Replenishing Xtol 1+1/1:1

Athiril · Apr 9, 2011

Know the PDF says its one shot, but thats assuming you mix it up as stock, so you cant really put it back into stock solution.

If you mix up your Xtol all as 1+1/1:1, I assume it could be replenished, and at twice the amount as stock?

I want to run my Xtol replenished, but I want to use 1+1/1:1 for the mentioned slightly increased speed it gives.

ath · Apr 9, 2011

Diluting a developer significantly changes the keeping properties. IMHO that's the reason for "one shot".

Ian Grant · Apr 9, 2011

FS Xtol replenished has better properties all-round than used one shot at at 1+1 and keeps also well.

Ian

Ronald Moravec · Apr 9, 2011

You need to use as stock if you wish to replenish. At a dollar a liter, why worry if you use 4oz per roll?

Athiril · Apr 9, 2011

Ian Grant said:
FS Xtol replenished has better properties all-round than used one shot at at 1+1 and keeps also well.

Ian

I didn't ask the question you answered, but Kodak says 1+1/1:1 has better film speed than, better grain, and better sharpness than stock.

Sim2 · Apr 9, 2011

May not be an expert on x-tol but I understand that using stock (as one-shot) undiluted has different characteristics than running a replenished set-up, and from what I have heard the repenished is a better choice.

Sim2.

Ian Grant · Apr 9, 2011

Athiril said:
I didn't ask the question you answered, but Kodak says 1+1/1:1 has better film speed than, better grain, and better sharpness than stock.

You may not have asked the question but the answers still the same. Used replenished as Kodak recommends (and once ripened) Xtol gives better sharpness and finer grain than when used at 1+1, the differences in film speed are negligible unless used at 1+3 anyway.

Ian

2F/2F · Apr 9, 2011

To paraphrase Athiril, the question is, "Can X-Tol be used replenished and 1:1?"

My guess would be yes, but that no one one knows exactly how, so it would take some experimentation on your part. If people knew how, they would be saying something, not sidestepping the question.

As a wild guess, how about trying the same regimen for replenishment of the straight developer, but diluting your replenisher 1:1 as well. I don't understand the chemical intricacies, but that is probably where I'd start.

Ian Grant · Apr 9, 2011

The more dilute the developer the less well it'll keep, so replenishing at 1+1 will be far more hit & miss. Many of us have used replenished Xtol for up to around 18 months, if it's getting replenished with fresh Xtol.

Ian

yeknom02 · Apr 9, 2011

Ian, you say 18 months. Does this mean when I pitch out whatever XTOL stock I have left after the 6 months from date of mixing, I will not have to pitch out my replenished working solution?

Sirius Glass · Apr 9, 2011

Ian Grant said:
FS Xtol replenished has better properties all-round than used one shot at at 1+1 and keeps also well.

Ian

Sim2 said:
May not be an expert on x-tol but I understand that using stock (as one-shot) undiluted has different characteristics than running a replenished set-up, and from what I have heard the repenished is a better choice.

Sim2.

Ian Grant said:
You may not have asked the question but the answers still the same. Used replenished as Kodak recommends (and once ripened) Xtol gives better sharpness and finer grain than when used at 1+1, the differences in film speed are negligible unless used at 1+3 anyway.

Ian

Ian Grant said:
The more dilute the developer the less well it'll keep, so replenishing at 1+1 will be far more hit & miss. Many of us have used replenished Xtol for up to around 18 months, if it's getting replenished with fresh Xtol.

Ian

Replenished is always better than diluted [one shot], or diluted-replenished [aka crap shot]. Always and in any combination.
Diluted-replenished is referred to as crap shot, because you do not know what you have. Ever.
I have gotten two years out of replenishing XTOL. The only reason I did not go longer is that the bottle got knocked over.
If you want consistent results, follow the manufacturer directions, otherwise you are on you own and then you can start thread that your idea did not work and the manufacturer doesn't know what it isn't doing{!?!?!}.

Steve

Ian Grant · Apr 9, 2011

yeknom02 said:
Ian, you say 18 months. Does this mean when I pitch out whatever XTOL stock I have left after the 6 months from date of mixing, I will not have to pitch out my replenished working solution?

Not so simple perhaps. My experience is that stock (unused) Xtol lasts about 9 months to a year.

So I split a an Xtol 5 litre pack into 2.5 litres working solution then replenish with the rest, then start a new pack (9 months to a year later) and continue replenishing. About 18 months is the longest before staring again, but I always used some of the old to ripen the next batch.

I've replenished developers like Microphen, ID-11(D76), Adox Borax MQ then Xtol from my teens (late 1960's) so it's second nature to me.

A point for the OP though is that a replenished developer has many of the attributes of the stock being used at 1+2 but none of the downsides of dilution, like increased grain.

The benefits are better tonality (longer tonal range), finer grain, and increased sharpness.You don't get the clipping (compensating) of using the developer at 1+3 and what's forgotten is that many developers were designed to give their best results replenished.

Ian

Sirius Glass · Apr 9, 2011

Thank you well said Ian. I have repeated why replenished is better and I forget to be specific with the reasons why.

