How's AdoXTOL coming along, Team Adox?

ADOX Fotoimpex

Partner
Partner
Joined
Nov 20, 2005
Messages
887
Location
Berlin
Format
35mm RF
vedostuu said:
Those choices have always been only choices to Finland at least. I hate both filling materials. I wish they would switch to those biogradeable plastic bags (that are filled when packing).. So easy to dispose.
Click to expand...
We need to offer at least one dust free packaging. Other customers are sensitive to dust espeially when ordering negative sleeves or film. Starch based chips are a nightmare in this respect. Our FloPak Eco is antistatic.
Apart from this it is 100% recycled and within limits biodegradable. In a sum this was the best we could find. With bubble pouches we cannot work because of the wide spread sizes our items have.

 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,395
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Recycled source, reusable, recyclable, and degradable is probably the best you're going to get in dust-free...
 

radiant

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
2,135
Location
Europe
Format
Hybrid

I understand. It just seems very common to use those bubble pouches (for example Thomann uses those). Those flakes are just a real nightmare when trying to take items out. One solution to unpack is to go next to large trashcan and pour the flakes out (in my case outside) but then wind flies the flakes all over. The flakes are frustrating to "shovel" with hands to plastic bag etc.

The recycled paper is super dusty and maybe one solution would be to put tems inside plastic bags and then cover with the paper filling.. Then the items don't get the dust.
 
Last edited:

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,395
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
vedostuu said:
The recycled paper is super dusty and maybe one solution would be to put tems inside plastic bags and then cover with the paper filling.. Then the items don't get the dust.
Click to expand...

Static is your enemy.

Plastic and paper dust will generate static charges that will cause the paper dust to fly, and then stick to everything it touches (especially dust sensitive negative sleeve or sheet film packages inside the plastic bag). Honestly, I don't know that there's a better solution for stuff like that than the polystyrene product already in use. A couple decades ago, wadded sheets of brown Kraft paper (or reused newspapers) would have done the job, but cost and labor to pack with it have pretty much killed that for packing material (not to mention it tends to compact in transit, so your product ends up rattling around in the carton by the time it arrives), and it's still not really dust free.
 

K-G

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
552
Location
Goth, Sweden
Format
Multi Format
The shredded carton material that you use sometimes works really good. It keeps all things in place, it is fairly dust free and you don't have it all over the house when you empty the package.

Karl-Gustaf
 

toyoboyo

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
74
Location
IL, US
Format
Hybrid
Is there still an improved adox xt in the works? I remember something about that from earlier in this thread I think
 

ADOX Fotoimpex

Partner
Partner
Joined
Nov 20, 2005
Messages
887
Location
Berlin
Format
35mm RF
Jonathan F said:
Is there still an improved adox xt in the works? I remember something about that from earlier in this thread I think
Click to expand...
It is not strictly an improvement But we are working on XT-4 as a single part product. Our stabilisation improvements and "nasty stuff" replacements where costly so that currently our price is a bit higher than "the original".
As a nice side effect the demand for a two part packaging has been eliminated with these replacements though.
Long term storage tests are going since November and look very promising. With a one part we could save so much in manufacturing that we can match the other price again ;-)
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,395
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
OP
OP

m00dawg

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
192
Location
Earth
Format
4x5 Format
I still need to find the gamma and CI (I do that on pen and paper still) but here's a film curve of Ultrafine Finesse 400 using XT-3. Looks like my times are a bit too long (making me think my old Xtol-R was weaker so maybe the suspect bags had something to do with it). XT-3 is the top line. The other two are Xtol-R. My XT-3 is still seasoning also and still appears to be at close to stock strength (only processed 4 rolls of film and I'm using 2L worth).

That kink towards the top of the shoulder is interesting since I didn't see that in my other tests, but that could have been a measurement error on my part.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot from 2021-04-30 13-10-25.png
    54 KB · Views: 200

ADOX Fotoimpex

Partner
Partner
Joined
Nov 20, 2005
Messages
887
Location
Berlin
Format
35mm RF
We managed to control this problem. Our one part dissolves in about 3 Minutes to a clear solution without any residue like XT-3 two part does. Long term powder keeping @ accelerated ageing exceeds XT-2 which is the original "Yellow-X" recipe containing boric acid as well. Sofar all quite promising.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,395
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
My hat's off to you guys again. Not just stepping up for a broken market, but continuing the long tradition of innovation in silver image photography from the past nearly two centuries.
 
OP
OP

m00dawg

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
192
Location
Earth
Format
4x5 Format
Update on my seasoning process!

It's a bit busy - I need to work on my film log web app a bit more to be able to toggle which tests I want to see. The smooth top line is XT-3 when I first started using it. The middle one is XT-3 as of today and the bottom ones are from my old Xtol. The one that crosses and is seemingly steep is testing out an X-Rite 334 sensitometer so those can be ignored for now as I'm still trying to figure that one out (reading the steps of the 334 is touch because it has a diffuser attached, but that's another story).

