Inconsistent result with XTOL on Superpan

[geirtbr]

Just developed 3 films, xtol 1+2, and when I poured out the xtol developer, it was yellow-orange. I know this is a bad sign for xtol, unfortunately I did not develop again with another developer. My suspicion was right, one of the films was blank - no edge markings. It was superpan, I believe this is the same as agfa aviphot and exist in many different brandings. The other two films had developed, but perhaps with less density that I wanted. It was an old agfa APX and kodak TMX.
Wondering about other experienced with selective failures of XTOL. This was a new batch, within expirery date. Am I right that orange xtol is a bad sign?

 

[koraks]

Am I right that orange xtol is a bad sign?

This sounds like dyes washing out of the film. Orange is unusual; I'd expect with TMX that you'll get some magenta coloration. Not orange. Maybe you mistook one hue for another?

The fact that two of your films developed OK suggests that the developer worked alright. Ont he Superpan, did you have edge markings or completely blank film? Can you post some photos of the three strips of negatives? Others may see hints that you're overlooking.

I've never seen xtol/mytol take any color by itself, not even if it's evidently as dead as a doornail. It doesn't oxidize into darker colors as the developing agents die like some other developers do. The only color I've ever seen it take up is that of any dyes in the film that are there for antihalation, spectral sensitization and perhaps acutance purposes. Mostly the former though, especially on 120 roll film and sheet film.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Please clarify. Did you:
A. Develop all 3 films in the same tank at the same time ?
B. Develop each film in sequence, re-pouring fresh XTOL each time?
C. Develop each film in sequence, reusing the same XTOL for each?

 

[geirtbr]

Same tank, 300 ml xtol, 600 water

20 degrees

Yes sure about orange-yellow color

No edge markings on the superpan film

 

[koraks]

Let's see some pictures, please.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Same tank, 300 ml xtol, 600 water

20 degrees

[...]

And for how long?

 

[geirtbr]

Let's see some pictures, please.

You mean photos of the failed developed film? It was blank - i threw it in the dustbin. I have the other one that turned out okay although slightly thin (but probably was underexposed).

Time was about 16 minutes.
Its a communal lab frequented by studentes and im responsible for chemistry so i need to decide wether to toss it.
I havent heard others having problems, but they may be inexperienced and not noticing it as a chemistry flaw if it occurs.

We had consistency issues with XTOL on batches around 2022, at that time it was some problems with the production and a known issues. We used ADOX XT-3 for a while, with no such issues.

Can it be something with the thinness of the film?

 

[koraks]

You mean photos of the failed developed film? It was blank - i threw it in the dustbin.

Yes, that one. Sorry to hear you binned it. It's usually a good idea to keep it around at least until you've figured out what the problem was.

Can it be something with the thinness of the film?

I don't really see that, no.

It's odd as you processed 3 rolls in the same tank, so the developer did work - at least well enough to develop the other two rolls. Leaving one roll entirely and completely blank after 16 minutes of development is not consistent with developer failure; even if the developer would have been on its last legs, allowing the other two rolls to show some development, the third roll would have shown at least faint images as well.

My guess is that you had a different problem that resulted in the blank film, which is why the photos of the affected film would have been useful. Now we'll probably never know.

If you want to determine whether the XTOL works, take a strip of exposed and unprocessed film and dunk it into a small cup of the developer. It should blacken within a few minutes. If it does that, you could do a verification strip with actual images to see if that yields the expected negatives after a known-good development time.

 

[geirtbr]

Right, ill go by the lab later today and see if the film still is in the bin. The superpan was self-rolled from a bulkroll bought from Macodirect a few years ago.

 

[koraks]

Thanks; it'd be great if you could somehow dig up that film. Worst case scenario we learn nothing from it, but nothing is lost. But I expect there will be clues that will help us figure out what happened.

And the rest of the advice w.r.t. testing the developer of course remains in effect.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Have you had success developing Superpan for 16 minutes in Xtol at 1+2 before? It looks like the Massive Development Chart recommends Superpan at EI 200 be developed for 14 minutes in Xtol at 1+1, so at 1+2, is 16 minutes enough time for complete development(?) But I think there would still be something visible, right?
EDIT: nevermind. I see several instances in which increasing the dilution from 1+1 to 1+2 adds only a couple of minutes to the developing time. I would have guessed relatively more time would be needed, but I was wrong.

Any chance one of the students might have poured used developer back into the stock Xtol container, possibly along with some kind of contamination?

 

[Daniel Stuefer]

From a chemical standpoint - how would a developer work for two rolls and "die" for one? The molecules move around in the solution, even more during agitation. The developer only developing two out of three rolls is highly unlikely. With stand dev, variance between films might technically be possible, but even then, the timescale diffusion happens on is too short for only one film to be affected by it.
What might technically be possible, on the other hand, is that the three films develop at vastly different rates (build density in varying speeds), such that two might look okay-ish while one looks blank, in the case the developer stops working midway between development. This feels unlikely though, and Occam's razor would say the film itself is the most likely issue (would have to be determined on its own to prove whether it is or not).

Any chance one of the students might have poured used developer back into the stock Xtol container, possibly along with some kind of contamination?

Assuming the tanks are the same as last year, that seems unlikely.

On those tanks though: I was never quite sure how effective they are in combating oxidation of the developer? I know people keep xtol (and derivatives) in wine bags, but always felt like anything in the ones you had last year would slowly oxidise (slower than in ordinary bottles that are regularly opened and closed, but still oxidising). The "sudden death" of ascorbic acid developers like xtol is why always testing them beforehand is reccomended, for instance like described here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/testing-xtol.96449/

Can it be something with the thinness of the film?

That's just the thickness of the material the film is coated on - so that's unlikely. If you were to put the same thickness of emulsion on glass, acetate, PET, or any other non-porous support that does not soak up any liquids, it should develop to the same densities with the same exposure, with the same time (if agitation, temp etc were exactly equal). Maybe even paper would give the same result, but I'm not sure in which ways the porosity or tendency to soak up liquids would affect the development.

 

[geirtbr]

We had workshop yesterday developing several different films, and none of them showed any problem. I got hand of the developed superpan-roll that failed, but its really just blank, nothing much to show really.
I can think of some hypothesis of what happened:

1) Superpan roll was from a bad batch that fails in development
However this wouldnt explain the orange xtol after development. There where also no visible flakes of the emulsion in the liquid (have seen such things happening on old soviet films).
2) There is an interaction effect between the emulsion of the superpan and the xtol initiating "sudden death" of the xtol during the development process.
If this is so then the xtol stock may be close to failing as it is now? Like how old milk are much more prone to splitting than fresh milk when heated? I do not know enough about the chemical components to know if this is a suitable metaphor.

 

[koraks]

1) Superpan roll was from a bad batch that fails in development

Unlikely.

2) There is an interaction effect between the emulsion of the superpan and the xtol initiating "sudden death" of the xtol during the development process.

No, because your other films in the same tank during the same development run would have failed development as well.

its really just blank

Please show.

 

[revdoc]

An obvious question: was the film exposed?

It's bulk loaded; some bulk film doesn't have edge markings. Have you developed this specific bulk film before? Did it have edge markings at that time?

 

[Don_ih]

Are you sure there should be edge markings on the Superpan? It's just cut down from wide rolls of Aviphot 200. It's very unlikely to be a bad batch. If there were images on the Superpan, at least the highlights would have developed in the situation you describe. I don't think 16 minutes is long enough in that dilute Xtol. Also, Superpan (if previously rinsed) can add a yellow/orange tinge to developer.

 

[koraks]

Are you sure there should be edge markings on the Superpan?

That's one of the key questions, indeed.
Apparently the Agfa-branded version seems to have (or at least had, back in 2015) edge markings when confectioned in single rolls: https://photo-analogue.blogspot.com/2015/06/agfarollei-superpan-200.html
This does not automatically mean that the bulk product sold under Rollei brand also has markings. Foma for instance has edge markings on their confectioned rolls, but not their bulk rolls.

