• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Is Xtol reliable?


Ryuji has written about this:

http://silvergrain.org/Photo-Tech/plastic.html

The short answer is that PET or PET-lined plastic jugs are good in terms of gas-permeability, but polyethylene (either high or low density) is rather poor. Common brown darkroom bottles are polyethylene. I believe some appear to be lined with PET, which you can tell by squeezing them. They have something of the rigidity of soft drink containers. (This is just my guess.) PET is rigid and fairly brittle, which makes it unsuitable for collapsible containers, which are almost certainly polyethylene. And as bad as they are to start, the more they flex the more permeable they are likely to become, so they're probably better (less bad) new than old.

Of course amber glass with a barrier of Saran wrap between glass and cap is best. What's good enough is open to question. Since 500ml PET bottles are cheap (Perrier, etc.) and available, I often use them when I run out of glass.
 

WAIT, DON'T HOLD ANYTHING BACK. TELL US HOW YOU REALLY FEEL!!!



(Agreed, btw)
 
Xtol failure is something to be afraid of. It tends to happen on dark stormy nights when you are alone with only the sounds of the howling wind to accompany you. It can happen no matter what you do or where you hide. There is no escape. It is coming for you and there is not a damn thing you can do about it (apart from do a quick 5 minute film leader test).
 
I detect a certain amount of sarcasm and dry wit emerging in the thread... From my own experience (whatever that is worth to you) Xtol works fine.
 

Some theories:

- King Duncan was not killed by Macbeth, but by traces of "sudden death XTol" in his nightcap.

- There was about one liter of XTol in the trunk of Amelia Earhart's plane.

- In the early days NASA used XTol as rocket fuel, but it was a disaster
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8&feature=fvw
 
So.. just to throw a wrench in the gears (trust me, I think XTOL is reliable if treated well), everything I've heard about testing for sudden failure has been that a leader test doesn't work as a small piece of leader is still capable of being developed, but when used with an entire roll the spent developer still fails.
 
Question: 1000 people go into the darkroom with xtol developer/stop/fix and develop a roll of film. What percentage of them make a careless mistake, perhaps once in a blue-moon, and accidentally swap the developer and fix containers?

Now of that small percentage, how many of them don't figure it out, blame the xtol and write a thread about it?

Denis K
 

My guess would be that a clip test is (sort of) valid provided you immerse the film in a very small volume of working strength developer and leave it in for a time approximating the actual developing time. On the other hand, if you were to mix a 1 liter batch, say, and immerse in it a 1 sq. in. bit of film, I can imagine you'd could get enough apparent activity to be fooled into thinking the batch is fully active when its activity is actually diminished enough to matter. It's probably a crude test in any event and probably only useful to verify that the developer activity hasn't drastically crashed due to some sort of run away catalytic reaction with something in the water.
 

 

Ha ha - good one Tom

Martin
 
I won't go into all the sordid details. Sloth and indifference being the leaders in the clubhouse. Suffice to say that I mixed my current batch of Xtol June 1, 2009. After filling the wine in a box bag I had about 1 liter left over. I put it in one the many 1/2 gallon Arizona Tea bottles that I keep for photo chemicals. Since June 1 said liter was seriously abused. Living in a partially filled container. Subjected to temps. ranging from my refrigerator to 83F and back to the refrigerator. I used some of it 2 weeks ago. No worries. I used the last of it last night. No worries.

I'm a failure! I can't make Xtol die. Suddenly or slowly.
 

Those collapsible bottle are the biggest scam going. They leak, they are hard to clean, and the pleats will eventually develop cracks. I use 1L or smaller soda pop bottles to store my developers stuff and they work just fine.
 
My conclusions

Thanks for all the input. For those that submitted it without snarky remarks, thanks especially! I've found it useful and sufficient to convince me to put Xtol back in the mix. In fact I developed three rolls of 35mm 400Tx last night. What do you know, full activity!

One of those rolls was a test roll that tells a surprising story. Working pretty darn carefully, using Xtol 2:1 (I know, unusual dilution) I took an educated guess of 7.5 minutes at 68F, aiming for what I call N-1 for my Durst L1200 condenser enlarger. I got lucky and hit it on the nose. The resulting curve is indistinguishable from my current standard for EK D76 2:1 (also 7.5 minutes at 68F)! In other words, at least from zones I through VIII (where my testing process is fairly linear), for everything I can measure in a fairly sensitive test setup, the two developers are identical for this film developed to the same low-ish contrast. That I did not expect. I expected a phenidone/dimezone + AA developer to show some real speed gain. It's what I was mainly hoping for. It made me suspect that, as some have said, the characteristics of at least this film appear largely locked in and developer in-sensitive. That led me to look again at my data for a very similar test roll of 400Tx in Rodinal 1:50 10 minutes at 68F. Lo and behold, the curve matched the others almost to a T. With speed defined by the point at which density = .1 above F+B, the true speed at these times was essentially identical, about 1/6 stop above 200. The only difference I could measure was Rodinal had an F+B of .36. (For Xtol and D76 it was .23 and .24). That also surprised me, since Rodinal has the reputation of a low fog developer that depresses speed. As for subject image qualities of Xtol vs D76, that remains to be seen.

Here's my take on the whole checkered past of Xtol. The majority of the failures were probably right from the beginning due mostly to user errors (confusing fixer and developer, drastically underexposing, you name it), but that there was almost certainly a bit of signal buried in that noise due to the highly reactive nature of ascorbates. I feel confident that Kodak tested exhaustively before shipping the product, but there are some things that are very hard to test in the lab. Things like the real-world variation in water supply and how the dry chemicals behave over a several years when stored on the shelf. My bet is that they were surprised on one or more of these fronts, reacted fairly quickly to adjust, but not quickly enough to prevent a bad reputation from attaching itself, and from that point on, every bozo user error that folks can make seemed like another example of Xtol's unreliabilty. My wife's grandmother liked to say, "You can sleep till Noon if your known as an early riser." The converse is also true. And of course the thing that makes Xtol particularly vulnerable is that the solution is crystal clear, regardless of activity. Good old EKD76 (with HQ) goes bad with a vivid color change and activity that heads north long before it begins to head south. Xtol just heads south. That makes D76 essentially bullet proof if you're paying any attention at all, and Xtol not so much.

As for the adjustments, one can only guess, since Kodak is secretive and doesn't necessary even tell their own tech support people the full story. One attentive user friend noticed that in addition to pulling the 1-liter packages, Kodak also changed the packaging material and the distribution of weight between parts A and B. And I would imagine they probably also tweaked the formula to protect it from stray copper ions or whatever the hell was causing some actual failures. Surely even with their greatly reduced research commitment they still had the resources to make the sort of adjustments home workers have come up with in their attempts to create an Xtol work-alike that lacks what was perceived to be Xtol's fatal flaw.

Rethinking this whole thing (overthinking it, no doubt) and incorporating the feedback (thanks again) from this thread, I've come to the conclusion that I can use Xtol exactly as I use D76, with the same confidence. (Remembering that I mix in distilled water, store in full glass or PET bottles, dump after six months, and try not to confuse fixer with developer.)

As for the snarky remarks. What a drag! Some were gracious in offering their input. You know who you are and I thank you again. Some not so much. You know who you are. Perhaps you don't realize how condescending, arrogant, or self-aggrandizing you sound, but to my perhaps over-sensitive ear, you do. And so many otherwise very interesting threads on apug are spoiled for me by this sort of thing. Sure it adds a little drama, but it's the drama of a bad, over-wrought soap opera. Or maybe it's like the interesting but way too argumentative friend one just avoids after a while. And to those that criticized me for bringing up an issue they thought long dead, I can only say this: there's no statute of limitations on anxiety. If you found the thread tiresome, you didn't have to read it.
 
Ian Grant said:
Those comments are true for any Powder developer, like ID-11, D76, Microdol-X, Perceptol etc.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to my comments, that's partially true; except that most developers do discolor when they get old and die; XTOL doesn't (usually). That's critically important. Suppose for the sake of argument that there's a pinhole in the cap of your storage bottle. If it's got D-76 in it, the developer will turn brown and you'll know there's something wrong, so you won't use it. If the bottle's got XTOL in it, it won't turn brown and so you'll have no clue it's gone bad. Is the failure XTOL's fault? No, not really; but the fact that the developer didn't "warn" you of its impending failure is XTOL's fault, in the sense that most other developers do provide such warnings.

Also, it's my understanding that ascorbate developers, such as XTOL, are more sensitive to contamination from certain metals than are MQ developers such as D-76. Certainly Ryuji Suzuki makes a big deal about such contamination in his discussions about XTOL and his DS-10 formula. To be sure, any developer can be ruined by contaminants if the water's really bad, but my impression (admittedly speaking as a non-chemist) is that ascorbate developers are more sensitive to this issue than are others. This is the basis of the recommendation that's been repeated here by several people to use distilled water when mixing XTOL.

Also, let me just point out that we're all really just blowing hot air. I have yet to see hard data on XTOL failure. Anecdotal reports of failure rates (both good and bad) are pretty close to useless. There have certainly been reports of XTOL failure, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of these reports; but we don't know their frequency -- 1 in 10, 1 in 1,000, 1 in 1,000,000, etc.; and we don't know how these rates compare to failure rates of D-76 or other developers. The main causes for concern are in the number of anecdotal reports of problems (which suggests, but doesn't prove, a higher failure rate than exists with most other developers) and in repeatable observations (of XTOL's lack of discoloration when it goes bad, for instance).

One more point: A reduction in the frequency of XTOL failure reports over time doesn't necessarily mean that a problem had existed but has been eliminated; this could just be a reflection of the decline of traditional film photography generally, or it could be that the problems were/are related to things like specific (and rare) water-quality issues, and those with these problems have stopped using XTOL as a result.

Finally, let me say that I'm not trying to beat up on XTOL or advise against its use. I'm just concerned that the "it worked for me, so it must be fine" comments might lead potential XTOL users to treat it just like they would D-76. XTOL is not D-76, though. IMHO, one should be more careful about the mixing and storage of XTOL.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fschifano said:
Those collapsible bottle are the biggest scam going. They leak, they are hard to clean, and the pleats will eventually develop cracks. I use 1L or smaller soda pop bottles to store my developers stuff and they work just fine.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. I bought a few back when I was just getting started in the darkroom. They've all been put in my recycling bin. (I prefer to use glass for storing developers, though.)
 
I picked up some amber 750ml wine bottles last night and and plan to use those along with several beer bottles to store the stock solution. Also got a half gallon glass jug to use for my working solution (I need nearly 1/2 gallon for my Yankee cut film tank) The smaller beer bottles will be used to add the 70 - 100ml replenishing to the working solution each time. Will see how it goes. Time will tell.

Thanks to all for the advice. Much appreciated.

Dave
 
Agreed on the accordian bottles' being a scam.

I get 1 liter amber beer bottles with the wire-spring-resealable-cap-tops at a local homebrewing store for $2 each, provided I don't mind used ones. These are perfect because you can't even lose the caps.
 
I've used accordian bottles for over a year with no ill effect at all.

I use regular DataTainer bottles for all of my working solutions, unless it's a large volume, like my replenished print developer, which are gallon size amber glass jars that I happened to own. I once dropped one of those gallon jars and the glass was rather uncomfortable in combination with the slippery developer it contained. I'm lucky I wasn't hurt.

Then I use the accordian bottles for my replenishers for both film and paper developer. Usually I go through my replenishers in about six months or less.

But if you don't trust them, use something else. Just saying that I'm using them without problems, and provide a counter balance to the other opinions here.

Although I like the idea of soda bottles...
 

In some ways, I agree with you. In other ways, I think you may be overly sensitive. Its just the way of the web, and, occasionally, in person meetings, classes. I guess it because that's the way people can be. The way to avoid it is stay off the web and stay home.

Please do not be offended by my comments but if you are, don't read it! :rolleyes:
 

For what it's worth, I found nothing to object to in your comments. No doubt I am over-sensitive, as are many people. But no doubt also that some folks write without complete awareness of how they sound, assuming readers will automatically supply the happy faces and blinky icons. They don't, and otherwise civil and productive discussions go off the tracks. I've seen it over and over again on this and other forums. I can think of several such threads, with highly knowledgeable participants digging deep into a subject. Then it turns to you know what as it gets increasingly personal. I stay with these threads because I'm interested, but it becomes a chore to wade through the invective.

I wanted and was interested in the answers to my question, and valued them independently of any annoyance I felt due to their tone. It's just that the gracious ones are a pleasure to read and respond to.
 

I didn't take anything you said personal and was not responding as such. I also find some contributors obnoxious, thoughtless, and would prefer more intelligent post. On the other hand, getting past that, I have learned something from persons sometimes, despite being annoyed by them.

Its just that sometimes, somethings are best unsaid. However, to error is human and sometimes I respond when silence would of been the better response. I always appreciate it when I post something dumb and everyone overlooks it.

Thanks for your post.
 
david b said:
This has become a fun and entertaining thread.

xtol paranoia should be the name of the next thread
Click to expand...

This thread has been entertain, educational, and fun.

Your thread title choice is appropriate. I wish I had thought of it.

Steve
 
Kodak has told me not even a clip test is a guarantee because the film area is small compared to developer volumn. KODAK said there is NO HOME TEST to reliably measure activity. I no longer use Xtol.
 
The home test, being discussed in another thread, does work. You just dip a piece of film into the developer at working strength in the light and observe how fast (and whether) it turns totally black.

If it does not, the developer is bad. If it does, then it is good. This assumes fresh developer. As the developer ages in the bottle, run this test before every batch and when the dip test fails, then quit using it. The time to turn black should not grow longer by more than about 10% before you start to worry, so if it took 10 minutes fresh, then at 11 minutes or 12 minutes, I would begin to worry but the developer is probably still good. ETC....

Experience will teach you.

PE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register