I still need to compute gamma and contrast index for these newer tests but I think I'm getting close. I also don't really trust the data I was getting from Xtol-R knowing I had at least 2 suspect batches go through it. My dev times are certainly still different (7:00 vs 9:30) which suggests my current XT-3 is more active than my batch of Xtol-R was. Does make me think that means it's not seasoned yet but I'm also wary to push it too far without starting some sort of replenishment. The color of the replenished solution is starting to look similar to Xtol-R though.

Not sure if these are useful or not but I guess the takeaway is XT-3 is doing good work so far!
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot from 2021-05-11 22-25-09.png
    69.3 KB · Views: 191

MKHardy

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2018
Messages
12
Location
London
Format
4x5 Format
My first attempt (Richmond Lock) with Adox XT-3. Working pretty much identical to XTOL (RIP)...

Shot at half box speed.
Ilford FP4+
Schneider Symmar-S 150mm

 
Last edited:
OP
OP

m00dawg

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
192
Location
Earth
Format
4x5 Format
Update on my replenishment - things have been going rather well so far! I'm up to 22 sheets of 4x5, 5 rolls of 120, and 8 rolls of 35mm (our ~ 19 rolls of film). I started replenishing for the last six dev cycles (whereas previously I was just reusing without replenishment to help speed along the seasoning). It seems like things are settling down but I'm still playing around with the X-Rite 334 to see if it'll replace my old method of using my enlarger. It looks like for process control it'll work but need to dial in the exposure a bit better.

The one issue I did run into this evening was this:



So that's kinda uhm, gross This happened with my Xtol-R before too, although it wasn't quite as sewage brown I did have a similar experience if I stirred up the jug of replenished solution too much. I discovered this while doing my replenishment step. I add the 80ml first, then fill the 2L glass jug until it just overflows. This time I noticed some particulates in it, held it up to the light and saw quite a lot. So I opted to pour the whole thing out and filter it with my wire mesh funnel.

I tested the developer using a clip test and it still works (I had no issues developing the Fomapan 200 this evening either). So I suspect it's just sediment of some sort (which as noted I did get with Xtol-R too) but it did give me a mild freak out. So the next round of developing I'll see if it pours out clear and if stuff has settled down to the bottom. I also probably won't develop anything important for the next run just to be sure all seems well.

I have been developing quite a bit of Fomapan 200 (4x5) and while I do a pre-wash, not all of that blue/green tint seems to come out and some ends up in the developer, so that could perhaps be playing a roll for the color maybe, but that's just a guess.

Apart from that, my dev times by eye seem to be pretty spot on and are getting to be pretty stable so far.
 
OP
OP

m00dawg

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
192
Location
Earth
Format
4x5 Format
Update on the XT-3, yep seems to be working just fine. As with Xtol, most of the particulates had settled to the bottom of my glass jug. So I poured out about 500ml to dev some HR50 and the negative density appears to be quite nice. After development I filtered out all the particulates I could from the jug using coffee filters so curious as to if that has any affect and if they come back.
 
OP
OP

m00dawg

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
192
Location
Earth
Format
4x5 Format
Further update, developed some Finesse 400 to compare my seasoning and my Dmax as it compared to my fully seasoned Xtol and we're getting there!

My replenished time for Xtol-R was about 8:15 in which the darkest patch of my step-wedge was 1.38 and a Gamma of 0.56 (right on the money).

For XT-3, I've been using 7:00. At first that gave me 1.82 then 1.58 and today it was at 1.49 for the darkest patch. This was using my enlarger and a Stouffer step wedge with similar (but not exact due to how I'm doing the exposures) settings, targetting a Lux of 5 on my lux meter.

I have an X-Rite 334 sensitometer as well but need to bump the exposure (I was using the 3rd highest setting). Once I get it dialed in with a few films it will be more convenient (and consistent) than my enlarger though so far my enlarger results seem to be pretty consistent.

Now it just remains to be seen where it stabilizes. I've been replenishing at a rate of 80ml per 80 sq ft of film. So far so good! Other than the particulate scare noted above I'm having some great results!

I think the main problem is going to be DHL and getting XT-3 readily available in the US. I have 2 more bags which should last me but it's definitely a concern currently. Sounds like Adox doesn't have a lot of options available either so hoping that situation improves soon. I would prefer not to go back to Kodak (Sino Promise). XT-3 so far just seems superior in nearly every way.
 

K-G

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
552
Location
Goth, Sweden
Format
Multi Format
Thank you for the update. Much appreciated.

Karl-Gustaf
 
OP
OP

m00dawg

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
192
Location
Earth
Format
4x5 Format
EDIT: Leaving the below comment just for historical purposes but I now think my conclusion below is _incorrect_ with assuming XT-3 was causing blemishes to my sheet films. After further testing, it appears to affect films developed in ID-11 too which means it has to be something else. Which, on the pro means XT-3 Replenishment is still likely a viable solution! (But also means my process woes are still woes)

I think my replenishment experiment may have reached a conclusion, at least for now. Short answer is that I have run into some issues with replenishment and will probably be going back to using XT-3 one shot.

