Emulate Xtol replished with one-shot--why not?

[bluechromis]

I have heard people say that replenished Xtol has a special je ne sais quoi that one-shot Xtol lacks. As a batch of replenished Xtol becomes seasoned, presumably it is accumulating development by-products like bromides. Why is it then that these materials cannot be added to one-shot to get a similar effect?

 

[removedacct1]

I have heard people say that replenished Xtol has a special je ne sais quoi that one-shot Xtol lacks. As a batch of replenished Xtol becomes seasoned, presumably it is accumulating development by-products like bromides. Why is it then that these materials cannot be added to one-shot to get a similar effect?

FX-37 has Bromide added.

http://home.alphalink.com.au/~simgrant/jackspcs/fx37.htm

 

[Sirius Glass]

Wine and Whiskeys are aged to improve the taste. Why not add the aging ingredients in at the beginning and save the aging time?

 

[Mr Bill]

Why is it then that these materials cannot be added to one-shot to get a similar effect?

I'm sure it could be done if the manufacturer felt that it is worthwhile. That is essentially what is done with the standard color developers - it is called a "starter solution."

 

[MattKing]

Those colour starter solutions are also recommended for X-Tol and other replenishment developers.
I expect that it would be very challenging to arrive at a practical set of instructions for mixing the starter and fresh developer on a roll by roll basis.

 

[radiant]

The je ne sais quoi = people seeing what they want to see.

Well said. And people also believe in what they feel.

We make decisions by feeling and rationalize the decisions by sense.

 

[Frank53]

Imo the only thing special on replenishing xtol is that it’s a very economic way of using the developer. You won’t see any difference.
But, as others said, people see what they want to see.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Why is it then that these materials cannot be added to one-shot to get a similar effect?

As others have said, developer starter. For Flexicolor, it's effectively a requirement, even if you're mixing for one-shot, in order to have in-spec developer and not get crossovers and casts. For Xtol, you have the option to season if you'll be replenishing; time adjustments can get you to correct contrast index easily enough -- and it's only a half dozen rolls to a steady state.

people see what they want to see.

This is akin to "pareidolia" -- seeing patterns that aren't there. It's something our brains are hardwired to do, it lets a hunter-gatherer who is also a prey animal survive. In the modern world, it's good news and bad news...

 

[bluechromis]

Thanks all, for the feedback. That is useful to know that one shot Xtol is on par aesthetically with replenished. This might be an argument for home mixed Xtol clones like Mytol and Instant Mytol. An advantage of these is that they are not subject to capricious changes by the manufacturer. They mostly don't have the shelf life of stock that Xtol has, but if used in a one-shot, mix-and-use way that isn't important. One version of Instant Mytol has a part A made up in glycol has a decent shelf life. The lower cost of these clones may offset the use of them as a one shot.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not true. A popular myth, though. Right there with micro-contrast, 3d-pop, leica glow and other bs. Stock Xtol produces identical results to replenished Xtol, but if you're bored you can examine the grain structure and you may find that replenished Xtol produces grain that is bit more "tight".



Yes you can do that. It's called a starter (CAT 1466382) and you can read about it in Xtol data sheet. But as far as I know, Kodak stopped selling it. But there's no purpose in this exercise, because replenished Xtol does not offer any image quality benefits vs stock. The purpose of replenishing is to save money.

"Stock Xtol produces identical results to replenished Xtol". I disagree. Replenished XTOL gives much better tonality, tonality smoothness, and better sharpness. Otherwise I would not go to the trouble. Stock XTOL does not produce identical results to replenished XTOL.

 

[radiant]

BTW: how do you compensate the temperature changes? I would guess you cannot keep the developer at constant 20 degrees C temperature?

 

[radiant]

For 8-14 minutes, why not? Assuming the ambient temperature is somewhat close, of course.

Sorry, I was a bit unclear. I mean how do you bring the developer to that temperature before developing? Or do you all have darkroom with constant 20 degC temperature?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I mean how do you bring the developer to that temperature before developing?

Same way we'd bring color chemistry to 38C -- with a water bath. Usually cold tap water is close to the local average temperature (i.e. ground temperature, commonly between 13 and 18C in temperate regions), which is mostly colder than you need for development (unless you're in the deep south in mid-late summer); that means you can mix cold tap water with a controlled amount of hot tap water to get the bath temperature where you want it.

 

[radiant]

I try to ask again: Is anyone compensating the development time based on developer temperature or is bathing the developer jug to 20degC only way to get to correct temperature before development?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I routinely adjust time for the actual temperature, but some of the strictest here will call my process haphazard and sloppy anyway -- I don't keep long term records, set a process time to closer than 30 seconds, keep proof prints with the negatives, etc.

