I do not like the extolled XTOL

No, I do not like the developer with a personality that can suddenly turn nasty: failure, dangerous to dilute, no visual indication that it is going bad, does not interact well with benzotriazole for fog reduction ...

But I have much part B and I was wondering if that can be used as a preservative when making B&W developers from scratch, using metol and HQ? It has sodium sulfite, sodium isoascorbate, and sodium metabisulfite (did I spell correctly?)

Excuse me while I take a bath in the much nicer Rodinal.

Comments?

I used Xtol replenished from soon after it was introduced until about 8-9 years ago, never had a problem and excellent developer. I finally stopped using it because I was spending most of the year abroad and travelled with Pyrocat HD which I switched to from Rodinal.

Ian

I thought the nasty failures were related to the now defunct one liter packages??? I have been using replenished XTOL for over a year now with no problems. If it lies dormant for over a week, I add a bit from my unused supply and test with a piece of film before using. I've never had a test fail nor a failure of developer. I AM keeping my fingers crossed!

I do also like Rodinal, HC110, and PyrocatHD.

I'm betting you can use the part B, and will be watching the thread for answers from some of the experts.

Never had an issue.

Neither have I and I have been using it for a decade.

David Lyga said:

... part B and I was wondering if that can be used as a preservative when making B&W developers from scratch, using metol and HQ? It has sodium sulfite, sodium isoascorbate, and sodium metabisulfite (did I spell correctly?)

Comments?

Click to expand...

Excuse me

Like others, I had no problems with Xtol either. It's a matter of taste, I suppose. I always do a (visual) clip test (not only with Xtol). Well spelled. You can use it of course, thanks to isoascorbate, but not with the same strenght as with both parts (properties) together. Nothing to do with Rodinal as you already now. I like others best as well.

It seems to impart a slight fog. And when I tried adding restrainer, it did not react as readily as an MQ developer would have .

But I want to know if part B is usable as a preservative: the same amount or more, due to the other components. Thank you.

NB: With XTOL, everyone NEEDS to do a clip test; not so with most developers.

And why would the one liter pack have been a problem (discontinued) and not the others? - David Lyga

Back in the beginning there were problems with the one liter package. Those problems were corrected a long time ago.

David Lyga said:

And why would the one liter pack have been a problem (discontinued) and not the others?

Click to expand...

At the time the 1-liter pack was discontinued, the word was that Kodak couldn't get them to seal reliably, and so many buyers were ending up with developer that had been exposed to air to a varying and unpredictable extent.

Thank you for letting me know that the world leader in photo-chemicals made that 'oxidation' error.

I think that carrots can be bought in a vacuum-sealed can. Can developers also be so packaged? - David

Yes, of course. Many chemicals used to be vacuum packed but the cost to can and ship is too high these days.

Have used xtol from day one...only ever had a problem with a less than half full bottle that sat around for months...
What other developers do you mix up in a five gallon bucket??.Always fun for me...basically a NO BRAINER
Why "diss" on kodak...they still make the best film products in the world and their quality contol has never let me down
By the way kodak doesn't make the chemicals
Anymore...they farm it out

Thanks Michael for the clarification. ..
Have an amazing day!
Peter

hi david

i used xtol for a handful of years off / on as recommended by a woman who was my printer when i got jobs
and didn't have the time to print them on my own. she was the best printer in the boston area, i trusted her opinion
not to mention she went to some sort of photo expo and met the husband wife team who invented the developer., they sold her on it
and she sold me on it ... i never mix anything with distilled water never have ... never had problems with any chemistry but i had troubles with xtol, from the start.
she warned me that you need to over develop quite a bit to get decent contrast so i did, and more and more ... i got OK negatives but never the contrast i wanted. inbetween jobs i over exposed and bracketed
my film and developing starting from 1.5+ my original developing time and 2 or 3 stops over exposed. i changed dilutions to see if it worked better, and it didn't. .... i had the original dilution chart it came with
and it had all sorts of wild stuff from straight stock to 1:10 ... i usually kept it 1:3-1:1, nothing too weak, but i could never get good contrast out of it.
i used it 1shot, not replenished ( i had used dk50, and sprint replenished for years before i started using xtol ) finally after 3 or 4 years i gave up and used something else ...
and maybe 4-5 years later tried it again, different state, different tap water, same problem .. hard to get good contrast.
since i stopped i started using developers that were easy to get nice beefy negatives - GAF Universal, ansco 130, sprint ( still ), caffneol c and dektol ... for me, caffenol had the same sort of
weird contrast issues that xtol had, so i started mixing ansco130 in it and it "fixed" my problem. i imagine maybe that is why some folks ( les mclean, others ? ) mixed rodinal in with their xtol,
to give it a different "feel" ...
i've no interest in xtol these days, but i do like using easy on the earth developers like xtol, so i use caffenol c ... ( been using it for 10 years ), or i'll make retina, sun or cyanotypes .. really ez on the earth.

john

John I'll give a $100 that says if you develop your negatives in straight xtol it'll match the density range your looking for....it's also eco friendly...like vitamin C maybe. ..
You use lots of outdated and obscure methods
And materials...perfect for you...me I like to get repeatable results and FULL SPEED OUT OF my film hence xtol....

i know what you mean peter, i never used it straight-stock. i was mainly worried i wouldn't have
the density i needed to contact print on azo grade 2 which is what my work was printed on at the time
VC paper i had no problem boosting contrast grade filters and whatnot, what is what i was doing when i wasn't
contact printing on azo. i wasnt' really doing much other than shooting documentary 4x5 images ( habs ) and needing to print them ...
and when i get habs jobs today, they are either processed in sprint 1:9 or done with one of those modern gizmos ..
i did like the eco freindly aspect of the developer, AND i loved how when you mixed the 2 fluids the orange disappeared
it was the same parlor trick as pouring the water bath into the developer after you water soak and are cleaning up tray shuffling.
it just magically vanished !

