Replenishing XTOL developer

[Ian Grant]

Iron is the major cause of problems with Xtol, bottled water should be OK, otherwise a small de-ioniser - the water jug type is more than adequate.

Ian

 

[sandermarijn]

- Does anyone have example scans showing the difference between seasoned replenished xtol and diluted xtol? Better still if you have comparisons with D-76. Flowery words of its brilliance are all well and good but I want to see!

The very same question has been on my mind ever since this thread gained momentum (and lost it ). Several XTOL replenishers report a small gain in image quality going from one-shot to their method. I don't doubt these observations, but for many of us who don't replenish their XTOL (mostly because of too small volumes of film processed, as is the case with me), it will be nice to get a taste of what they're missing. Or is it simply that the differences between say replenished and 1+1 one-shot are too small to reproduce in the digital realm? I can perfectly imagine that. Opinions, examples, anybody?

 

[Ian Grant]

You need to do your own tests to see the differences for yourselves, they are subtle and would mostly get lost in scanning and resizing for the internet.

What you need to remember is these developers were designed for use in a commercial environment where replenishment was the norm and dilution not an option, but for small scale use dilution may be more practical due to lack of throughput.

Ian

 

[markbarendt]

but for many of us who don't replenish their XTOL (mostly because of too small volumes of film processed, as is the case with me)

That is a myth.

When most of us make up Xtol we make up a 5 liter batch, since that's the smallest bag sold.

The only extra requirement for replenishing is "a second jug" for the working solution. I use an old 1.75 liter Margarita mix bottle.

That's all it takes, nothing more.

For small batch stuff it is actually more economical.

You can actually develop a single sheet of 4x5 in a liter of working solution and after replenishment it will have cost you 17.5ml of stock.

 

[dfoo]

Again, I warn those who are going to get excited about replenishment... unless you are willing to do comprehensive testing of your film on a _regular basis_ you risk screwing up your precious film. It happened to me after I was replenishing for some time. I got progressively thinner and thinner films, in the end costing me about 1 stop of speed (from memory). Compared with developing 1+2 with XTOL replenishment saves nothing and furthermore you risk ruining your film. In my opinion, its is simply not worth it.

 

[Ian Grant]

Again, I warn those who are going to get excited about replenishment... unless you are willing to do comprehensive testing of your film on a _regular basis_ you risk screwing up your precious film. It happened to me after I was replenishing for some time. I got progressively thinner and thinner films, in the end costing me about 1 stop of speed (from memory). Compared with developing 1+2 with XTOL replenishment saves nothing and furthermore you risk ruining your film. In my opinion, its is simply not worth it.

In over 40 years of replenishing developers I have never lost/ruined a film due to using replenishment. There's also no need for constant testing either, a replenished system remains remarkably stable for quite a long period of time/throughput of negatives and Xtol is better than D76 in this respect..

There was something very wrong if you were getting progressively thinner negatives, it's not normal for a replenished system at all.

Ian

 

[dfoo]

Ok, what was I doing wrong? I mean its pretty simple! 4L of XTOL stock, 4L of replenisher. I developed with the stock and replaced 100ml per roll of film from the replenisher. After 100 rolls or so my negatives (as predicted by Roger Hicks among others) got thinner and I lost about 1 stop of speed as measured by taking a roll of film, shooting a test scene and developing half in the replenisher and half in the stock. The half developed in the stock was significantly more dense than the half in the replenisher. At that point, especially since there no economy when compared with 1+2 developing (where 100ml per roll is all that is necessary) I threw out the stock and went back to one shot.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Question to dfoo: How do you get by with 100ml at 1+2 dilution, processing a roll of 120? (It says you're a medium format shooter here). That's 300ml of liquid. Most tanks require something like 500-600ml to cover an entire roll of 120. How do you do that, unless you are rotary processing, which is not recommended with replenished Xtol?

After re-reading the whole chain of posts I need to make a couple of comments.

1. With fully seasoned and replenished Xtol, you may wish to expose about 1/2 stop more compared to stock or 1:1 Xtol. I previously stated box speed, but I was wrong. You do get full box speed with fresh Xtol usually, or maybe even higher depending on the film and how you agitate. But box speed with seasoned Xtol is probably too optimistic. EI 250-320 with something like TMax 400 is more realistic.

2. If you don't process film regularly, you will need to add about 100ml of fresh Xtol every two weeks you are not running any film through, or the activity might weaken.

3. If you lose density in your negatives, either the developer got contaminated, or you haven't replenished enough solution. All developing systems require calibration, and you have to find the correct volume of replenishment for your system.
For me, I am now well into the second year using the same batch of replenished Xtol, and several hundred rolls of film. Activity is the same, and my replenishment rate is about 80ml per film, and I round up and rather add a bit more every time. My working solution is two liters. If you have a four liter working solution, you have a larger volume that needs to stay active, so maybe that dynamic will force you to a different replenishment regime? Guidelines offered by Kodak are guidelines.

I love the replenished Xtol. I get sharper negatives, with finer and more acute grain, and a tonality where the highlights get this really great modulation just on the brink of blocking up. I love that look, and I rarely use any other developer, unless I shot a whole roll in flatly lit scenes, in which case I look for extra sparkle in the highlights with HC-110.
My previous developers have been Agfa Rodinal, Pyrocat-HD, Pyrocat-MC, Diafine, FA-1027, and Edwal 12. Alongside Edwal 12 I get the best negatives I've ever gotten with replenished Xtol and the occasional HC-110.

- Thomas

 

[dfoo]

I was using 100ml for 135 not medium format. With my plastic tanks 330 ml of liquid is required for 1 roll of 135. I was developing quite frequently. At least 1 roll per week, often much more. With respect to calibration. Yes, that's fine, however, as I said in my original post at the bottom of the last page that requires continual testing and monitoring. If you are not willing to do that, IMO, replenishment isn't for you.

When I compare the negatives developed over 18 months with replenished XTOL with the negatives where I used one shot I simply don't see differences you see. Furthermore, I see the last bunch I developed as having gone down hill in quality (getting progressively thinner). In fact, when I look at the roll immediately before dumping the replenished XTOL and moving back to one shot there is a huge increase in quality. This is in the middle of a set of 50-60 rolls that I shot for a project in Shanghai that were all consistently exposed at EI 200 (for TMAX 400) in fairly bright conditions.

 

[dfoo]

BTW, here is a thread on RFF where a Roger Hicks and a poster "Marty" chimed in to tell me about a one stop loss...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81998

At the time I had run through about 30 rolls of film and hadn't noticed any loss in speed. If you read through the thread you can see that in March 2010 I switched back to one shot after noticing deterioration in quality and started thinking about what Roger had written. I decided to do a test, as I mentioned, and was pretty surprised to see that they were in fact correct.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Well, I can't explain what went wrong for you. I have no reason to disrespect Roger Hicks or anybody else, yourself included, so I'll just leave it at this: your experience is completely opposite from what I've seen.

I haven't experienced any of your problems. Far from it. Replenished Xtol has been, by far, the most stable process I have ever used. Negatives are consistent and lovely to work with, and I have done absolutely nothing to the process since I started, other than adjusting from 70ml per roll to 80ml per roll, a way into it, because I was losing a little bit of highlight density. At 80ml per roll it's consistent and has never let me down. I repeat that I have hundreds of rolls through my 2 liter batch, over a long time span.

What separates your experience from mine could probably be analyzed, but you seem to be happier with using single shot developer anyway, so I don't think there is much point. As long as you get the results you want, who cares?!

Happy shooting, make lots of great pictures!

 

[Ian Grant]

dfoo, the flaw in Roger Hicks post about Bromide is that unlike D76 which contains Metol Xtol isn't as susceptible to bromide levels and thats the same for all replenished developers using Phenidone/Dimezone instead of Metol.

So assuming you were using sufficient replenishment it's quite probable that the cause for the deterioration lies elsewhere, I've never seen any drop off as you describe and I used Xtol from it's release until about 2 years ago, and processed may hundreds of 35mm, 120 and even more LF sheet film always replenished.

Ian

 

[dfoo]

Thomas, I was quite enjoying using replenished XTOL until I got some bad results. These days I'm using rotary processing with XTOL. Why is it recommended not to use rotary processing with replenished XTOL?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, I was quite enjoying using replenished XTOL until I got some bad results. These days I'm using rotary processing with XTOL. Why is it recommended not to use rotary processing with replenished XTOL?

I honestly can't remember why it isn't recommended to use it with rotary processors. Sorry. Teflon memory.

 

[Ian Grant]

You shouldn't use rotary processing with any replenished developer because there far more aerial oxidation taking place due to low volumes and high surface areas.

Ian

 

[dfoo]

Ok, that assumes that you leave dead space in the tank. If you fill the tank to the brim can it cause issues? I guess the worry is at that point the agitation will be messed up?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks for remembering for me, Ian.

dfoo, it's not so much that you're leaving dead space in the tank. You do that when you develop in a daylight tank too in order to get proper fluid movement when you agitate.
The problem is that you agitate continuously. That aerates the developer, and introduces oxygen to the developer at a very rapid rate and oxidizes is, which subsequently destroys the developer activity. Therefore single shot developers are preferred.
This doesn't happen to the same degree when you manually agitate a daylight tank, because the tank is still for the bulk of the developing time. That's the difference.

- Thomas

 

[dfoo]

If the tank is full to the brim how can you introduce oxygen?

 

[Ian Grant]

If the tank is full to the brim how can you introduce oxygen?

Tank full or half full isn't the issue.

With a rotary processor there's so little chemistry and the film's not always immersed, that's the surface area issue.

Ian

 

[mitch brown]

thomas
thank you for all your help today on this process. it was very very complete and i look forward to useing it.
mitch

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If the tank is full to the brim how can you introduce oxygen?

Rhetorical question:

Agitation: You invert the tank, and rotate it along the core of the reels at the same time. This is so you can get fresh developer in contact with the film's emulsion. If your tank is completely full, how do you get the fluid to successfully move around to accomplish that?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have been using XTOL replenished for several years. I follow the Kodak instructions. I have no problems and replenished XTOL gives better results than diluted XTOL. Many in APUG do what I do and they have had the same results. Look at the XTOL threads to see the testing others have done with XTOL replenished and XTOL replenished versus XTOL diluted. With so many using replenished XTOL it is hard to conceive that ALL OF US ARE WRONG.

Steve

 

[dfoo]

I'm not sure if you are talking to me, but I'm not saying you are all wrong. I'm reporting my personal experience...

 

[Sirius Glass]

It was a general comment. If I was talking about you, I would have quoted you.

 

[michaelbsc]

You shouldn't use rotary processing with any replenished developer because there far more aerial oxidation taking place due to low volumes and high surface areas.

Ian

Thank you for explaining this. I have never quite understood what the deal was about rotary processing.