MattKing

Moderator

SchwinnParamount

Diluted Xtol, have you read this?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency