How's AdoXTOL coming along, Team Adox?

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

Thanks for the reply I have not heard if the 135 UKP rule but are you saying that until is resolved it is not worth your effort to export directly to an individual customer in the U.K.? If this is the case then will you export to our larger retailers, some of whom currently stock Adox products or is this not worthwhile either?

Thanks

pentaxuser

We can export to the UK to individuals and we do such on a daily basis just that the order has to EXCEED 135 UKP because we are obliged to charge and deliver british VAT on orders BELOW 135 UKP. That´s the absurdity of this. We would have to declare VAT in the UK through an apointed tax consultant for small orders and just a few pounds so that administrative costs will outrun any possible benefit. How the british government came up with the idea to impose this burdon on businesses (aparantly expecting them to actually do this) is a mistery to me. So we are selling to our UK dealers like we always did and any private person can order from us with ease just that the order has to be about 170 EUR or more.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

There are some explanations here: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55530721

 

[sterioma]

Any private person can order from us with ease just that the order has to be about 170 EUR or more.

This is really a bummer. I have been using Fotoimpex since around 2005, both from Italy and now the UK. That was, until late 2020. Not just for the vastity of the catalogue, but also for good prices (even if shipping from Germany, a reasonably sized order around 100 EUR was usually cheaper than buying from other local online shops). Not that, with current film prices it's hard to get to 170, but it's certainly not my average order.

Keep up doing what you are doing, hopefully someone will see fix this madness.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

How the british government came up with the idea to impose this burdon on businesses (aparantly expecting them to actually do this) is a mistery to me. So we are selling to our UK dealers like we always did and any private person can order from us with ease just that the order has to be about 170 EUR or more.

I don't usually comment about politics online but I'm not sure the British government have much idea of how business works, at least outside of dealing with their own chums and hangers on...

 

[Sirius Glass]

It sounds to me that now is the time that the UK should rejoin the EU.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

It sounds to me that now is the time that the UK should rejoin the EU.

Please english come back! We all love you!

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Adox I now understand and I am sorry and sympathise. Sorry for myself as a potential customer and sympathise with you as a business that ideally should be able to sell to U.K. customers without this kind of problems

pentaxuser

 

[markjwyatt]

Well it is not a small consolation that you have Ilford in the UK...

 

[sterioma]

Well it is not a small consolation that you have Ilford in the UK...

Ironically it was cheaper for me to buy Ilford film from Fotoimpex (Germany) than from UK online shops. It could be that better deals might have been possible shopping around more but I have never found better ones myself.

 

[radiant]

I tested my XT-III developer just now.

Mixing was really easy compared to Xtol. Pretty much same easyness as Foma Excel. I mixed the developer in red bucket but I think after dissolving part A it had brown/reddish color (as Excel has too). Temperature was about 27 degrees celcius, that is 80F. Part B mixed a bit longer than A but it has much more content. Anyways, enough fast dissolving time. The liquid was pretty white until dissolved and turned into clear color. I really appreciate the "captura" no-dust technology, works well. I have to admit that I missed a bit of the taste of Xtol in my mouth

I developed three (all or nothing!) Tri-X shot at box speed and density seemed to be really nice by visual inspection. The developer liquid came out of tank with a bit of brownish color, I haven't seen this color before. Of course it is not a issue, just a side note.

Conclusion: no surprises, works as I thought. Many extra points for the easy mixing and dust binding. This night I will do some printing ..

 

[m00dawg]

Excellent news, if not surprising. Adox does great work so feel like we're in good hands. Very eager to try this out though still expect a bit of a wait before I'll have my bags (they're still in Germany last I checked, so quite a ways to go before they get to me over here in the States). Sounds like it'll be worth the wait! Thanks for sharing! Curious to see how they ended up printing!

 

[radiant]

Curious to see how they ended up printing!

I don't think there is much difference I couldn't find any inspiring frame from these THREE rolls today. Wondering again what the f I have been thinking. I'm very dissapointed that XT-III didn't make my photography any better, see the label in the bag:

We need a volunteer to start testing self-replenishing!

I was thinking of doing this but I have hit myself into wall playing with fire, like trying some new developing methods with rolls that are result of sweat and lot of walking. I think the replenishing should be first done with just exposing Stouffer wedge all over again. I don't ever ever want thin negatives anymore.

 

[m00dawg]

Hahaha that's cute!

Re testing repelnishment, I'd like to try this as well and was thinking about how to do it without spending a ton of time exposing step wedges and making H&D curves. I don't have a sensitometer either (only a densitometer) so I'd have to make exposures with my enlarger, which adds a bit of uncertainty.

I had thought, at least for film I use often, I can expose some test exposures using step wedges and then just toss one in with a normal roll or sheets and evaluate the results. For Xtol I was using 2 liters worth of replenishment solution and I think that should provide enough of a buffer to see changes without making those changes so big as to significantly impact the pictoral work, or so was my idea anyway.