Steve

Ian Grant · Apr 9, 2011

Sirius Glass said:
Replenished is always better than diluted [one shot], or diluted-replenished [aka crap shot]. Always and in any combination.

Diluted-replenished is referred to as crap shot, because you do not know what you have. Ever.

I have gotten two years out of replenishing XTOL. The only reason I did not go longer is that the bottle got knocked over.

If you want consistent results, follow the manufacturer directions, otherwise you are on you own and then you can start thread that your idea did not work and the manufacturer doesn't know what it isn't doing{!?!?!}.

Steve

Thanks Steve that's much what I've always said about replenishment.

I'd add that the time a replenished system can be continued is dependant on many variables, the amount of use and the volume, method of storage etc. Heavy usage the 6-9 months is good, medium then 12 months or longer. Certain formulae can be replenished ad-infinitum (almost). There's no hard & fast rules, replenished deep tanks or processing machines are shorter times than sealed bottles.

Ian

Ian Grant · Apr 9, 2011

We were cross posting Steve

Ian

Sirius Glass · Apr 9, 2011

Ian Grant said:
We were cross posting Steve

Ian

I would rather cross posts than cross swords!

Steve

dfoo · Apr 10, 2011

Just to chime in here... I personally did not have very positive results with replenishment of XTOL and I advise rigorous and regular testing if you decide to use replenishment yourself.

Athiril · Apr 10, 2011

Ian Grant said:
You may not have asked the question but the answers still the same. Used replenished as Kodak recommends (and once ripened) Xtol gives better sharpness and finer grain than when used at 1+1, the differences in film speed are negligible unless used at 1+3 anyway.

Ian

I dont consider 'finer grain' better grain if it's due to a solvency effect. Best film speed is what I want.

The relevant part is I didn't ask that question. You can stop there.

This is exactly why I usually stick to asking completely abstracted questions as opposed to anything specific, as people will be unhelpful, won't endeavor to answer the actual question with any kind of reference, and instead will repeatedly try to push their own agenda/alternatives. IE; people will not be objective, and will insert very questionable subjectivity.

Athiril · Apr 10, 2011

Sirius Glass said:
Replenished is always better than diluted [one shot], or diluted-replenished [aka crap shot]. Always and in any combination.

Diluted-replenished is referred to as crap shot, because you do not know what you have. Ever.

I have gotten two years out of replenishing XTOL. The only reason I did not go longer is that the bottle got knocked over.

If you want consistent results, follow the manufacturer directions, otherwise you are on you own and then you can start thread that your idea did not work and the manufacturer doesn't know what it isn't doing{!?!?!}.

Steve

If you know what you have stock. You can know what you have diluted. I would replenish 1+1 used, with 1+1 fresh.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf

I can find where it says 1:1 has better sharpness, better grain (says it has more grain, therefore 1:1 has less solvent action), and better speed. I can't see where it says replenished has better or as good speed or sharpness. In fact, since seasoned/replenished has higher restrainer content, I can only assume it has lower speed and higher contrast than fresh stock solution, let alone 1:1/1+1.

Ian Grant said:
You don't get the clipping (compensating)

Ian

That's what compensation prevents.

Ian Grant · Apr 10, 2011

Kodak don't state all the benefits of replinishment, neither do Ilford these days but there's been much written in the past mostly in professional publications.

Replenishment of of 1+1 would require significantly more extra developer as the exhaustion is far greater, it's possible to calculate mathematically because it's known how much developing agents on average are used to process each film, the solutions will have poorer keeping properties because the sulphite level is lower allowing faster oxidation. That's why Sirius Glass says it'd be a crap shoot.

Ian

Sirius Glass · Apr 10, 2011

Bingo ---- Exactly, Ian!

Athiril · Apr 10, 2011

The developer is an an anti-oxidant, as it's Xtol (Vitamin C), it doesn't need high sulphite, or the ascorbate would end up preserving the sulphite. Xtol has low sulphite.

Do you have any reference? Replenished has higher restrainer (bromide content) and logically would have lower shadow speed (lower film speed) unless demonstrated otherise.

Well, yes, if at stock a typical film uses x mg of developer, and z mL of developer replenishes that, then 1+1 with 1+1 replenishment would use 2z mL to replace x mg of developer that gets used.. for the same amount of silver halide being reduced uses the same amount of reducing agent.

Ian Grant · Apr 10, 2011

I wouldn't call 85g per litre Sulphite low That appears to be closer to the optimum than D76/ID-11's 100g and developers like Agfa Ansco AN17/Agfa (Orwo) AG44 as well as Adox Borax MQ all give finer grain, better sharpness & tonality and a true box speed with less Sulphite.

Personally I've not noticed a drop in film speed with replenishment with any of the developers I've used, if there is one it's not significant, there is a need to increase the dev times and that seems to more than compensate.

Ian

Athiril · Apr 10, 2011

Where are you getting 85g/litre from?

See it now.

Regardless, it's still ascorbate. And would require poor storage condition, as opposed to airless or very little air in a glass bottle in the dark storage.

Gerald C Koch · Apr 10, 2011

The proverbial elephant in the room is that Kodak clearly states that diluted Xtol should not be replenished. When the manufacturer of a product says don't do that most people listen. End of story!

Replenishing Xtol 1+1/1:1

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency