HP5 plus with Legacy Pro (not Xtol)

[beemermark]

So I developed a new batch of film in Legacy Pro (XTOL) from Freestyle and two rolls from two different cameras came out very under developed. Shot the first roll in a camera I hadn't used in awhile and thought maybe the camera was malfunctioning. So I shot another roll in a camera I knew to be good and got the same results. This was the second batch from Legacy Pro (XTOL) that I've used and the first batch was good. Doubled checked my thermometer in an ice bath and found no issues. HP5 8 1/2 minutes. Been doing this for 40-50 years and I'm stumped. Don't want to dump the developer but??

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Shouldn't the title be HP5 plus with Legacy Pro? It's not Xtol but an equivalent developer.

 

[pentaxuser]

Try dropping the film leader into the developer and with some agitation let it develop for the full time of 8.5 mins for legacy Pro stock. This will help establish how well the developer is working. The leader should go black to the extent that a 100W incandescent bulb's filament should appear like an orange line if the leader is held about 9-12 inches from the bulb.

It sounds as if the developer is on its way out but remains capable still of some development

pentaxuser

 

[Dave Krueger]

I have had underdevelopment issues with Leg Pro Ascorbic as well. I just increase development time with short rolls of TMax 100 or HP5+, but I've had much more severe issues with 36 exposure rolls of Rollei IR400. Short rolls of IR400 were fine, but long rolls were so thin that the frame numbers were gone. Developer was fresh, mixed with distilled water, but diluted 1+1, so it may not be relevant to the OP's issue. In any case, I do not get the same results with Leg Pro Ascorbic that I got with Kodak Xtol. Maybe the Adox XT-3 will be better if/when it becomes available in the US.

 

[Pritam Singh]

This is interesting.
I developed 2 rolls of Adox CHS II 100 in XT-3 (the new improved Xtol) mixed from a 5-litre pack ordered online last month and got clearly underdeveloped negatives. I used dilution 1+1, followed all instructions meticulously...
Terribly disappointed, to say the least.
I emailed the store in Hamburg to let them know as much. Reply said this was the first time they'd had someone complain.
I followed the long discussion about Xtol on this forum before buying.
I've used Xtol in the past with great results but I'm afraid I can't extol the virtues of the new and improved XT-3.

 

[Sirius Glass]

With replenished XTOL [tank or Jobo processor] I have to add one minute to the 68 degree F [20 degree C] time to get the proper development.

 

[Auer]

With replenished XTOL [tank or Jobo processor] I have to add one minute to the 68 degree F [20 degree C] time to get the proper development.

Why do you think that is?
FWIW ( I know its not the same thing) I started using Legacy Pro replenished and get pleasing results following standard Xtol times.

 

[MattKing]

Shouldn't the title be HP5 plus with Legacy Pro? It's not Xtol but an equivalent developer.

Thread Title revised.

 

[reddesert]

I've developed HP5+ in Legacy Eco Pro ascorbic and it was fine.
I do a few things to be careful about film developers:
- I don't use 5 L of stock up very fast so I store it in 4 or 5 ~1 L plastic seltzer bottles and squeeze as much air out as possible.
- My tap water is very hard and sometimes has pipe rust in it, so I mix the stock using store-bought distilled water. Ascorbic acid developers are said to be especially harmed by dissolved iron.
- I do a clip test if I haven't used the developer in the last few days. I drop a piece of film leader in some dev and see if it turns opaque in a few minutes. You need to hold it up to a light and/or fix it to test opacity, because the dye will still be on the film. (Bonus, you can use this to test the clearing time of your fixer.)

I don't have any idea why Dave Krueger would see underdevelopment in a long roll of Rollei IR400 and not a short roll, unless very small amounts of developer were used. It is easy to exceed the capacity of D-76 1:1 when developing 35mm in a steel tank, but Xtol 1:1 supposedly has more capacity than D-76. I don't know the formal capacity of Legacy Pro.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

To my personal experience, there are 5 elements that can influence te final result in film developing:
- The typical human error aka the photographer (during all the steps of the whole process)
- The camera/lens technics
- The exposure meter and its application
- The film quality (and age)
- The developer and other chemicals

So, we must investigate (and eliminate) all these steps when something goes wrong...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why do you think that is?
FWIW ( I know its not the same thing) I started using Legacy Pro replenished and get pleasing results following standard Xtol times.

Sometimes the development times are not long enough for replenished XTOL. I do not know why.

 

[Oldwino]

I've found that with Leg Pro and HP5+, the times for EI800 work better.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I am having the exact problem with the XTOL produced by that Chinese company, the one contracted to do XTOL with Alaris. The descriptions of the problems with Eco pro and underdevelopment are precisely what I am experiencing with the new XTOL. I've used the original Kodak manufactured XTOL for about 20 years and assumed the new XTOL was a drop-in replacement. It is not. It fails to give me expected results in exactly the same way that Eco pro does. Could it be that both are manufactured by the same company?

 

[Moose22]

I am having the exact problem with the XTOL produced by that Chinese company, the one contracted to do XTOL with Alaris. The descriptions of the problems with Eco pro and underdevelopment are precisely what I am experiencing with the new XTOL. I've used the original Kodak manufactured XTOL for about 20 years and assumed the new XTOL was a drop-in replacement. It is not. It fails to give me expected results in exactly the same way that Eco pro does. Could it be that both are manufactured by the same company?

So, I started developing with EcoPro right after this thread was started. I've been through precisely one bag of the stuff.

