Replenishing Xtol

Mainecoonmaniac said:

You're old too? Those kids should get off our lawns and start mixing their own chemicals!

Click to expand...

Well...

I keep hearing sixty isn't old by today's standards, but every day taking my Social Security in a couple years gets more tempting (I really should wait it out for maximum -- my dad's 84, and was still climbing on roofs just a couple years ago, so I expect to need to get by for fifteen or twenty years even if I wait until maximum retirement to start collecting it). If I could make my living in a darkroom... but that would probably make me hate it, feeling like I have to do it.

Sirius Glass said:

This is a very bad idea. You are losing all the advantages of replenishing. Did you come up with this idea based on your PhD in photographic chemistry or what you had for breakfast.

Click to expand...

You're not making it easy for me. This is something that's not in Kodak's data sheet, but has been told by multiple people here (MattKing, Adrian Bacon and others): "if you don't develop any film, just add 70ml to your working bottle every two weeks".

Bormental said:

You're not making it easy for me. This is something that's not in Kodak's data sheet, but has been told by multiple people here (MattKing, Adrian Bacon and others): "if you don't develop any film, just add 70ml to your working bottle every two weeks".

Click to expand...

That is not in the data sheets because if reduces the byproducts which are necessary for getting the benefits of replenishment. No one who told you to add developer when not developing film has no accepted scientific research to support their claims.

Sirius Glass said:

That is not in the data sheets because if reduces the byproducts which are necessary for getting the benefits of replenishment. No one who told you to add developer when not developing film has no accepted scientific research to support their claims.

Click to expand...

Yep - it is all anecdotal, reflecting individual examples of successful results in environments different than those reported by Kodak.
Sort of like all the data out there about unofficial dilution H for HC-110.
I expect that the reason you don't see official data is:
1) it is outside the typical use pattern that the two Kodaks tested for; and
2) if it results in activity that is higher than expected, it won't be easily noticed by photographers who have really low volumes - probably because they don't produce the incredibly consistent results that would be impacted by this.
If you do high volume studio work, don't follow this routine. Pay the money for control strips and buy and use a densitometer.
And if you are running a lab and selling your services, I'd give the same advice if your volumes are that low.

Sirius Glass said:

Actually stock or replenished XTOL works much better than soup.

Click to expand...

There are acounts around stating that a seasoned developer is better.

Personally, I don't much a difference in the sensitometric curve... if adjusting development time for the same CI

Just speculating a bit, about what benefits some people may find.

a) One possibility is that the development time is undercorrected and an slight underdevelopment may be benefical in many situations.

b) The longer development time allows a greater solvent effect, with a finer grain. (A diluted developer also is used with a longer time but the sulfite dilution ends in a lower solvent effect.)

Bormental said:

You're not making it easy for me. This is something that's not in Kodak's data sheet, but has been told by multiple people here (MattKing, Adrian Bacon and others): "if you don't develop any film, just add 70ml to your working bottle every two weeks".

Click to expand...

I think if you don't replenish as you process your film, your developer will get weaker until you replenish it. I think this method invites inconsistent results. Even when I replenished as I used the developer, the recommended rate of 70mls per roll will cause the developer to slowly drift towards being weaker.

Mainecoonmaniac said:

the recommended rate of 70mls per roll will cause the developer to slowly drift towards being weaker.

Click to expand...

This depends on how you expose, the kind of scenes you shot and on your development time. All things contributing to get denser negatives will exhaust more the developer. Anyway 30ml of Xtol costs 6 cents... there is no problem in refilling 100ml instead 70ml. ($10 * 30 / 5000 = $0.06)

By the way, the advice is: "if you don't develop any film in a two week period, remove 70 ml of seasoned developer from the working solution and replace it with 70ml of replenisher. Then re-set your two week reminder".
In my case, 70 ml per roll or two week period of inactivity seems to work well. I know that others end up gravitating to different amounts.
I expect the differences relate to all the various variables that we each employ.

There are numerous old threads that I dug up by searching for Xtol here, saying the same thing. On the other hand, there are people (Ian Grant IIRC?) who claimed that their replenished Xtol bottle sat untouched for 6 months and continued without any problems.