John develop straight for about 18 minutes
It'll work on azo
Ok here's another point..why do you think coffee is so eco??...it's a destructive exploited industry...it's all bs and helping to subject people to modern day slavery system; highly labor intensive and eco destroying for the natural surroundings...not the least to say it runs down your adrenal system. ..
Best peter

I've been using it replenished and it seems fairly user-friendly for me anyway. I will say that I do see a slight darkening to my film base, but slight is what it is. I print through it no problem at all. I haven't really tested for speed/contrast yet since I'm still breaking in my jug of Xtol and I don't think it's fully seasoned yet. About four more rolls and I'll get the densitometer out and check to see how things are going. When I hone in and get everything right where I want it with Xtol I'm going to do the same with Kodak DK-50. I really liked DK-50 diluted and am wondering if DK-50 replenished might offer close to the same results. The nice thing about DK-50 is that I can mix my own. That said, I find nothing wrong with the Xtol I'm using right now.

Peter Schrager said:

John develop straight for about 18 minutes
It'll work on azo
Ok here's another point..why do you think coffee is so eco??...it's a destructive exploited industry...it's all bs and helping to subject people to modern day slavery system; highly labor intensive and eco destroying for the natural surroundings...not the least to say it runs down your adrenal system. ..
Best peter

Click to expand...

i'll look into it peter, thanks for the time/dilution !
im not currently buying any coffee to use, i bought some
a handful of years ago from a coffeeshop that had bought it
for a woman with a café whose café stopped running ... the coffee was sitting
in his sub basement for a bunch of time before i called to see if he would sell it.
while i understand in some ways it is like you suggest, but there are coffee companies
that build hospitals and dental clinics for their workforce. the person who sold me the coffee i use
for all my caffenol ( that i roast myself ) is a local roaster who is very involved
with fair trade an making a positive difference.
Dead Link Removed
if i used/drank kona coffee( probably runs using american labor laws and wages ( american wages is what
makes it so expensive ) ) maybe it would be better ? not sure, i can't afford coffee that costs between
40-60$/half pound, not to drink and not to use for my developer ...
i am guessing there aren't any kona robusta beans which is what runs caffenol, ...
when i worked in the coffee trade 10 + 20 years ago, we sold kona, i didn't like it. the coffee
we sampled was extremely expensive and wasn't really a very good
cup of coffee ( at least i didn't like it, ... kind of watery and flavorless ) ...
i can't afford kona, not even green kona beans ... i don't know about my adrenal system,
i am guessing that my annual drs visit would have turned something up if my habit was killing me ..
i only have a shot or 2 of espresso a day. i don't drink coffee all day into the night and even if i had
6 or 8 shots of expresso a day it's espresso, with low caffeine compared to light roasted coffee ...
( the darker coffee is roasted, the less caffeine remains ... i consume 40-60mg, black or green tea
might have more ).
when i said eco friendly wasn't talking about how it was produced, although as i mentioned
the guy who i bought it from is involved in GOOD not BAD practices.
i meant compared to HQ or metol, amidol, pyro, catechol, PQ and other developers, that aren't very good for you or the environment, and i am guessing
some of the chemicals in xtol ( like Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid, 4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone )
are kind of nasty to make, and their tailings that are not nice for the environment ... by comparison a cup of coffee
some baking soda and a little vitamin c are a walk in the park ...
im not making excuses for my coffee habit or coffee developer use, but i can think of worse things for me to consume and use ...

thanks for giving me food for thought!
john

Sorry, I only ever use D-76 1:1 so I don't have an opinion about XTOL.

I had trouble with it once and for a while after that I did snip tests.

Now I haven't had trouble since and so I don't do snip tests anymore.

I've seen the comparison graph that shows XTOL is a little better than D-76 in a number of measures.

So I am sure it is a "better" developer.

But since I continue to be lucky with D-76, I haven't considered switching.

There are a lot of reasons to like XTol (low toxicity, excellent results, powder rather than liquid) but its biggest advantage is that it serves as its own replenisher. A replenishment regime rocks!

Old-N-Feeble said:

Yes, of course. Many chemicals used to be vacuum packed but the cost to can and ship is too high these days.

Click to expand...

I have a number of cans of DK-50 purchased as government surplus from WWII. Whenever I infrequently open a can for use it is as fresh as if made yesterday.

If you want the same XTOL characteristics but are paranoid about its rumored volatility, you could always mix up some Instant Mytol. I find them rather pleasantly interchangeable.

michael_r said:

Don't understand the fog comment...

I have to say I'm sometimes puzzled by your assertions and/or ideas regarding developers and photochemistry.

Click to expand...

I agree x2

Peter Schrager said:

...
By the way kodak doesn't make the chemicals
Anymore...they farm it out

Click to expand...

And what is that supposed to mean? we've always had the opportunity to get most of the formulations, so there is nothing to prevent us from making a new brand, with a new name on a new packaging

MattKing said:

There are a lot of reasons to like XTol (low toxicity, excellent results, powder rather than liquid) but its biggest advantage is that it serves as its own replenisher...

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with that, but being true, all these benefits bring those OP mentioned prejudices

I've only been using Xtol for about a year. I use it 1:1 and throw away after use. I find it absolutely excellent. It is good value and does exactly what I want which is to produce crisp, clean, easy to print negatives with a minimum of fuss.