Kodak XTOL : prewashing, reuse and replenishement workflow

[Stephen Ryde]

I have started using Xtol 1+1 until I get consistent results. That way I will have a control group of negatives to refer too.
I will then consider using the Xtol replenished method cause it sounds like a fun thing to do

 

[McDiesel]

@npl the answers to all of your questions including the last one are in Xtol datasheet:

• Kodak considers Xtol to be fully seasoned (so it becomes "Xtol-R" as people say here) when the development times become 10% longer than stock. That's on Page 4, in "Starting (Preseasoning) a Fresh Working Tank Solution" chapter.
• Then you look at "Time compensation" table on Page 2, which says that after developing 5+ rolls in 1L of stock solution, increase the development time by 15% for rolls 6-10.

This means that by developing 4-5 rolls in 1L of stock solution you'll have it fully seasoned, and you can start replenishing at 70ml per roll, adjusting results to taste.

Basically your B1 bottle is already Xtol-R, add 10% to stock time and you won't be too far off.

 

[npl]

@npl the answers to all of your questions including the last one are in Xtol datasheet:

• Kodak considers Xtol to be fully seasoned (so it becomes "Xtol-R" as people say here) when the development times become 10% longer than stock. That's on Page 4, in "Starting (Preseasoning) a Fresh Working Tank Solution" chapter.
• Then you look at "Time compensation" table on Page 2, which says that after developing 5+ rolls in 1L of stock solution, increase the development time by 15% for rolls 6-10.

This means that by developing 4-5 rolls in 1L of stock solution you'll have it fully seasoned, and you can start replenishing at 70ml per roll, adjusting results to taste.

Basically your B1 bottle is already Xtol-R, add 10% to stock time and you won't be too far off.

Right ! I did missed that on page 4, thanks. Yes, by developping 5 rolls with the first bottle, the goal was to both test the full strength developper with my usual films, and to start a replenishement routine.

So last night I went with my 1:1 time minus 30 seconds, so 8min, that ended up being 7min because my working solution ("B1") was slightly over 21°c (I have an ilford compensation chart printed). It was OK, I think. Highlights are a bit dense, but that's a common "problem" with foma 100, and there's the metering, of course... standard agitation in paterson tank, 30s initially, 4 inversion during 10s at the start of every minutes. A bit surprised by the grain, I'll compare properly tonight with the strip from the same roll I did in 1:1 earlier.

 

[McDiesel]

@npl the advice of using 1+1 times for Xtol-R works well for some films, but not others. The big drawback of replenishing Xtol is that everyone's working solution is slightly different in its activity level. If you search Photrio you will find people's Xtol-R times vary a great deal. You need to experimentally find your own times, document them, and monitor the process. It's a major chore or a lot of fun, depends on your perspective

 

[Sirius Glass]

@npl the advice of using 1+1 times for Xtol-R works well for some films, but not others. The big drawback of replenishing Xtol is that everyone's working solution is slightly different in its activity level. If you search Photrio you will find people's Xtol-R times vary a great deal. You need to experimentally find your own times, document them, and monitor the process. It's a major chore or a lot of fun, depends on your perspective

Or just develop the same way every time and one would be hard placed to notice a difference.

 

[npl]

@npl the advice of using 1+1 times for Xtol-R works well for some films, but not others. The big drawback of replenishing Xtol is that everyone's working solution is slightly different in its activity level. If you search Photrio you will find people's Xtol-R times vary a great deal. You need to experimentally find your own times, document them, and monitor the process. It's a major chore or a lot of fun, depends on your perspective

Oh I know, I don't mind the experiments, it's part of the process . It's nice, though, to get good advices as starting point in order to save some films when there is no data from the manufacturer.

I have four main films (fomapan 100 and 200, Agfaphoto APX 100 and 400) and three way of using XTOL to test (stock, 1:1, replenished). When I'm done with theses, I'll maybe decide what method I like the most, then use theses first times as a baseline to do further tests. And maybe - maybe - by the end of the year I'll have enough data to decide if I want to stick to XTOL or go back to rodinal and HC-110

Tonight I looked more closely at my fomapan 100 scans, stock, 1:1 and replenished. I don't know what bugged me earlier in the last one, there's no major difference in grain as far as I can see. So far, so good

 

[McDiesel]

@npl well... Rodinal is a different kind of a developer. You may want to keep it around, especially because it keeps well.

While I stick to Xtol by default, I do enjoy a good ISO 100 negative developed in Rodinal every once in a while. The grain and the tonal curve are completely different. Actually Fomapan 100 just happens to be the film I often use Rodinal for.

The difference in grain structure between replenished Xtol, 1+1 and stock is basically negligible. Here's the zip file with the full-sized scans of the same scene on Delta 400, developed in 3 different developers:

• Delta 400 in stock, 1+1, and replenished.

The light was changing from shot to shot, but for grain comparison these are perfect, just find areas with similar density.

Xtol-R, 1+1 and stock simply offer different trade-offs between consistency, convenience and cost. The end result is the same.

 

[npl]

@npl well... Rodinal is a different kind of a developer. You may want to keep it around, especially because it keeps well.

While I stick to Xtol by default, I do enjoy a good ISO 100 negative developed in Rodinal every once in a while. The grain and the tonal curve are completely different. Actually Fomapan 100 just happens to be the film I often use Rodinal for.

The difference in grain structure between replenished Xtol, 1+1 and stock is basically negligible. Here's the zip file with the full-sized scans of the same scene on Delta 400, developed in 3 different developers:

• Delta 400 in stock, 1+1, and replenished.

The light was changing from shot to shot, but for grain comparison these are perfect, just find areas with similar density.

Xtol-R, 1+1 and stock simply offer different trade-offs between consistency, convenience and cost. The end result is the same.

Very interesting to have the same full-size pictures to compare, thanks for sharing them. As for rodinal and fomapan 100, I haven't done a lot of darkroom work yet, but the prints from this combo are among my favourites... there's something about the sharpness ("acutance" might be a better term ?) and the "old-school" look that is very pleasing for some subjects.

 

[Radost]

the

@npl well... Rodinal is a different kind of a developer. You may want to keep it around, especially because it keeps well.

While I stick to Xtol by default, I do enjoy a good ISO 100 negative developed in Rodinal every once in a while. The grain and the tonal curve are completely different. Actually Fomapan 100 just happens to be the film I often use Rodinal for.

The difference in grain structure between replenished Xtol, 1+1 and stock is basically negligible. Here's the zip file with the full-sized scans of the same scene on Delta 400, developed in 3 different developers:

• Delta 400 in stock, 1+1, and replenished.

The light was changing from shot to shot, but for grain comparison these are perfect, just find areas with similar density.

Xtol-R, 1+1 and stock simply offer different trade-offs between consistency, convenience and cost. The end result is the same.

the link does not work for me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

From the Kodak XTOL data sheets. See the last set of boxes on each page. I found that the 1:1 times are the same as the rotary times.