How's AdoXTOL coming along, Team Adox?

[FotoD]

Adox, do you have an MSDS for the XT developer? Will it be free of carcinogenic substances, like Xtol?
Thanks!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Over-replenishment does have a downside, in that it makes it difficult to attain a steady state of activity.
A replenished workflow depends on removing the right amount of development byproducts - otherwise the activity of the developer will either decrease or increase steadily.
If you add 100 ml of replenisher when 70 is the right amount, you are also removing 100 ml of byproduct laden used developer.

I'm going to agree with @Old Gregg on this one: your activity level will not continue to increase (to the point of exceeding new-solution levels) if you replenish "too much" for a steady state. In fact, I wouldn't expect it to continue to decrease forever if you replenish less, either.

In either case, what should happen is that the replenished system will seek a steady state -- which, depending on your replenishment rate, development time, film speed and exposure level, may be higher or lower than the "correct" rate established by Kodak's testing. There is a minimum replenishment rate, below which you'll see exhaustion in the same way you would with unreplenished stock solution -- though if you're calling yourself replenishing, you won't see this occur anything like as rapidly (ten rolls per liter?) as you would without replenishment. Even the Kodak figure is one they acknowledge (as quoted above) may need adjustment based on the actual conditions of the process.

Based on what you say, that more replenishment removes more developing byproducts (which I'll accept as correct) the change in activity ought to be an exponential decay function -- if you switch from 70ml to 100ml replenishment per roll, you'll see a relatively sharp increase in activity over a short term, with the rate of increase dropping steadily until the new steady state is reached (likely over the same four to six rolls per liter as original seasoning requires), whereas if you switch from 70ml to, say, 50ml per roll, you'll see activity drop off at the same decaying rate until the new (quite possibly unacceptably low) steady state is reached.

 

[MattKing]

Don't forget that the amount that each film development reduces the activity of your working solution is a constant - assuming for this analysis the same target contrast index and the same average image - while an activity replenishment that is more than the activity reduction from that development will cause an ever increasing amount of activity.
I'll agree that there is a ceiling to the increase - something close to the activity of fresh, un-seasoned developer, but that ceiling doesn't help you much if you are looking for stability and consistency. It takes too many rolls of film to reach that ceiling, with many accompanying changes to development times in order to maintain the contrast index, and you end up with a working solution that offers performance that is too close to that of unseasoned developer.
In addition, past a certain replenishment rate point, you will lose any benefits of economy - 1 + 1 used single shot will end up more economical.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If I'm using Xtol diluted 1+1, I'll use a minimum of 125 ml of stock solution for each roll -- I process two rolls in a 120 reel that takes 500 ml to cover, while 35mm on a Paterson reel requires 290 ml to cover, needing 145 ml of stock. Obviously there would be little or no advantage to replenishment if I were to replenish at 125 ml per roll -- but equally so, there's no need or reason to try to maintain new-developer activity levels. I've read reports from multiple sources that replenished Xtol stabilizes close to 1+1 times (and today's film suggests I should probably start gravitating that direction with my own times; I'm getting well into the portion of my Xtol that accidentally got diluted a little during division into storage bottles; it's effectively 4+1 strength now). To pick more reasonable figures, if I were to replenish at the rate of 90 ml per roll instead of 70, I'd expect the activity level to stabilize at a "normal" time somewhere between that oft-reported 1+1 time and that time for fresh stock solution -- and as you note, it'll take several rolls to get from one stability to another on that decay curve.

Unlike some, I don't see a low rate of change in my negatives as a huge problem. I do see a large change from one roll to the next as highly undesirable, however.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Old Gregq said: In fact, I found it highly advisable to stay the hell away from 70ml because it's right there on the margins: start pushing film too much, or not developing frequently enough, and developing activitiy drops below acceptable threshold (becomes impossible to use with films like Delta 3200 or Fomapan 400).

I had a similar opinion. I cannot say the same opinion as you, because I use the Foma Excel in replenisment mode. Therefore, take my result with a reservation. I also increased the volume up to 100 ml, and this was because I observed a gradual decrease in activity. At that level, I poured out the working solution several times and replaced it with a new one. A few such attempts always ended in failure, and after about 20 rolls (edit: in a full seasoned solution, i.e. about 30 rolls in a total), I felt that replenishing didn't work. I could have blame anything as a reason - an un-original developer first, an inappropriate KODAK recommendation, and in fact, nothing showed that it could be my own fault.

