As this thread died down, I couldn't resist contacting Dick Dickerson and Silvia Zawadzki, the Kodak engineers who invented XTOL. Although retired, Dick and Silvia still get together regularly, and said they'd discuss my question on implications, if any, of pH and water used to mix stock solutions, at their next meeting. I included a link to the thread, which they reviewed.
After considering my distilled water measurements, their response echoed Gerald's comments; it absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, causing pH to tumble, and offers miniscule buffering capacity. They indicated bringing the water to neutral would be tedious to do and gain me nothing, adding that the amount of CO2 absorbed by the water is likely no different than what perfectly neutral water would absorb while stirring to mix a developer.
Dick and Silvia went on to discuss the sequestrants, buffers and other addenda found in XTOL (as well as other packaged developers) which enable mixing stock solutions with all but the most foul local water. They noted that there could be a small difference in optimum development time for a given film based on one's particular water supply, but, once dialed in, that time would be consistent. The only photographers they suggest might benefit from mixing XTOL with distilled water are photojournalists who travel the world, encountering varying water supplies in different locations. I replied that, since my local municipal system alternates between water sources of substantially different quality, I'll continue to mix XTOL with distilled, since less than $2 every six months or so seems a small price to pay for consistent contrast index results.
I had mentioned to Dick and Silvia that there have been reports lately of XTOL packages being received in breached envelopes that were open to the atmosphere, which seemed to coincide with a change in supplier from Champion to (reportedly) Tetenal. This is a verbatim quote -- with permission -- of their response's final paragraph:
"Of course all of this is predicated on XTOL still being properly manufactured. No reason to think it isn't, but that is something we can no longer vouch for!"
Thank you, Sal, for taking the discussion to the experts for their valued opinion. I never expected this thread to create such a firestorm of active discussion; I figured it had to be either pH (which has now been ruled out with many thanks to DD and SZ) or absorbed oxygen in the manufacturing process oxidizing the developer or just plain contamination. Foolish me, I thought a simple posting might dredge up someone with similar experience and we would put this issue to bed in an exchange or two.
I have long since dismissed the issue as my alternate water source is perfectly viable and now reliable. It was probably some inane shortcut in the manufacturing process of this particular brand of DW that introduced the problem. I have had zero issues since switching to filtered water.
Who knew it would take over a 100 posts to rule out my two perceived notions of possible problem areas! Anyway, thanks to all who contributed.
Last edited by a moderator:

