Help diagnose a development problem, please

Jekyll driftwood

H
Jekyll driftwood

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
It's also a verb.

D
It's also a verb.

  • 1
  • 0
  • 11
The Kildare Track

A
The Kildare Track

  • 11
  • 4
  • 97
Stranger Things.

A
Stranger Things.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 64

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,913
Messages
2,783,015
Members
99,745
Latest member
Javier Tello
Recent bookmarks
0

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,760
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
Short version: Fuji 100 Acros II negatives developed in Kodak XTOL are too thin, with faint edge markings.
---
1. Kodak XTOL, 5 liter kit mixed with distilled water. Mfg. date is 2019/10/07, exp. 2022-10, which is NOT the recalled lot, right? Powders and mixing seemed normal to me, but this was the first time I've prepared XTOL. All of Part A was completely dissolved in slightly warm water before adding Part B, at which point the solution turned from cloudy tan to clear. Aliquoted into 5 black one-liter plastic containers.

2. The next day, I processed a roll of Kodak T-Max 400, in XTOL at 1+1 with distilled water. Results appear to be normal. That one-liter container of XTOL remained 3/4ths full until ...

3. Twelve days later I mixed a 1+1 dilution of XTOL from the 3/4ths full container, using distilled water - and processed a roll of Fuji 100 Acros II - which is the roll that came out too thin. I use a stainless steel spiral reel in a metal tank. Kodak's <data sheet> says XTOL in "Partially Filled, Tightly Closed Containers" should be good for "At least 2 months"

When I was making the 1+1 dilution, I noticed a few small white floating specs which looked something like tiny fibers. I put a couple of layers of Kimtech Lab Wipes in the bottom of a funnel and filtered the solution to remove the specs. The total volume of these white specs was very small. A mono-layer would not fill the hole left by a paper punch.

Using numbers from the <Massive Dev Chart> I intended to develop for ISO 100, 9:30 at 20*C (68*F), but all my solutions were stable at 70*F (21*C), so I used numbers from the time and temperature correction chart <here> which shows 8:30 at 70*F should be equivalent to 9:30 at 68*F. Initial agitation was 30 seconds, then 3 inversions per minute.

The solution from my pre-soak poured off clear, as did the used XTOL after development. However, the fixer poured off as a bright pinkish-purple, and the hypo clearing agent was moderately pink as well. I was still seeing some faint traces of pink in the early stages of the final wash. This was my first roll of Acros, so I don't know if this is normal? I have seen colored solutions with other films, but as I recall, mostly from the pre-soak/developer?

In the first photo below, the Acros negatives are on the left and the T-Max 400 photos are on the right. I metered the Acros at box speed of ISO 100, and for the T-Max 400, I used an EI of 320. Most settings were taken from incident readings, using hand held Gossen and Sekonic light meters. What makes me think this is a developing problem and not an exposure problem is the faint edge markings (second photo); is that a reasonable assumption?

i-JrDfH7H-XL.jpg


i-gZr8WDH-XL.jpg


I suspect my problem may have something to do with my filtering step (?) - either I removed some precipitated ingredient that should have been left in, or the <Kimtech Wipes> may have affected the pH, or ...?

Going forward, I have 4 full liter containers of stock XTOL left. If the remaining bottles have precipitate, should I trash it? Do I need to run a test roll, of throwaway-shots, .... or ... ?
 
Last edited:

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,372
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Increase the time for Fuji 100 Acros II by 15% to 20%. I found that Ilford film with replenished XTOL in a Jobo processor consistently required one minute added to the 68°F [20°C] time. Some film-developer-tank combinations are just that way. YMMV.
 
OP
OP
runswithsizzers

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,760
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
Increase the time for Fuji 100 Acros II by 15% to 20%. I found that Ilford film with replenished XTOL in a Jobo processor consistently required one minute added to the 68°F [20°C] time. Some film-developer-tank combinations are just that way. YMMV.
Thank you. I just edited my post to mention that I use a stainless steel spiral reel in a metal tank. And I also failed to mention that I am using the XTOL 1+1 as one-shot, no replenishment.

I would be curious to know if the edge markings on your Ilford film were as faint as the ones in my second photo before you started adding the extra minute of developing time?
 

Alan9940

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
2,425
Location
Arizona
Format
Multi Format
It appears to me that you have both an exposure AND a development problem. If it was purely a development issue, then all the negs on the same roll would look relatively the same. Personally, I gave up on Xtol years ago for several reasons, but other photographers love it. Also, in my experience all TMax films will reveal pink(ish) fixer, if the film has been properly fixed.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,372
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Thank you. I just edited my post to mention that I use a stainless steel spiral reel in a metal tank. And I also failed to mention that I am using the XTOL 1+1 as one-shot, no replenishment.

I would be curious to know if the edge markings on your Ilford film were as faint as the ones in my second photo before you started adding the extra minute of developing time?

For Jobo processors the replenished XTOL is about the same as 1:1 in a regular tank.
 
OP
OP
runswithsizzers

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,760
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
It appears to me that you have both an exposure AND a development problem. If it was purely a development issue, then all the negs on the same roll would look relatively the same. Personally, I gave up on Xtol years ago for several reasons, but other photographers love it. Also, in my experience all TMax films will reveal pink(ish) fixer, if the film has been properly fixed.
Yes, I agree, there are a few overexposed and underexposed on each roll. I often seek out "tricky" lighting and I have not yet mastered metering basics. I also usually carry two cameras loaded with two different films, and I sometimes forget to change the ISO setting on my meter when switching back and forth. I will probably give up on XTOL, as well, if I can't determine exactly what my problem is, and how to reliably fix it.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,015
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Can we agree that the sheet of negatives on the right side of my first photo look about right? And therefore, this batch of XTOL worked as expected at least once?
Seems so to me.
I wonder about your storage bottles - could thy have been contaminated?
Try another roll of T-Max, or at least a clip of one.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
It appears to me that you have both an exposure AND a development problem. If it was purely a development issue, then all the negs on the same roll would look relatively the same. Personally, I gave up on Xtol years ago for several reasons, but other photographers love it. Also, in my experience all TMax films will reveal pink(ish) fixer, if the film has been properly fixed.
+1

seems your film has been underexposed in-camera quite a bit, and it seems that your negatives look like xtol ( thin ) negatives.
I was never able to get XTOL to work for me either ( after a few years of trying desperately to be in the xtol club ) I consistently had under processed film no matter how I increased time or exposure. many vit c developers seem to be "low contrast" developers.
do you have any other non xtol developers lying around ? Les Mclean wrote something here and on his website about mixing rodinal and xtol together, I don't do that, but I use caffenol C and add a tiny bit of whatever print developer I have lying around in it, and it helps with my similar thinnish looking negatives issue.

have fun and until you get your system worked out I wouldn't use xtol for anything but film to test it with, use a different developer for your "important" work.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
1,289
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
I think you have predominantly an exposure problem. The Acros roll has some negatives that look good, so I don't think underdevelopment alone explains the other very thin negatives. Did you use different cameras for the two rolls? How do you meter?
 
OP
OP
runswithsizzers

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,760
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
Seems so to me.
I wonder about your storage bottles - could thy have been contaminated?
Try another roll of T-Max, or at least a clip of one.
Possibly. The last thing that was in that particular bottle was D-76. I did rinse all the one-liter bottles several times with hot water (can't remember for sure, but I may have used a small amount of Dawn dish soap, followed by numerous hot water rinses). BUT, both rolls were from that same bottle, so if the T-Max 400 is good ...
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
11,996
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
On the Acros roll, some appear to be exposed and developed fine... There are several that are thin (some on the TMY roll are underexposed as well... to my eye). Since some look normal, and some aren't, I don't think it's a development issue, but an exposure issue. The thin ones needed more exposure. I use Acros (pre II stuff), and I expose it at EI 64 (in pyrocat-hd).
 
OP
OP
runswithsizzers

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,760
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
+1

seems your film has been underexposed in-camera quite a bit, and it seems that your negatives look like xtol ( thin ) negatives.
I was never able to get XTOL to work for me either ( after a few years of trying desperately to be in the xtol club ) I consistently had under processed film no matter how I increased time or exposure. many vit c developers seem to be "low contrast" developers.
do you have any other non xtol developers lying around ? Les Mclean wrote something here and on his website about mixing rodinal and xtol together, I don't do that, but I use caffenol C and add a tiny bit of whatever print developer I have lying around in it, and it helps with my similar thinnish looking negatives issue.

have fun and until you get your system worked out I wouldn't use xtol for anything but film to test it with, use a different developer for your "important" work.
I do have some Adox Silvermax developer that is open, but should still be good. I plan to shoot a roll of something, cut it in half, and develop one half in XTOL and the other in Silvermax.
 
Last edited:

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
I've never added another film developer in with the vit c, but print. developer because it is much more active and prone to boost density to the thin vit c developers.. might as well try it, who knows, it might be your silver(max) bullet
 
OP
OP
runswithsizzers

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,760
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
I think you have predominantly an exposure problem. The Acros roll has some negatives that look good, so I don't think underdevelopment alone explains the other very thin negatives. Did you use different cameras for the two rolls? How do you meter?
I have two Pentax MX bodies and these 2 films were exposed in different bodies.

I usually meter each scene with both the camera meter and an incident reading from a hand-held meter. All of the T-Max and half of the Acros was metered with a Gossen LunaLux SBC. The last of the Acros was metered with a Sekonic L-308s. Incident readings from the two meters agree very well. But the readings between the cameras and the incident meters do not agree. But I would expect that, because many of those scenes had large areas of Zone 3 shadows - so the center weighted meters on my cameras want more light than my incident reading of the light.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,372
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
I have two Pentax MX bodies and these 2 films were exposed in different bodies.

I usually meter each scene with both the camera meter and an incident reading from a hand-held meter. All of the T-Max and half of the Acros was metered with a Gossen LunaLux SBC. The last of the Acros was metered with a Sekonic L-308s. Incident readings from the two meters agree very well. But the readings between the cameras and the incident meters do not agree. But I would expect that, because many of those scenes had large areas of Zone 3 shadows - so the center weighted meters on my cameras want more light than my incident reading of the light.

For starters you need to have the two meters calibrated.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,015
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
No one has commented on the very faint edge markings on the Acros. Does that have any significance?
Maybe.
It can be an indicator of underdevelopment, but edge printing (which is exposed at the factory) can vary over time.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,009
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
I was never able to get XTOL to work for me either ( after a few years of trying desperately to be in the xtol club ) I consistently had under processed film no matter how I increased time or exposure. many vit c developers seem to be "low contrast" developers.
I can show you xtol (actually mytol) developed negatives that have through-the-roof contrast. The notion that vit C developers would be inherently low contrast, thin, bloodless, slow, etc. is bogus.
 

relistan

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
1,589
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Format
Multi Format
I can show you xtol (actually mytol) developed negatives that have through-the-roof contrast. The notion that vit C developers would be inherently low contrast, thin, bloodless, slow, etc. is bogus.

I would have been nicer about saying it but yes, I agree. I have loads of rolls through Kodak XTOL with perfectly good density. To head off replies: yes, I print them in the darkroom.

@runswithsizzers if you needed another vote, I'd also say it looks like primarily an exposure problem to me.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
I can show you xtol (actually mytol) developed negatives that have through-the-roof contrast. The notion that vit C developers would be inherently low contrast, thin, bloodless, slow, etc. is bogus.

im glad you were able to get it to work for you. I used it off and on ( xtol, not mytol or any of the xtol clones ) between IDK 1997-8 when it first came out until maybe 2004? used gallons of developer, put hundreds of rolls of film through it, countless sheets of 4x5 film through it, used it as directed, different dilutions extended times, 4 different water supplies, over exposed film upto 3 stops... no matter what I did I got thin lifeless low contrast negatives... and it isn't like I know what I am doing, I had been processing film since IDK 1980 with no issues ever ( except for using xtol ) and even processing film commercially, AND doing assignment work and submissions to archives. usually you over expose a negative and double the agitation and processing time in stock/ undiluted developer you get dense film, right ? didn't happen that way ( even with a rotary processor ) I ended up going completely to ansco 130 after using GAF Universal one summer and seeing such a drastic difference between film processed that I didn't really want to continue using xtol, but I did because I really wanted to be part of the "xtol is the best developer ever" club, ... as said im happy it worked for you ( and others who enjoy using it ) ...
 
OP
OP
runswithsizzers

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,760
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
Thanks so much to everyone who replied! The faint edge markings distracted me from the bigger picture, but now I hope I am back on track.

My plans to test my metering technique and to also compare results from development in XTOL vs. Adox Silvermax developer are somewhat complicated by the weather forcast - rain expected, all day. The vast majority of my photos are exposed out-of-doors on sunny days, so, except for the fact that outdoor light is constantly changing, sunlight and/or open shade would probably be ideal for testing. But ...

Would it be a Bad Idea, to try to set up a test for my light meters and expose some b&w film using artificial light? I do not have any proper photographic / studio lights. I do have some household bulbs - LED and tungsten. I can get halogen, if that would be any better. My local camera shop MAY have some daylight adjusted bulbs; I will check when I buy my test film. I have some old flashes which might produce good negatives for testing the developers, but, obviously are not helpful with testing incident readings from my light meters. (And if you think my ambient exposures are bad, my flash results tend to be really bad.)