Long answer:

I did some recent developing runs and found my sheets had what I can only describe as "potholes" in the shiny side of the emulsion along with some blemishes on the emulsion itself.

I looked through a number of 4x5 sheets I've taken over the past several months that were using XT-3 Replenishment. What I found was the older ones are cleaner than the more recent ones in terms of the "potholing". This has me thinking the solids I found in my bottle I noted in earlier posts are probably a bigger issue than I thought. Likewise I filtered the developer through a coffee filter and found it has teeny tiny specs in the filter, whereas my fixer and wash water didn't.

That means somewhere there must be contaminates. I don't think it's something in my darkroom - I use distilled water for mixing chemicals and, likewise, I looked at some of the last sheets I developed with my 3 year old Xtol-R and they were clean, as were those in Microphen and ID-11. That makes me think whatever I am doing may not be making XT-3 happy (that or there's something in XT-3 that is dissolving out into those solids when used in replenishment). I'll know for sure when I develop some sheets using another developer just to discount there being some other change recently that is accounting for it. I did do some tests with extra sheets where I just fixed and washed those films and they seem to also be clean. So that still, alas, points to replenishment.

Of course, Adox doesn't say you can replenish with XT-3 so this isn't a dig on XT-3 whatsoever. It's still a wonderful developer! But I would recommend sticking with using it one-shot as recommended.
 
Last edited:

PittP

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
127
Location
Nairobi
Format
35mm RF
m00dawg said:
I think my replenishment experiment may have reached a conclusion, at least for now. Short answer is that I have run into some issues with replenishment and will probably be going back to using XT-3 one shot.
Click to expand...
m00dawg - thank you VERY much for sharing your thorough investigation - all the way through nearly 4 months and to a clear conclusion!
Now we hope that @Adox can figure out what caused the precipitates you observed - and which rule out the replenishment option some are very keen for.
May there be again changes with the anticipates XT-4 one-component version?
This is an exciting development.
 
OP
OP

m00dawg

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
192
Location
Earth
Format
4x5 Format
You're welcome!

Indeed I think, at least in terms of stability of the replenisher that using XT-3 replenished could work. I hadn't gotten quite to the point where I was confident in my replenishing amount (I was doing 80ml per 35mm roll or equivalent) but was getting consistent film curves and gamma right at where I wanted it across a few films (CHS ii included, which is quite lovely in XT-3) such that I think I was pretty close. The contamination perhaps might have an easy fix though I'm not sure what direction to go with that. It is odd too that I'm getting pitting instead of scratches despite using a rotary process. They look kinda like hail damage on the hood of a car if that makes any sense (they're also had to photograph). Really baffling that.

I'll be developing some test sheets tonight with a direct A/B comparison end to end (using sheets shot in camera of an actual subject instead of just a test wedge) between XT-3 and ID-11 1:1. Very curious how they'll turn out since the above conclusions were based on negatives I developed earlier in the year and there's definitely a chance there's something else wrong with my process that I can only see when doing a complete developing run that I didn't see when doing isolated tests.

So there's still a chance I'm doing something wrong But either way, I think XT-3 with replenishment definitely shows promise.
 
OP
OP

m00dawg

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
192
Location
Earth
Format
4x5 Format
Well quick update! Glad I did the A/B test because the test film I developed in ID-11 appears to have the same issues. I have no idea now what the issue could be though. Nothing has changed that I can put my finger on though my suspicion is that it is my wash water. My new darkroom is a shed and I have to use water from the outside faucet. The water from there is hard water unlike the water inside the house and given it's for gardening I suspect it could be dirty or there's perhaps some interactions with the metals? Wild guess.

So my next test is to try developing in my previous space (my bathroom) where the water is soft as noted and is perhaps less dirty. Though I didn't find any contaminants in my fixer, I'm also going to go ahead and throw all that out and start fresh. This means, and I've updated my previous post accordingly, that XT-3 *does not appear to be the issue* with the blemishes on my sheets. At this point I have no idea what the issue would be at this point, and it is odd that it developed over time despite having developed sheets in the same space plenty of times before. *shrug*

If I get better results in my bathroom, my next step is to try a dev run back in my new darkroom space but using only distilled water (nothing from the faucet) and verify that's good. If it is then I think the likely culprit is the external water supply which I'll need to figure out how to filter and optionally soften.

EDIT: Yes, the results in my bathroom darkroom are _vastly_ superior. I used XT-3 Replenished to dev another test sheet and it came out just lovely! So my previous assessment that XT-3 was somehow causing the potholes in my film was _wrong_ and, as it turns out, it's likely contaminants in my incoming wash water. I think I know where from too. So I'll be swapping some hoses and things out tomorrow and getting a particulate filter for the space as well to see how that goes.

Also! Realized all this replenished talk may best be handled in its own thread, so I've created one here and will update that thread with my replenishment diaries instead of this one.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…