I do not like the extolled XTOL

baachitraka said:

If I understood it correctly its the ascorbate goes bad either through oxidation and presence of impurities. What role do sulfite play in oxidation?

Click to expand...

Kodak never published and on APUG we only did ascorbate chemistry, I don't think there is a published answer to this question.
We just say it is a preservative.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
The faint yellow of oxidized Xtol may be the DHA-bisulfite complex mentioned at the end.

John Wiegerink said:

That's darn good. What kind are they? Are they Falcon brand?

Click to expand...

Some kind of no-name brand I purchased at West Photo in Minneapolis. Sorry, I don't know. I have two 2-liter ones, and two 1-liter. All good. I currently have 8 month old 777 replenisher in one, and it works like new. I have stored Edwal 12, Xtol, and Ethol LPD replenisher in them too, sometimes over a very long time, upwards a year, and they've worked perfectly.s

I started an experiment a couple of months ago with putting my Xtol into "StopLossbag's" that I found at a woodworking supply place. They are intended for storing/preserving solvent finishes.
We'll see how it goes. Lately, I've been using my Xtol one-shot because my volume of photographing has been way down, but doing the replenishment scheme has worked well for me in the past.

Read about them here;
Dead Link Removed

Alan Johnson said:

It still seems to be for sale and the msds confirms it is not simply butane.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/105193-Tetenal-Protectan-Spray-400ml

Click to expand...

You are correct. It's mostly Butane, with a bit of Propane and Iso-butane. n-Butane boils at around 31F, the propane and iso butane helps keep the can under pressure when dispensing. Bottom line is if you use butane or propane it will displace the air. The Tetenal product is in a neat can. But there's nothing magical about it.
With XTOL I only store full bottles. If I have 30-40 mL that wont fit into a bottle I toss it.
Mike

Thomas Bertilsson said:

In my opinion it's the best all-round developer I've ever used.

Click to expand...

+1

I bought some mylar bags off ebay, and so far they are working well. I bought a 1 litre size: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/201654786741...49&var=500973156980&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

Craig said:

I bought some mylar bags off ebay, and so far they are working well. I bought a 1 litre size: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/201654786741?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&var=500973156980&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

Click to expand...

Just added to my "wishlist"

I like the bags as I can collapse them as I use the chemistry and not need to add anything to keep the air out.

Craig said:

I bought some mylar bags off ebay, and so far they are working well. I bought a 1 litre size: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/201654786741?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&var=500973156980&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

Click to expand...

It's nice to see them back. A few months ago when I searched eBay there were no mylar bags with spouts/spigots. All kinds of mylar zip-lock and plain bags, but none of what I needed. 2L bags are alright, but I really wanted larger. Still, I could do fine with 2L.

David Lyga said:

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

Click to expand...

No one needs to do a clip test. If you store it well with little or no air, it will last months, and give great results. The sudden failure issue is history and now bordering on myth.

haziz said:

No one needs to do a clip test. If you store it well with little or no air, it will last months, and give great results. The sudden failure issue is history and now bordering on myth.

Click to expand...

A clip test is a no brainer. It costs nothing and takes no time. A clip test should be done before dropping film into any developer.

bvy said:

A clip test is a no brainer. It costs nothing and takes no time. A clip test should be done before dropping film into any developer.

Click to expand...

Not when you work with sheet film....

Every time I process 35mm film, I clip the tongue and put it in a 35mm translucent plastic can to save as test clips.

Alas, I'm a non clip tester. I've used XTOL since my chum Dave Johnson, owner of Photo Pro in Cedar Rapids, Iowa gave me a sample 5 Liter bag to try. It wasn't even called XTOL it had an experimental number on it. It was love at first dunk. I developed roll film using 1:1, mostly in a Paterson tank inversion. I also kept a replenished 2 Liter soda bottle for hard rubber 1/2 gallon tanks. As long as the bottles were full never had any problems. If I had a partial bottle of stock I dumped it out if I couldn't fill a bottle.
If you want an indicator for how fresh your XTOL is, take Dektol or Bromophen. Fill a clear bottle to the top same time you make up the XTOL. Bromophen stock in a full bottle will keep forever too. But if you fill a bottle 3/4 full it will be brown in 2 weeks.