 

[radiant]

Some scans, sorry no prints yet. But hey, these are developed with XT-III

(basically my "digital workprints" which look I try to hunt in darkroom)

 

[m00dawg]

@m00dawg I applaud your strive for precision, but less scientific approach can still give us a quick answer. The way I've done this in the past with Xtol was to shoot & develop my films normally, re-using 100% of developer (pouring it back into a 2L "working" bottle) and adjusting development times using the "Time Compensation" table from the Xtol datasheet. After about 10 rolls, I would start replenishing at 100ml per roll and slightly tweaking development time until it gets stable. I found this method to be easy/lazy and absolutely risk-free, as my negatives were always reasonably close to perfect during this seasoning process.

That is more or less what I used do too, although I was closer to 80ml. The unknown here is the replenishment rate, although replenishing more than necessary shouldn't be a huge issue as long as it is consistent and the times are adjusted accordingly? This is where the H&D curves would be helpful I think. Take an initial measurement fresh, a measurement again when the stock is seasoned and after that just every so often to compare to to either adjust dev times or make sure the replenishing amounts are enough. I think as long as the amounts are enough, it's just a matter of finding consistent times.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[MattKing]

That being said, I think Old Gregg's approach is a good one for seasoning the developer.

 

[m00dawg]

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.

Yep that's true, though at least with over-replenishing you basically end up at full strength Xto...err XT-3. I do wish BW control strips were easier to find. That would make things easier to manage.

 

[MattKing]

@MattKing sorry but what you saying can not be true.

But it is.
If you are taking out more of the restrainers than you are adding by developing the film, the activity will swing back and forth, rather than settling into consistency.
As Kodak says in J-109:
You can monitor replenished systems with KODAK
Black-and-White Film Process Control Strips
(CAT 180 2990). Adjust the replenishment rate up or
down in 10 mL increments to keep the process on aim.
Allow adequate time for the process to stabilize between
replenishment-rate adjustments. Use the lowest
replenishment rate that will maintain process control.
(emphasis added)

 

[MattKing]

And if you don't believe math, I have evidence - the 2L bottle which is perfectly stable after 30+ rolls while replenishing at 100ml. I can post a photo of it!

This just means that with your setup, and your film usage, the proper replenishment rate is 100 ml per roll.
If you were to move to 120 ml per roll, your results would slowly drift up and oscillate.
If you were to move to 80 ml per roll, your results would slowly drift down and oscillate.
The amount of development byproducts you remove needs to be balanced by the amount of fresh developer you add, otherwise you can't maintain a steady state - you have to regularly adjust your development times to match the continuously changing overall mix of partially exhausted developer, fresh new developer and built up development byproducts.

 

[Frank53]

Matt, sorry but this is your conclusion/assumption. It does not actually happen. The activity of a developer cannot be increasing indefinitely - I wrote this in the previous comment and it did not land? The Kodak quote below:



This is all true, because this comment suggests keeping constant development time (also listed in a datasheet) and adjusting replenishment volume according to film speed + development frequency at lowest possible cost. You are making incorrect conclusion from this section of a data sheet. Every amount of replenisher greater than 70ml will achieve a stable state. You can replenish even with 300ml - and it will work. Your development time will be shorter, (and it will be kind of pointless) but it will be stable.

And if you don't believe in math, I have dumb evidence - the 2L bottle which is perfectly stable after 30+ rolls while replenishing at 100ml. I can post a photo of it!

I’m also replenishing 100ml per film and it the results are fine after about 40 films.
Ordered some xt-3 yesterday and will test to replenish the xtol with it.
Regards,
Frank

 

[MattKing]

I don't know if you have ever monitored a commercial replenished processing line. I have done so (an RA-4 line, with a co-worker)
The answers for black and white film replenishment are in here: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/z-133-2003_03.pdf
Look for the parts (on the charts mainly) that refer to over-replenishment and trending increases in contrast.
The beauty of X-Tol and other self-replenishing developers (e.g. T-Max RS) is that they don't change activity quickly when used in the manner we do, so it is practical to use them this way without the aid of control strips and densitometers.
When you develop a roll of film, your working solution ends up with a certain amount of reduced activity - partially because of exhaustion of developer, and partially because of build up of the development byproducts that restrain future development.
You need to replace that activity by both taking out the right amount of byproducts and adding the right amount of fresh developer. And the solution amounts - the removed solution and the added solution - need to match, otherwise your working strength volume will change.
If you take out too much of those byproducts, and add too much fresh developer, you will end up with working solution that is more active than it was before you developed that film. And that means you don't have needed consistency - results will change constantly.
You need to just replace the used up activity - no more and no less. Otherwise, each film will either have different contrast than the one before it, or require less development than the one before it.

 

[petrk]

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.

 

[swittmann]

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).

 

[foc]

If you take out too much of those byproducts, and add too much fresh developer, you will end up with working solution that is more active than it was before you developed that film. And that means you don't have needed consistency - results will change constantly.

+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.