Plastic dev tank retaining blix?

[iandvaag]

I developed b&w film (HP5+ at 400) as I usually do today -- develop with rodinal, stop with running water and fix with tf-4. Something went wrong -- there's no images, frame numbers, nothing.

The only thing I can think of is that I developed C-41 a couple weeks ago with a 3-bath (blix) kit. Is it possible that my plastic paterson tank could have adsorbed the blix, and then it came out as I dev'd b&w film today? I guess it's probably poor practice to use a developing tank for two different processes. I won't after losing three rolls today. As I was rinsing the blank film, the wash water kept coming out pink, just as it does after washing in c-41, not the typical slightly magenta color from normal hp5+.

I must say that I did feel that I washed out the tank quite well after my c41 run. I filled it up, washed it out with fresh water maybe 20 times. There was certainly no color to the rinse water as I washed the tank out.

Has anyone else experienced this? Or y'all are too smart to use the same tank for different processes.

 

[iandvaag]

Never mind -- just found out that it's my Rodinal that's shot. I threw the film leader into the last few mLs of concentrate, and three minutes later, still no development...

There's a precipitate at the bottom of too, gues it must not have been capped tightly or something. I'm really mad at myself right now...

 

[bvy]

It's good to get in the habit of clip testing ANY developer before you use it. It's easy enough to do. Sorry for your mishap.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is always painful to have a developer go bad and lose a roll of film. At least it was only one roll and not a batch of film rolls. Follow what bvy said in the future.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

While Xtol has been known to experience sudden death it should not happen to developers like Rodinal.

A clip test really should not be done with concentrate. The high viscosity slows the development process.

It's normal for Rodinal to throw down a sediment and does not necessarily indicate spoilage.

 

[Kilgallb]

It is always painful to have a developer go bad and lose a roll of film. At least it was only one roll and not a batch of film rolls. Follow what bvy said in the future.

Well said. i lost two roll shot in Shanghai due to Xtol failure. This simple test would have save a lot of disappointment.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Depends which version of Rodinal was used. Some of the newer variants don't have the legendary long life of the Agfa version.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Depends which version of Rodinal was used. Some of the newer variants don't have the legendary long life of the Agfa version.

This may be packaging related. When Agfa switched from glass they went to a multi-layer composite bottle which still protected the developer from oxidation. Most versions now come in polyethylene bottles a very poor choice.

 

[iandvaag]

Thanks for the advice -- never again will I develop film without first testing the developer (of course testing the working solution, not dipping it in the concentrate). I always test fixer, but I guess since Rodinal is 1-shot and has "legendary" keeping properties, I thought it was ok. Also, for the record, this was "blazinal" (Canadian rodinal by Blazes photographic). It came in an HDPE bottle and says "made in germany". I tried developing again today with fresh Adox Adonal which was much lighter in color than the blazinal. No problems at all. I'll stick with adonal from now on. I'm ordering some small 250mL glass bottles from the formulary to store the adonal for extra security (it also came in an HDPE bottle).

 

[bvy]

HC-110 is also a good choice if longevity is high on your list. But no developer is a substitute for a clip test. Good luck.

 

[pentaxuser]

While Xtol has been known to experience sudden death it should not happen to developers like Rodinal.

This keeps on coming up but I had thought that the Xtol sudden death problem had been solved several years ago. You mention it and Killgalb then adds that he was a victim of Xtol as well.

Maybe for clarity you can say if it is a former problem which no longer exists or an existing one and maybe Killgalb can say how long ago he was the victim of "sudden death" Xtol.

Maybe other users of Xtol can say if they too have been victims of sudden death Xtol in recent times.

On several occasions even in threads not connected with Xtol the "sudden unexplained death" phenomenon seems to surface which if it is a "former" problem is a pity for Kodak and Xtol users

I'll start the Xtol experience ball rolling. I have used this stuff exclusively for probably 5 or more years and have seen no problem with any packets

pentaxuser

 

[mnemosyne]

This keeps on coming up but I had thought that the Xtol sudden death problem had been solved several years ago. You mention it and Killgalb then adds that he was a victim of Xtol as well.

Maybe for clarity you can say if it is a former problem which no longer exists or an existing one and maybe Killgalb can say how long ago he was the victim of "sudden death" Xtol.

Maybe other users of Xtol can say if they too have been victims of sudden death Xtol in recent times.

On several occasions even in threads not connected with Xtol the "sudden unexplained death" phenomenon seems to surface which if it is a "former" problem is a pity for Kodak and Xtol users

I'll start the Xtol experience ball rolling. I have used this stuff exclusively for probably 5 or more years and have seen no problem with any packets

pentaxuser

I agree. I have been using Xtol since 2009 for hundreds of films and never have experienced sudden death. What I gather from the info on the web is that Xtol reacts a bit more sensitive than other developers to external factors like water quality or quality of storage container, but I take care in preparing the solution and storing it and get excellent longevity and consistency out of it. Like pentaxuser I find it a bit annoying that the "Xtol sudden death" story comes up almost inevitably whenever this developer is discussed, and sometimes, like in this thread, even when it is not discussed. I too would appreciate if people who feel the irresistible urge to mention they had a "Xtol sudden death experience" could comment on when this happened, so it becomes evident if we are talking about a recent experience/problem or merely a "historical anecdote" relating to the long solved packaging issues of 15 or 20 years ago.

 

[pentaxuser]

What I gather from the info on the web is that Xtol reacts a bit more sensitive than other developers to external factors like water quality or quality of storage container, but I take care in preparing the solution and storing it and get excellent longevity and consistency out of it.

Yes, while water quality is well controlled in the U.K. what cannot be avoided is the range of hard to soft we get on this small island. In my area we have one of the hardest waters in the U.K. Kettles, washing machines etc have to be regularly descaled and yet despite this hardness I have yet to experience any problems with Xtol.

I am beginning to sound like an apologist for the stuff but if products are to be criticised then we need to know the current evidence. Otherwise Xtol deserves a "fair crack of the whip" as the saying goes

pentaxuser

 

[pdeeh]

The problem with Ascorbic acid developers (like Xtol) is that they can be prone to "die" because of the "Fenton reaction" - this is nothing to do with the hardness or otherwise of the water, but the presence of iron in the water.

Presumably this can be avoided by inclusion of a suitable chelating agent in the developer formula to bind the iron and make it unavailable for the reaction to take place.