 

[Sirius Glass]

@Sirius Glass Here we go: Delta 400 scanned at the same settings. Half of these are replenished. Time to instantly recognize the superior tonality! Ready! Set! Go!

https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/xtol-test/maru-sushi.jpg
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/xtol-test/closer-portrait.jpg
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/xtol-test/deville2.jpg
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/xtol-test/hello-o-o.jpg
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/xtol-test/kids-and-cannon.jpg
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/xtol-test/reader.jpg
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/xtol-test/masked-dogwalker.jpg
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/xtol-test/on-the-edge.jpg

I use Tri-X. Not the same results.

 

[removedacct1]

"Stock Xtol produces identical results to replenished Xtol". I disagree. Replenished XTOL gives much better tonality, tonality smoothness, and better sharpness. Otherwise I would not go to the trouble. Stock XTOL does not produce identical results to replenished XTOL.

Until someone demonstrates this by doing a side-by-side control test, then this is all speculative nonsense and "seeing what I want to see"-ism.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Until someone demonstrates this by doing a side-by-side control test, then this is all speculative nonsense and "seeing what I want to see"-ism.

I am too busy in the darkroom. Do your own side by side tests. <<wink>> <<wink>>

 

[removedacct1]

I am too busy in the darkroom. Do your own side by side tests. <<wink>> <<wink>>

*eyeroll*

 

[focus_on_infinity]

So, if I only develop totally unexposed film, how much Xtol should I replenish for each roll? Also, what would it be if I only took pictures of 18% grey cards?

 

[Donald Qualls]

So, if I only develop totally unexposed film, how much Xtol should I replenish for each roll? Also, what would it be if I only took pictures of 18% grey cards?

In the first case, it would depend on the fog level of the film, but you'd have to develop a dozen rolls or more to see the change in activity with standard 70ml/roll replenishment rate (and you'd have to develop something with images, or at least a step wedge on it to see that change in activity). For a gray card, if the frame is filled with the 18% gray, you should get the same long-term response to replenishment you would with "average" contrast scenes, correctly metered. That is, 18% gray should give the same overall amount of developed silver as a normal scene, on average.

Of course, the other result is that your wallet will slowly empty (or not so slowly, depending how much of this you do) without having any prints or scans to enjoy.

I recommend actually making pictures and following Kodak's instructions on replenishment. You'll have much more to show afterward...

 

[radiant]

I routinely adjust time for the actual temperature, but some of the strictest here will call my process haphazard and sloppy anyway -- I don't keep long term records, set a process time to closer than 30 seconds, keep proof prints with the negatives, etc.

Nice to hear. Are you using Ilford compensation table?

Particularly when developing film (as opposed to paper), try to keep the temperature of the whole process relatively constant if possible. This usually means standardizing on the wash water temperature.

All my other temperatures except developer are all over. I think fixer works faster when a bit more warmer than 20degC. I usually raise the temperature during washing gradually to the last wash in hopes that warm water washes better

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I prefer to use XTOL replenished. All I could say that the image is "mellower". The contrast seems slightly different than one shot XTOL. I use HC-110 replenished. I got an old batch from Ebay. To me, film in seasoned developer looks better. It's more economical too.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Nice to hear. Are you using Ilford compensation table?

All my other temperatures except developer are all over. I think fixer works faster when a bit more warmer than 20degC. I usually raise the temperature during washing gradually to the last wash in hopes that warm water washes better

These days, I use the automatic calculation in the "Dev-It" app on my Android phone, but in the past I used a simple 4% per degree F (~ 7% per degree C) correction. In my experience, this is valid for most developers (specifically including Parodinal, D-23, HC-110, and Dektol/D-72 at film dilution) as long as you're above 15C (below that temperature, hydroquinone becomes inactive, and you lose its superadditive effect as well for developers with HQ). The "Dev-It" app agrees gives the same values I've gotten by hand when I've checked it, and I've found it valid over the same range with Xtol-R.

According to Cinestill (in the extended instruction sheet for Df96 monobath) temperature has less effect on fixing than it does on development. If you want fixer to work faster, agitate it more. Won't do any harm to have it warmer, though, as long as you don't have more than a couple degrees C difference from one bath to the next.

 

[radiant]

but in the past I used a simple 4% per degree F (~ 7% per degree C) correction

That doesn't seem to be in line with ilford graph (https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Temperature-compensation-chart.pdf). For example 20degC 6 minutes in 21degC should be 5.5 minutes. If you reduce time by 4% you end up in 346 seconds or 5 min and 46 seconds. Ilford graph says it should be 5 min 30 seconds.