One thing I must do is to up my 1L working bottle to 1.8L to provide more cushion for process adjustment.

If you don't have the steady throughput necessary for a replenished system, don't try and run one.

Consistency matters more than any theoretical saving of cost etc.

Bormental said:

One thing I must do is to up my 1L working bottle to 1.8L to provide more cushion for process adjustment.

Click to expand...

With the 2002 XTOL I mixed a few days ago, I made the working solution a 2L bottle, because one of my tanks (the Yankee Agitank) requires up to 1.9L (64 oz.) for each rack of film (depends on format, but 9x12 at 1.425L and 4x5 at 1.9L are all I'm likely to put in there).

What happens when you don't use the developer for a while depends strongly on your storage situation. If you have very impermeable bottles for both reserve stock and working solution, you can probably store the working solution for months and see no change; if you don't, you'll see oxidation, which weakens the developer, but you won't see an increase in post-development products (like bromides), so replenishing will tend to make the developer more active. This is why there's the advice not to replenish if you won't process enough film. Kodak assumes multiple rolls per day in their replenishment documents (I saw a video recently, from a year or so ago, where the videographer toured a commercial dip and dunk lab -- they process hundreds of rolls a day, and have the Thesean-same C-41 chemistry still running after ten years), but many people's experience is that you can run replenishment with good consistency if you process a couple rolls a week.

With XTOL, using the developer as its own replenisher (as with Flexicolor or Fuji C-41) and seasoning or using a starter to start the regimen, if your storage is tight enough (low permeability bottles, near-zero airspace), it seems the frequency of use is less important than it would be with, say, D-76 or HC-110, in which the replenisher isn't the same as original working solution (it's more similar, in D-76, to a seasoned stock solution). Grant's experience and the more common may differ mainly in terms of the kind of storage. Glass or PET bottles will let less oxygen into the bottle during storage than polyethylene like Datatainers or accordion bottles.

I recently found my old Diafine, stored in 1L commercial drinking water bottles with air squeezed out. They're still squeezed in after twelve to fourteen years (I don't remember when I last used them), and the Solution A (which contains the developing agents) is not dark or tinted -- I'll test it sometime soon, but it's probably still good. If low permeability storage can keep Diafine (another phenidone-based developer) for more than twelve years, it should allow keeping XTOL for a couple weeks or more without requiring replenishment just for aging. Put another way, if your XTOL isn't oxidizing in storage, replenishment just for time (not for film processed) will do more harm than good, pushing your working solution back toward an unseasoned state.

Lachlan Young said:

If you don't have the steady throughput necessary for a replenished system, don't try and run one. Consistency matters more than any theoretical saving of cost etc.

Click to expand...

I have at least 2 rolls that need to be developed every week. More often I have more, but who knows what happens in the future... Costs are laughable, it's probably my cheapest hobby. I am replenishing because people have been pitching Xtol-R as being superior to stock, so I HAD to try it out.

So far, it seems to be a little better [1] than stock for Foma 100 and catastrophically worse for Foma 400. I keep increasing time and I keep getting underdeveloped negatives, in fact I am not seeing any changes in density despite bumping time by 20%. I am exposing it at 320, and feels like there's some kind of "glass ceiling" for this film with Xtol-R.

Donald Qualss said:

What happens when you don't use the developer for a while depends strongly on your storage situation. If you have very impermeable bottles for both reserve stock and working solution, you can probably store the working solution for months and see no change; if you don't, you'll see oxidation, which weakens the developer

Click to expand...

I use Formulary's amber glass bottles stored in the dark in a shed outside. I have a logging thermometer in there, the temperature varies between 61 and 64F within 24 hours, easy to do in California. I also use distilled water. As far as I'm aware, this is close to ideal. TBH since my volume is fairly high, the potential need to replenish for idle time is hypothetical for now.

[1] I mean very little. The grain is a bit more tight but that's pixel peeping. I still haven't tried my primary film in Xtol-R (Delta 400).

Bormental said:

catastrophically worse for Foma 400. I keep increasing time and I keep getting underdeveloped negatives, in fact I am not seeing any changes in density despite bumping time by 20%. I am exposing it at 320, and feels like there's some kind of "glass ceiling" for this film with Xtol-R.