Is it possible / likely that either the film or my light meters will respond differently to artificial light (vs. sunlight), and therefore will introduce yet another element of uncertainty into the results? Both of my handheld meters have modern silicon photocells.

About my test target - will printed step-scales tell me what I need to know, or will the limited range of a paper print not present enough tones to show when my exposures start to loose the ability to record shadows and highlights?

Finally, does it matter what film I use for testing? The obvious answer is, Test the film you plan to use most often - but I am still trying to find the one or two I like best. (Right now, I am leaning towards Ilford FP4+ and Delta 400, or possibly, T-Max 100 and 400.) My local camera store does not have a great selection - just a few of the most popular mainstream b&w films from Kodak and Ilford. I guess for testing my metering, I might want a film with the LEAST latitude? Hmmm... that would be slide film, right? But for testing the developers, what should I look for? High speed vs, low speed? Conventional grain vs. tabular? Or does it really matter?
 
Last edited:

bluechromis

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
660
Format
35mm
I do have some Adox Silvermax developer that is open, but should still be good. I plan to shoot a roll of something, cut it in half, and develop one half in XTOL and the other in Silvermax.
I think your bigger problem is exposure, but the test with two developers is not a bad idea and good thing to learn how to do. But ideally you need to shoot the whole roll of the same scene with a wide range of tones at the same exposure. If you shoot all kinds of different stuff at different exposures that introduces confounding variables making it hard to see the effect of the developer alone. I would not rush to thrown in other developers with Xtol at this point. That just adds another complicating variable. The degree of problems you show can't be attributed to Xtol if is used properly. With developers in general and especially Xtol it is good to do a clip test if we haven't used the developer recently. You take a scrap piece of film like a film leader exposed to the light and develop it. It should turn out really dark almost black. It's best to first do a test with fresh developer to compare with. If subsequent test show the sample getting less dark the developer is probably failing. I don't think you need artificial lighting to do a test.
 
Last edited:

bluechromis

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
660
Format
35mm
Thanks so much to everyone who replied! The faint edge markings distracted me from the bigger picture, but now I hope I am back on track.

My plans to test my metering technique and to also compare results from development in XTOL vs. Adox Silvermax developer are somewhat complicated by the weather forcast - rain expected, all day. The vast majority of my photos are exposed out-of-doors on sunny days, so, except for the fact that outdoor light is constantly changing, sunlight and/or open shade would probably be ideal for testing. But ...

Would it be a Bad Idea, to try to set up a test for my light meters and expose some b&w film using artificial light? I do not have any proper photographic / studio lights. I do have some household bulbs - LED and tungsten. I can get halogen, if that would be any better. My local camera shop MAY have some daylight adjusted bulbs; I will check when I buy my test film. I have some old flashes which might produce good negatives for testing the developers, but, obviously are not helpful with testing incident readings from my light meters. (And if you think my ambient exposures are bad, my flash results tend to be really bad.)

Is it possible / likely that either the film or my light meters will respond differently to artificial light (vs. sunlight), and therefore will introduce yet another element of uncertainty into the results? Both of my handheld meters have modern silicon photocells. As

About my test target - will printed step-scales tell me what I need to know, or will the limited range of a paper print not present enough tones to show when my exposures start to loose the ability to record shadows and highlights?

Finally, does it matter what film I use for testing? The obvious answer is, Test the film you plan to use most often - but I am still trying to find the one or two I like best. (Right now, I am leaning towards Ilford FP4+ and Delta 400, or possibly, T-Max 100 and 400.) My local camera store does not have a great selection - just a few of the most popular mainstream b&w films from Kodak and Ilford. I guess for testing my metering, I might want a film with the LEAST latitude? Hmmm... that would be slide film, right? But for testing the developers, what should I look for? High speed vs, low speed? Conventional grain vs. tabular? Or does it really matter?

With respect to the question about what film to use for testing, I think all the films you mentioned except slide film would work. I think the more important thing is to consistently use one of them, at least for now, so you can get a feel for how it responds to development. The thing is there are too many variables, exposure, agitation, duration of development, temperature etc. The goal is to control things as much a possible so that we can change only ONE variable at time to see the effect that has. If we are changing multiple variables then we have no idea what caused what.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom