...I too would prefer glass, but the marble (or inert gas), I do not see myself doing that.
...Searching the archive at PHOTRIO would reveal any number of threads on this subject, many of which include my posts describing the 20 250ml Boston Round glass bottles I use to store five liters of XTOL stock. Each bottle is used for a single batch of film, thereby going from full to empty and never needing ancillary oxygen elimination methods...
No! I will make my 5 l stock batch as instructed.
I was mentioning 1:1 as a way to say that my use will be one-shot, standard work solution - until I understand replenishing better.
I too would prefer glass, but the marble (or inert gas), I do not see myself doing that.
Once I've run through all this Xtol that I have, I'll have to give Legacy Pro a go... A bit pricy up here, though.By the time I get through all my Xtol, I'll be retired... and I'll really be feeling the pinch then!
As a reference point, I have used the wine bags for some time. I have done densitromity testing between Xtol that was 3 years old stored in a wine bag and a fresh batch and I could measure no difference when developed in a Jobo.
I would think the weakness of a glass bottle is not the bottle itself, but the cap. Is that impervious to oxygen and does it seal very well? I've found that many caps don't seal particularly well. I used to store paper developer in a glass bottle and it didn't last very long.
Just an alternate thought... This thread discusses a variety of strategies to store Xtol type developers in airtight containers so it will not be damaged by oxygen. Exposure to the oxygen from air is part of the problem. But it might be said that the water used in making the solution is another part of the problem because it can communicate any oxygen present to the ascorbate in the solution. Jordon formulated the home-mixed Xtol clone called Instant Mytol. With one version of that, the part "A" stock solution is mixed not in water but glycol. This takes an alternate approach to shielding the ascorbate from oxygen because glycol does not allow it to access the ascorbate the way water does. The liquid stock has a good shelf life and because it is concentrated, takes up less room. One needs to be able get the materials, but it is inexpensive. There is the complication that one needs to toss in the sulfate with the "A" solution when making the working mix. https://photosensitive.ca/easy-film-developers/
Reasonably priced Glycol is difficult to source up here. Shipping it up here from the US is ridiculously expensive.
Dang. The "green" anti-freeze is not an option?
Seriously?? Can I use that??
Reasonably priced Glycol is difficult to source up here. Shipping it up here from the US is ridiculously expensive.
Argentix of Quebec lists 100 ml of glycol for $8 Canadian. There would a significant shipping change as well because it is not a dry chemical. That price doesn't seem wildly different than Formulary's: 100 ml. for $8.94 Canadian ($7 US). This doesn't show that it is inexpensive in Canada. But maybe the situation in U.S. is not so different. If one could find a place that offered free shipping or one could pick up locally, that would help.
In perspective, because Jordan's stock solution is concentrated, it uses only 13 ml of liquid stock "A" to mix up 500 ml of working solution. If one uses 250 ml working solution per roll, it would be half that. The liquid stock solution is not pure glycol because there are the other ingredients. It might more like 10 ml of glycol itself per 500 ml working solution.
https://www.argentix.ca/qs.php?=SID
Argentix of Quebec lists 100 ml of glycol for $8 Canadian. There would a significant shipping change as well because it is not a dry chemical. That price doesn't seem wildly different than Formulary's: 100 ml. for $8.94 Canadian ($7 US). This doesn't show that it is inexpensive in Canada. But maybe the situation in U.S. is not so different. If one could find a place that offered free shipping or one could pick up locally, that would help.
In perspective, because Jordan's stock solution is concentrated, it uses only 13 ml of liquid stock "A" to mix up 500 ml of working solution. If one uses 250 ml working solution per roll, it would be half that. The liquid stock solution is not pure glycol because there are the other ingredients. It might more like 10 ml of glycol itself per 500 ml working solution.
https://www.argentix.ca/qs.php?=SID
One could make a quick run across the US Canadian or Canadien US border into Photographers' Formulary in the wilds of outer Montana.
Sorry, but I don't see glycol at Argentix. I only see glyoxal listed.
This puzzling Andrew. I am looking on my browser at the page on Argentix that lists p. glycol. But when I copy the address for that page and open in another tab, it goes to a different place. So I don't know how to share a good link to it. I have attached a screen shot to show you what I am looking at. When I used the search tool on Argentix and put in glycol, the page the glycol came right up. I don't know the fact that Argentix has both English a French versions of web site has anything to do with it.
Reasonably priced Glycol is difficult to source up here. Shipping it up here from the US is ridiculously expensive.
Reasonably priced Glycol is difficult to source up here. Shipping it up here from the US is ridiculously expensive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?