Click to expand...

I've noted this recently with .EDU Ultra 400 (relabeled Fomapan) in Df96 -- it always seems underdeveloped. I wonder if there wasn't a change in the film; it used to push nicely (which is just developing to higher contrast), when I used it in the mid-oughties. Of course, I've never previously processed it in high-sulfite developers like XTOL stock, D-23 stock, or D-76 stock (the D-96 that Df96 monobath is based on is also moderately high sulfite, though a bit less than D-76); I always used HC-110 at Dilution F, G, or H or Parodinal 1+49 (or occasionally 1+99 with minimal agitation).

I use Formulary's amber glass bottles stored in the dark in a shed outside. I have a logging thermometer in there, the temperature varies between 61 and 64F within 24 hours, easy to do in California. I also use distilled water. As far as I'm aware, this is close to ideal. TBH since my volume is fairly high, the potential need to replenish for idle time is hypothetical for now.

Click to expand...

Glass with the cone seals inside the caps (originally from Boston Rounds, but Formulary resells them in less than case lots) is about the best you can get, as long as you have your volumes tailored to leave no (or almost no) air in the bottle. A 1L bottle will actually hold something like 1005 ml, though I doubt 5ml of air will have a lot of effect on your developer. Your temperature control is better than most air conditioned houses -- you clearly don't live around Bakersfield or San Bernadino.

Donald Qualls said:

I've noted this recently with .EDU Ultra 400 (relabeled Fomapan) in Df96 -- it always seems underdeveloped..

Click to expand...

IMO it always seems underexposed, more than underdeveloped. A recent curve posted by Mr Bacon shows EI 160 goes closer to the real film ISO speed than the box stamped 400.

138S said:

IMO it always seems underexposed, more than underdeveloped. A recent curve posted by Mr Bacon shows EI 160 goes closer to the real film ISO speed than the box stamped 400.

Click to expand...

That might explain why, back when I tested Fomapan 100 pushed to 400 against Fomapan 400 (which, coincidentally, had the same development time as the 2 stop push for the 100), I found them to be almost identical. At that time, I speculated that Foma 400 is just Foma 100 with a longer recommended development -- like Tmax and Delta "3200" which have "normal" development specified to give about a 1 to 1.5 stop push.

The reciprocity departure also points to that possibility -- for pinhole cameras, there's very little difference in exposure time between the 100 and 400 films. Certainly not two stops, by the time your metered exposure is around 15 seconds.

Donald Qualls said:

Fomapan (400)

Click to expand...

The thing is quite clear... ISO 160 with a full speed developer, instead ISO 400.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...nished-xtol-for-8-45-at-24c-in-a-jobo.175940/

F100 has to be another emulsion than F400, no doubt, with a "full speed" developer its true ISO speed is under ISO 100, so F100 and F400 are not the same.

It's about making some bracketings so see at what EI it works well for our taste, and then developing the right amount.

We all know, the old gold rule: expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights !!!

Many times manufacturers play a bit with the box speed. Kodak and Ilford label 3200 a film that's not ISO 3200 by far.


Late norms for the ISO speed rating allows to use any developer fo rthe speed rating, so developer used for the calibartion should be mentioned, also de Foma datasheet states speed for a more contrasty pushing development.

138S said:

The thing is quite clear... ISO 160 with a full speed developer, instead ISO 400.

Click to expand...

You should have added: "in replenished Xtol". I've done plenty of Foma 400 exposed at box speed and developed in stock DD-X. I also have excellent results with this film at EI320 developed in stock ID-11.

I think it's entirely possible that Xtol-R has problems building density with this emulsion. Adrian's own comments express frustration for inability to achieve density similar to Foma's data sheet.

Mainecoonmaniac said:

I think if you don't replenish as you process your film, your developer will get weaker until you replenish it. I think this method invites inconsistent results. Even when I replenished as I used the developer, the recommended rate of 70mls per roll will cause the developer to slowly drift towards being weaker.

Click to expand...

did you prewet your film? That will do that. The several ml of water left in the tank and in the emulsion go into your working solution bottle and dilutes it over time. If you do replenished xtol, don’t prewet your film.