An obvious question: was the film exposed?

And that's THE other question I'm having with this as well.

 

[Don_ih]

I have some of bulk roll of Rollei Superpan left - not sure if it has edge markings or not. Shows how little attention I pay to edge markings - I've used about 4 bulk rolls of Superpan.

Normally, when you develop film, the end that was exposed to light also gets developed to max density. Did that happen?

 

[Daniel Stuefer]

Apparently the Agfa-branded version seems to have (or at least had, back in 2015) edge markings when confectioned in single rolls: https://photo-analogue.blogspot.com/2015/06/agfarollei-superpan-200.html

Yes, confectioned rolls of superpan do have edge markings.

This does not automatically mean that the bulk product sold under Rollei brand also has markings. Foma for instance has edge markings on their confectioned rolls, but not their bulk rolls.

An obvious question: was the film exposed?

The film not being exposed was also something I considered, and discarded, forgetting the possible lack of edge markings in the first place. Still, since the other rolls developed, the only variance is this singular roll, so it is pretty much certain that it is the issue here, whether just due to lack of exposure (more likely) or a far-fetched other kind of thing.

1) Superpan roll was from a bad batch that fails in development
However this wouldnt explain the orange xtol after development. There where also no visible flakes of the emulsion in the liquid (have seen such things happening on old soviet films).

A bad batch wouldn't pass Agfa's QC, and others would have noticed. Flaking isn't the only way emulsions could (theoretically) fail, I think, just very unlikely with pretty much any films.
Theoretically, there could be more things going on here: the developer colour doesn't need to be correlated to the lack of superpan images. But as the other rolls are (supposedly) of normal density, the developer is probably fine.

Normally, when you develop film, the end that was exposed to light also gets developed to max density. Did that happen?

And indeed - did the film leader develop? I'd assume so, but if it didn't, then something weird is going on with the film, and the issue would not be just lack of exposure. Still, that'd be rather unlikely...

 

[runswithsizzers]

I've shot two rolls of Rollei Superpan, one in 2022 and one in late 2024; both had edge markings. But both of mine were purchased as 135 cartridges in retail boxes.

 

[koraks]

I've shot two rolls of Rollei Superpan, one in 2022 and one in late 2024; both had edge markings.

Yes, see also @Daniel Stuefer 's post above. But is the same true for bulk rolls? I'd expect so given the fact that other Rollei films have these markings also in bulk rolls (at least the RPX400 I shot some years ago did), but IDK for sure it's also the case for this product.

Either way, @Don_ih's suggestion of having a look at the leader is a good one. If it's hand-rolled from bulk, the trailing end may also be exposed and thus should have density. Depends a bit on how you load the film of course.

 

[runswithsizzers]

@geirtbr, have you developed other rolls from this same bulk roll, and did they have edge markings?

And was the leading edge dark or not?

 

[geirtbr]

@geirtbr, have you developed other rolls from this same bulk roll, and did they have edge markings?

And was the leading edge dark or not?

I have developed from the bulk roll previously successfully, and I believe they had edge markings, but i dont remember, its been a while ago. Leading edge was blank.

 

[khh]

Can you have used too little solution for the developing tank? So that the film on top was not properly covered in developer? Given all the other facts in this thread, I do not grasp any way this could have occured other than the Superpan film somehow not being exposed to the developer.

 

[Daniel Stuefer]

Can you have used too little solution for the developing tank? So that the film on top was not properly covered in developer? Given all the other facts in this thread, I do not grasp any way this could have occured other than the Superpan film somehow not being exposed to the developer.

If you agitate regularly, it is impossible to see no development at all due to too little solution - it might be uneven, but you'll certainly have some solution. Also, Geir has told us this:

Same tank, 300 ml xtol, 600 water

So that's a total of 900mL, which is the standard/minimum for the paterson tanks I know they use. So no, that cannot be it either. But I am kind of stumped as to what it could be...