Then, about a year ago, I read here on Photrio a discussion that I think was started by Bornmental (are you still here?). Someone in the thread described how carefully he proceeds with the replenisher measuring and filling. That's where I realized my mistake. I proceeded by adding exactly 70 ml of replenisher to the working solution bottle and then refilling the bottle by the rest of currently used solution from tank to the top. However, there was a spill of excess working solution outside the bottle. But in doing so, I lost control of the concentration of the new replenisher in the bottle. I started a new working solution and consistently carried out refilling and measuring in a measuring cylinder outside the bottle. Since then, even with Foma Excel, the working solution has worked steadily in replenisment mode at 70 ml as expected. My solution is now more than six months old and more than 50 films have passed through it.

I have only been using replenished XTOL for over a decade and I always get stable results with 70 ml of stock solution for replenishment. If one goes over 70 ml then the developer starts acting like stock XTOL and the tonal advantages of replenishment disappear and one would be just the same as using stock solution all the time. And I do not get any oscillation in behavior.

 

[m00dawg]

I usually used about 75 but would give it a bit more if it had been a little bit since I developed anything. One unknown here though is that 70ml may have been a fine average for Xtol, but is a bit of an unknown with XT-3. It could be less, more, the same; there's just no data at the moment.

 

[Donald Qualls]

One unknown here though is that 70ml may have been a fine average for Xtol, but is a bit of an unknown with XT-3. It could be less, more, the same; there's just no data at the moment.

Given a presumption that XT-III can, in fact, self-replenish (which seems very reasonable), the not-yet-done testing for replenishment is probably largely aimed at answering this question. Given the stuff uses the same times as Xtol, it seems likely the figure will be close to that, but it might turn out to be 60, or 80, or not even a round number.

 

[Donald Qualls]

@Old Gregg In fact, I got some thin negatives yesterday -- though I don't know whether that was due to overall activity reduction due to "under-replenishment" or because the replenisher I'm now using was accidentally over-diluted when making up to full volume (didn't have a 5L mixing vessel, so had to make up the volume as I put the solution into storage bottles -- and used 750 ml plus water to make a liter in each, instead of the correct 800 ml plus water to make a liter). I've gone through about a liter and a half of this "weak" replenisher so far (in a 2L tank solution), so my working solution is around 15/16 correct strength. At this point, I'll probably go ahead and order a 5 L pack of EcoPro (since Sino Promise still hasn't coughed up replacement product for the two bags of "trade concern" Xtol I have, nor told us what was wrong with it so we could potentially compensate) and start fresh.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I thought I read recently that Eco-Pro and Legacy-Pro products were produced by (or for) Photographer's Formulary.

 

[Auer]

I thought I read recently that Eco-Pro and Legacy-Pro products were produced by (or for) Photographer's Formulary.

I looked around the web for info for a while and found nothing. /shrug

 

[m00dawg]

Gosh if it was PF producing those, I'd imagine folks that use those are in good hands.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

Adox, do you have an MSDS for the XT developer? Will it be free of carcinogenic substances, like Xtol?
Thanks!

There will be an SDS soon. Xtol as per the latest known MSDS is NOT free of carcinogenic substances as it still contains the allowed threshhold of 5% in borates (Sodium tetraborate, pentahydrate). It is one of our claims for XT-3 to have eliminated this component. XT-3 is thus "greener" than Xtol.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

Mirko,

Could you please add some information about the storage life of the stock solution

- in full and
- partly filled, tightly closed containers

to your Fotoimpex web shop?

(Yes, even if it is the same as XTOL, as I think it might be more convenient for the customers).

Sandra, as we have said here or in another thread we do not have full data on this yet. The XT-3 development programm runs since about 6 months (since we were informed by Alaris that all Kodak Chemicals would be stopped). What we see in comparison and ageing tests is that our product with the new buffer is more stable so acording to all expectations it should keep the same or better than the legacy product.

 

[FotoD]

XT-3 is thus "greener" than Xtol.

Sounds great. Thanks!

 

[MattKing]

(since we were informed by Alaris that all Kodak Chemicals would be stopped).

This is news to us. Are you referring to Kodak Alaris selling the Kodak photo chemical business, or are you meaning to say that the new owner, Sino Promise Holdings, won't be offering Kodak photo chemicals in the future.

 

[cjbecker]

This is news to us. Are you referring to Kodak Alaris selling the Kodak photo chemical business, or are you meaning to say that the new owner, Sino Promise Holdings, won't be offering Kodak photo chemicals in the future.

I read that also and had to take a double take. Still not sure if i just missed something but this could be big news.

 

[Lachlan Young]

This is news to us. Are you referring to Kodak Alaris selling the Kodak photo chemical business, or are you meaning to say that the new owner, Sino Promise Holdings, won't be offering Kodak photo chemicals in the future.

I suspect that it refers to the situation around the various legacy BW chemistry products manufactured in Germany - and whether Sino would continue to have them made, especially given the various technical glitches that seemed to have plagued Dektol/ Xtol recently. I have heard that the newest batches (post-Sino takeover) have new packaging etc - not sure where they're made.

 

[MattKing]

Or it might just be a casualty of translation - really meaning instead that the Kodak Alaris will no longer be the source for Kodak photo-chemicals.
I've had great communications with Adox - both within the forums, and by "Conversation", but it is clear that English isn't their first language.
My German is limited to the very useful, but very limited Ich weiß nicht.

 

[markjwyatt]

...
My German is limited to the very useful, but very limited Ich weiß nicht.

Ich weisse nicht... (Ich glaube)

 

[mshchem]

+1.
This is the basis of replenishment, be it B&W, C41, E6 or RA4.
Under replenish and process activity goes down,
Over replenish and process activity goes up.

The basic steps to process monitoring are:

• Temperature control and check.
• Time control and check. (usually not necessary for machine processors))
• Replenishment control and check.
• Control strip processed and recorded.
• Assessment of control strip reading and action taken if necessary.

I read to the end of this thread. What you are saying is the way any good lab processes film, paper whatever. I have a 20 year old bottle, unopened of Kodak Developer Starter. This was used when making a new "tank" with fresh XTOL in commercial labs. It is a weak solution of potassium bromide and sodium chloride. This simulates the development byproducts Matt is referring to.
I've never fiddled with control charts etc but I'm just processing my film
It's important to stay close to the recommended dosing when replenishing. And it's important to remove the same volume of used Developer or you will reduce the activity by simply having too much restrainer in the form of halides contribute by the film during development
When I was running replenished HC-110 or XTOL, I had a mark I scratched in the neck of my 1 gallon jug. As I was processing I would add the recommended amount of replenisher to the jug then added back the used developer to the mark on the neck of the jug and discard the excess. Often was the time when I very little used developer to toss out, as a significant volume is lost to wetting the film, tank etc.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

This is news to us. Are you referring to Kodak Alaris selling the Kodak photo chemical business, or are you meaning to say that the new owner, Sino Promise Holdings, won't be offering Kodak photo chemicals in the future.

We were informed that this would happen about six month ago but things came out differently. It might have been a very akward formulation on the side of someone but all Kodak distributors here in Europe understood it the same way and we were asked from all over Europe if we could step in. History has overcome this by now.

 

[swittmann]

Sandra, as we have said here or in another thread we do not have full data on this yet. The XT-3 development programm runs since about 6 months (since we were informed by Alaris that all Kodak Chemicals would be stopped). What we see in comparison and ageing tests is that our product with the new buffer is more stable so acording to all expectations it should keep the same or better than the legacy product.

Thank you, Mirko. I will definitely try this developer.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I look forward to the opportunity to try XT-III -- when it becomes available from the domestic distributor. In the meantime, I need something that works like Xtol and Sino Promise seems not to be overly concerned with making whole those of us who bought their product in the "trade concern" affected lots -- so I'll likely order at least 5L worth of Eco-Pro soon.

 

[MattKing]

This is news to us. Are you referring to Kodak Alaris selling the Kodak photo chemical business, or are you meaning to say that the new owner, Sino Promise Holdings, won't be offering Kodak photo chemicals in the future.

We were informed that this would happen about six month ago but things came out differently. It might have been a very akward formulation on the side of someone but all Kodak distributors here in Europe understood it the same way and we were asked from all over Europe if we could step in. History has overcome this by now.

Sorry, but it isn't clear what you were informed of, and how it came out.
Were you told that Kodak black and white photo-chemicals were going to disappear - because that is how I read what you posted?

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

Sorry, but it isn't clear what you were informed of, and how it came out.
Were you told that Kodak black and white photo-chemicals were going to disappear - because that is how I read what you posted?

Yes exactly . Everyone got a letter that the entire section was sold to someone no one knew in China and that we have a chance to place a last order within 5 days. Then there were some confusing formulations about a possible future of colour products but that we have to expect at least some long term interruptions. There was no word at all about black and white chemicals, no one to ask and nowehere to call. Evereyone including me interpreted this as: "B/W chemicals might come back but it is unclear if at all- and if - when". That´s why we were struck by so many inquiries but all we could make in short time was one developer and we chose XTOL as even the existing stocks were unusable so we thought this has the highest priority "to be safed". In the meantime it has become clear that Kodak b/w chemicals will stay in the market place. My personal opinion is that this was not decided at the time of the sale.