Adrian Bacon said:

did you prewet your film? That will do that. The several ml of water left in the tank and in the emulsion go into your working solution bottle and dilutes it over time. If you do replenished xtol, don’t prewet your film.

Click to expand...

I don't with roll film. I think it's just under replenished the way I process film in replenished XTOL. I print with a diffused light source and I feel I have to process longer to get more contrast which I think exhaust my developer faster. I could also just be bromide build up. I'm thinking if it gets weak, I'll just remove 100mls of the working solution and replenish with the same amount of replenisher/developer to freshen it up.

MattKing said:

Yep - it is all anecdotal, reflecting individual examples of successful results in environments different than those reported by Kodak.
Sort of like all the data out there about unofficial dilution H for HC-110.
I expect that the reason you don't see official data is:
1) it is outside the typical use pattern that the two Kodaks tested for; and
2) if it results in activity that is higher than expected, it won't be easily noticed by photographers who have really low volumes - probably because they don't produce the incredibly consistent results that would be impacted by this.
If you do high volume studio work, don't follow this routine. Pay the money for control strips and buy and use a densitometer.
And if you are running a lab and selling your services, I'd give the same advice if your volumes are that low.

Click to expand...

I have used a low volume for replenished XTOL since 2008 and there is absolutely no need to add stock solution when not developing film. I have had replenished XTOL last for two to six years and be effective. So you are saying you know more than the Kodak experts? Really?

If ANY developer has not been used for a while, test the developer with a small piece of exposed film. That answers all questions.

Mainecoonmaniac said:

I think if you don't replenish as you process your film, your developer will get weaker until you replenish it. I think this method invites inconsistent results. Even when I replenished as I used the developer, the recommended rate of 70mls per roll will cause the developer to slowly drift towards being weaker.

Click to expand...

At that point, start the replenishment process over and discard the developer. See the previous post.

Bormental said:

There are numerous old threads that I dug up by searching for Xtol here, saying the same thing. On the other hand, there are people (Ian Grant IIRC?) who claimed that their replenished Xtol bottle sat untouched for 6 months and continued without any problems.

One thing I must do is to up my 1L working bottle to 1.8L to provide more cushion for process adjustment.

Click to expand...

Replenished XTOL sitting for six months is not a problem, while 1 year is. So at nine months I dump the developer and start over. See above.

Sirius Glass said:

So you are saying you know more than the Kodak experts? Really?

Click to expand...

Nope.
Kodak is silent on how to deal with the issue. No reference to the issue can be found in J-109. Z-1333 only really deals with processes that are monitored using control strips.
I have had good results dealing with it in the way I do.
You indicate that you have good results dealing it with the way that you do.
The only way to definitively determine if either way is preferable would be to employ a full control strip monitoring regime.

Lachlan Young said:

If you don't have the steady throughput necessary for a replenished system, don't try and run one.

Consistency matters more than any theoretical saving of cost etc.

Click to expand...

This is why I suggested going and getting 30 rolls of some cheap 36 exposure film and filling them with exposures of grey cards. Then every 2 weeks, run one roll with the same time every time. It has a two-fold benefit, it gives you a way to monitor the activity level, and you're running film through every 2 weeks, which will give you at least some throughput. The 30 rolls will last you a whole year and you should be able to pick up 30 rolls of something like Arista.EDU 100 for about $100. Yes, it's an investment, but it serves multiple purposes and if you're serious about running a replenishment regime, $100 for a years worth of monitoring activity level isn't bad. You will know with absolute certainty what to expect from your bottle.

Bormental said:

So far, it seems to be a little better [1] than stock for Foma 100 and catastrophically worse for Foma 400. I keep increasing time and I keep getting underdeveloped negatives, in fact I am not seeing any changes in density despite bumping time by 20%. I am exposing it at 320, and feels like there's some kind of "glass ceiling" for this film with Xtol-R.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it a disaster, it's just not very sensitive to replenished XTOL. It's real speed in Replenished XTOL is 160. At 24C and continuous agitation I run it for 8:45 to get middle grey up to a reasonable level. If you're running at 20C and intermittent agitation, your time will be at least in the 10-12 minute range if not longer.