There's no such thing as sudden death, only death. Oxygen destroys, it's just the old school stuff turns back into the coal tar from which it came
Still I must say, the clip idea sounds like a Damn good idea. Maybe even a test strip of a control.
I always use XTOL straight in my Jobo, too much air and too little chemistry. The only time I had thin negatives was not using enough in a Jobo. And I don't replenish any developer B&W or color that goes through the Jobo.

If it's over a year old I get nervous, but I have used stuff over a year old and had no problems. I like living dangerously
Mike

35mm bulk film rolls give you access to more "clips" than you are ever likely to need.
I use TMY, because it is the hardest to fix, and therefore provides the toughest clip test for fixer.

APUGuser19 said:

Why fool with Xtol? What's so good about it? Can it do one single thing Microdol 1:3 can't do?

Click to expand...

It can be purchased from a store new, because it is still being manufactured, packaged and sold.
As it is based on ascorbic acid, it has both a very light environmental footprint, and is safe to use for many people who have sensitivity/allergy problems with respect to the components of many other developers.
It offers the very best (IMHO) balance of emulsion speed, fine grain and acutance - better (IMHO) than the no longer manufactured or sold Microdol-X.

Bill Burk said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bill, if you are getting continued good results with D-76, as long as it has been around, I don't think being "lucky" has anything to do with it. You evidently are using the right combination with the films you are using. I remember when photography was presented to non-darkroom users as one of the mystical arts. In the last fifty years or so I have come to the conclusion that proper film development is a matter of chemistry and physics. I hate to make you aware of this, but lets face it: YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.........Regards!

APUGuser19 said:

I've seen this thread over and over but never jumped in. I've been in photography for 50 years and never tried Xtol or even thought of it. I know exactly zilch about it. I first glommed onto Microdol in 1971 or 72 I suppose, and never looked back. This whole thread seems centered around the big guess as to whether Xtol is any good after such and such amount of time, and that it gives no clue as to its potency. Microdol is not that way. I've kept it for years and years without it turning the least bit brown, and it worked like brand new. In the same amount of time D-76 can turn so brown and putrid it can make you throw up to smell it.
If Xtol has a mythical reputation to go impotent as plain water, then so does Microdol 1:3 have an equally undeserved reputation to lower film speed.
Why fool with Xtol? What's so good about it? Can it do one single thing Microdol 1:3 can't do? I don't write this with a confrontational attitude; I really don't know.

Click to expand...

My friend I grew up with Microdol-X, it's all we (my Dad and I) used for years. Then I used HC-110 dilution B, always replenished. Then I drifted into XTOL. I'm getting a urge to crack open a 40 year old can of Microdol-X just for old times sake. I think XTOL and T grain emulsions are a co addiction. Maybe what a lot of us attribute to XTOL is just the thrill of TMY.
Best Mike

APUGuser19 said:

But Xtol has its fans, and I suppose they're not stupid. So there must be some advantage to it.

Click to expand...

I think it's the best all around developer I have tried. It's incrementally better than just about everything, in all areas; so I'd consider it the "least necessary compromises" developer. Every other developer seems to require a less than ideal characteristic in one area to gain it's advantage in another. Rodinal gives superior acutance at the cost of grain for example. Xtol seems to be as good (or better) than other developers where they excel, without the cost in another area. Rather than saying it's solving a problem that doesn't exist, I think it does solve problems: every prior developer required you to give up something, Xtol doesn't.

Microdol gave fine grain at the expense of emulsion speed, D76 gave full speed with coarser grain and middling actuance, Rodinal gave acutance and speed at the expense of grain etc. Xtol gives fine grain, full speed, great acutance, and some of the nicest tones I have ever been able to achieve. It seems to work best with the newer films, in particular Ilford Delta 100 gives lovely tones. Give it a try!