I've started with xtol times from massive dev chart on every stock I've used so far, and just followed Kodak instructions (adding time after 5 rolls, after 10 rolls, tossing it and starting a new liter after 15 rolls) and I never feel like anything is underdeveloped. Even diluting 1:1. But I haven't used old-schoold Kodak Xtol so I can't call it a direct comparison.

Maybe they're made by the same company. Maybe whatever the issue seen above was, it's the same. That said, I bought my EcoPro around September last year, and OP said he had used a previous batch with no such issues, so.... I don't think we can conclude anything. But if the same manufacturer is doing it, maybe there was a batch not quite to spec. I guess we can collect people's experiences here and speculate if more people see the issue.

Personally, I'm just going to choose my next bag (I'm half way through the last one) based on the same criteria I chose EcoPro in the first place: what's in stock. I'll keep on trucking like I have been, starting with the times I like and keeping my fingers crossed. Maybe I'll start with a roll I'm not really worried about.

 

[MattKing]

I am having the exact problem with the XTOL produced by that Chinese company, the one contracted to do XTOL with Alaris. The descriptions of the problems with Eco pro and underdevelopment are precisely what I am experiencing with the new XTOL. I've used the original Kodak manufactured XTOL for about 20 years and assumed the new XTOL was a drop-in replacement. It is not. It fails to give me expected results in exactly the same way that Eco pro does. Could it be that both are manufactured by the same company?

Kodak Alaris had their X-Tol manufactured in Germany.
The new X-Tol (since Kodak Alaris sold the business) seems to be manufactured in the US.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Over here, in (continental-) Europe, we are fortunate to have ADOX who is producing (with Deutsche Gründlichkeit) XT-3 with German made chemicals...
I have loved the Kodak X-Tol for pushing Tri-X, but now I had to revise things.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Over here, in (continental-) Europe, we are fortunate to have ADOX who is producing (with Deutsche Gründlichkeit) XT-3 with German made chemicals...
I have loved the Kodak X-Tol for pushing Tri-X, but now I had to revise things.

I have now used a significant amount of DS-10 developer, diluted 1+1, both with inversion hand agitation in Paterson tanks, and in a Jobo CPP-3. Results are excellent if for some reason you can't get hold of XT-3.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I gave the "new" XTOL another go but with T-Max 400 and the stock solution. I usually go 1:1 for the longer development times but began to suspect there is something wrong with the water I diluted with. Out of the tap it now has a funny taste, as though the city was chlorinating too much... or something. At any rate, I mixed the stock solution with bottled water to avoid the suspected tap. The resulting negatives were perfectly fine. This leads me to suspect the water or possibly I could have made a rare mistake? I don't know. I guess further testing is in order.

 

[radiant]

I would never mix XTOL to tap water (even I live in a country where the tap water is very good).

XT-3 is out of stock without any date at Fotoimpex so I sure hope it is only because of lack of everything from suppliers - and not quality issue..

 

[MattKing]

Out of the tap it now has a funny taste, as though the city was chlorinating too much... or something.

Might be a temporary response to all the weather the Pacific Northwest has been experiencing recently - the flow from our reservoirs is massive right now.

 

[Kino]

I processed 6 sheets of 9x12cm Foma 200 in the Legacy Pro Ascorbic Acid developer (stock) in a Jobo at 68F/20C for 6:30 (MFG suggested small tank time) and was worried I would get bullet proof negs, as I didn't subtract the typical 10-15% time usually suggested.

Not only did I not get bullet proof negs, they actually ran a bit thin IMHO.

I thought it was just some error on my part...

Hmmm...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I gave the "new" XTOL another go but with T-Max 400 and the stock solution. I usually go 1:1 for the longer development times but began to suspect there is something wrong with the water I diluted with. Out of the tap it now has a funny taste, as though the city was chlorinating too much... or something. At any rate, I mixed the stock solution with bottled water to avoid the suspected tap. The resulting negatives were perfectly fine. This leads me to suspect the water or possibly I could have made a rare mistake? I don't know. I guess further testing is in order.

Drink whiskey instead. Mark Twain wrote about water in California, "Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting."

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would never mix XTOL to tap water (even I live in a country where the tap water is very good).

XT-3 is out of stock without any date at Fotoimpex so I sure hope it is only because of lack of everything from suppliers - and not quality issue..

XTOL is my go to developer and I always use tap water and my water is very very hard. No problems ever, for any developer.

 

[Moose22]

XTOL is my go to developer and I always use tap water and my water is very very hard. No problems ever, for any developer.

Hard is not everything. Some water supplies have different types of hard -- for example, ours has lots of silicates because a portion comes across the desert in the aquaducts, others might have different mineral content -- but more often the problem could be treatment, Chlorine, chloramine (which is a lot harder to break down) flouride, and other treatments might affect things. Might. I don't know.

Point is, municipal water is different region to region, and even based on time of year and local weather. If a person wants to experiment, it behooves them to use DI or Distilled to mix for the reason that it is a known and consistent quality to start with.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hard is not everything. Some water supplies have different types of hard -- for example, ours has lots of silicates because a portion comes across the desert in the aquaducts, others might have different mineral content -- but more often the problem could be treatment, Chlorine, chloramine (which is a lot harder to break down) flouride, and other treatments might affect things. Might. I don't know.

Point is, municipal water is different region to region, and even based on time of year and local weather. If a person wants to experiment, it behooves them to use DI or Distilled to mix for the reason that it is a known and consistent quality to start with.

Yes and my water comes through aqueducts and has silicates. It does behooves everyone to check how their water effect the photochemicals before blindly running to distilled water.