bvy
Allowing Ads
There is something in your environment that is extra-ordinary. Over-developed edges, flaking film, X-Tol that dies far faster than for just about anyone else.
I feel for you, but I don't understand it at all!
Sure. XTOL mixed using (and, at time of use, diluted with) distilled water, then stored in glass, not plastic, bottles of a size equal to what you use per one-shot roll/batch. See hereSudden death is real, and I'll not risk it again...Too bad, because I liked the results I was getting when things worked out...I'm open to suggestions for another developer that works well with constant agitation. And maybe isn't so volatile.
Why constant agitation ? Where is the benefit here ? I am at the other end of the spectrum with minimal agitation. HC-110 can be very versatile especially when diluted sufficiently. There is more to life than Dilution B. I feel for your loss with Xtol though as the same happened to me with Ilfosol years ago. It is highly frustrating to loose negatives that held potentially great images.Thanks Matt. I'm sure I can find it. I liked using it 1+1 for different reasons, but maybe I'll revisit it.
The only reason I switched from HC-110 is because, by all accounts, it was too active for constant agitation.
Why constant agitation ? Where is the benefit here ?
Hi Bill, I understand the mechanics, but not the benefits image wise. I learnt a lot from the information in the following link.If you can accept constant agitation, then you can use automated equipment, like a Jobo for example...
The benefit for me is even development. This is how I won the battle with airbells and/or foam (with Acros). When I think of all the film I burned and time I wasted putting esoteric agitation techniques to the test, I'm sorry I didn't do it sooner. I'm getting beautifully even negatives now.Why constant agitation ? Where is the benefit here ?
Glad it works for you. I hope you find something to replace Xtol. Perhaps dilute HC-110 ?The benefit for me is even development. This is how I won the battle with airbells and/or foam (with Acros). When I think of all the film I burned and time I wasted putting esoteric agitation techniques to the test, I'm sorry I didn't do it sooner. I'm getting beautifully even negatives now.
And what Bill said.
Hmmm...(like D-23)
I've had good luck with plastic -- granted, thicker plastic that holds more solution. But, yes. Lesson learned. My last two successes with XTOL were from small glass bottles with polyseal caps, filled to capacity.you may want to consider glass instead of plastic
I have a theory, and no way to test, that those plastic squeeze bottles increase, rather than decrease, oxidation. When one squeezes the bottle and screws on the cap the bottle is in tension trying to restore it's shape. The tendency would be to suck in air through the side walls. For that reason I keep all developers in glass. I don't think the surface area of a well stoppered bottle is significant.
The negative is very thin but the images can be made out. I used half of the 300ml of developer to make a 1+1 solution, so I had some of the sample left. I took a clip of film, cut it in half, and dropped one into this stock solution and the other into known good (or better) stock solution. The latter turned almost black in four minutes; the former did not, but it did darken."Sudden death" is just that Xtol loses ALL developing action not just a partial amount. What the OP is seeing may not even be Xtol's fault. Need more information.
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?