Another thought, shadow detail will be better with Xtol than Microdol.

Too many words, not enough photos

FP4+, Xtol 1+3. Hasselblad 203FE with 80/2.8

David Lyga said:

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?)

Comments?

Click to expand...

You could possibly end up with a D-76/ID-11 type by adding Metol and HQ, but not sure how the ascorbate will affect it.

APUGuser19 said:

Thank you Matt. Environmental and allergy doesn't pertain to me. And I mix up my own Microdol (non X) with ebay metol, sulfite, and kosher salt from the grocery store. I can't tell it from the nice stuff with the yellow packages, in action. I don't get it, but nobody has to answer my post. Just one of those things in life I suppose, where new technology didn't fix a problem that didn't exist. But Xtol has its fans, and I suppose they're not stupid. So there must be some advantage to it.
I can't develop sheet film in a tray with Microdol 1:3. I'd be standing in the dark rocking the tray half the day. Microdol is no good there, and you don't need micro-fine grain on 4x5 anyway. It would be ridiculous to use it for that. But I CAN use exact same 2 ingredients without the salt and have D-23 straight, which is much more reasonable on sheet film than Microdol.

Click to expand...

When shooting hand held Xtol is amazing, because it gives you probably a stop or more shadow speed. That's the cool thing about Xtol, it yields some of the highest shadow speed of any developer, yet gives up nothing in terms of grain, sharpness, or tonality. A stop extra makes a big difference in those circumstances.

Mixing your own developer is really neat, it gives you the freedom to always mix just the amount you need, and you're in control regarding the ingredients, and can tweak the formula at will. That freedom is nice. I used Xtol so that I didn't have to mix my own, though. And Xtol was the developer that met all of my needs, particularly when using it with T-grain emulsions like TMax 400, with which it has a very symbiotic relationship, but it gives great results with any film, and using it replenished like I did yielded good economy too, where I'd get about 70 rolls worth from a 5 liter package.

I have tried Microdol-X a few times, but I probably didn't learn it well enough to be a good judge of whether it was to my liking or not. I realize it's not the same as Microdol, which I have never used, but the results with Microdol-X were, to me, disappointing. I really missed the sharpness the Xtol negs provided, particularly when making larger prints from small negatives, like 16x20 from 35mm. But I didn't use enough of it to really be a good judge, so I should probably withhold my opinion; I only processed 20 or so rolls in it.

I think it's a matter of finding something we like and work with it. Kodak were probably trying to make a new product that would seem revolutionary. Maybe it wasn't revolutionary, but stuff like that keeps people's interest going, and Kodak can sell Xtol to those who believe in it, and make no money at all from someone who mixes Microdol from scratch. Since they still sell it, and people are talking about it, getting others to try it out, it must be doing something for them that makes it worthwhile.
To me it's the best all-round developer out there.

APUGuser19 said:

Why fool with Xtol? What's so good about it? Can it do one single thing Microdol 1:3 can't do? I don't write this with a confrontational attitude; I really don't know.

Click to expand...

Why fool with it indeed. It's a pain to mix and store, it always seems to develop a precipitate that I have to filter out, and I did have it "sudden fail" on me once (though I can explain why, at least). I'd be much happier using HC-110. I use XTOL because it stands up to constant/continuous agitation, which is my m.o. Not only does it stand up to it, but it performs beautifully under those conditions. I did a side-by-side with HC-110 exposed and developed under the same conditions, and the HC-110 sample looked "less pleasing" - more grain, lost highlights, and a flatter look overall. I use XTOL 1+1, one shot.

Richard Man said:

Too many words, not enough photos

FP4+, Xtol 1+3. Hasselblad 203FE with 80/2.8

Click to expand...

Delta 100, xtol 1+1, Rolleiflex 2.8D planar: