Replenishing Xtol

[Bormental]

Happy Saturday, everyone!

I recently started shooting medium format, and suddenly 5L of developer does not sound like a lot, especially because I tend to experiment a lot. I've been hearing about replenished Xtol here, and now it looks like I have enough volume to make it work.

I have three questions:

1. What difference in image quality can I expect to see, as compared to stock Xtol?
2. What adjustments to development time should I make? Xtol data sheet does not suggest different times, instead it offers separate table for "Replenished Xtol in large tanks" (as opposed to small tanks).
3. What do you think about "batch replenishing" (see below)?

Batch Replenishing

It's a term I just made up, because it describes perfectly what I have in mind. Instead of always keeping around 2L of replenished/working solution, I want to mix up 5L of fresh Xtol and then do the following:

• Every two weeks, I collect all my B/W film that needs processing. Usually 2-4 rolls of 35mm and 4-6 rolls of 120.
• I develop my first two 35mm rolls in a 600ml Paterson tank with 100% fresh Xtol.
• Keep the working solution.
  
• Replenish 140ml of the working solution with fresh Xtol, per Kodak's instructions
• Continue this process until all film is developed, adding 70ml of fresh developer per roll.
  
• Dump the working solution when all rolls are done.
• Repeat in 2-3 weeks.

This is much easier for me, than storing the working solution between developing sessions.
Thoughts?
Thanks.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use the replenishment times in the data sheet, but I found that I needed to increase the development times for Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ by one minute on the 68 degree F.

I use 1 liter of XTOL that becomes replenished XTOL. While developing the film(s) pour 70 ml of stock XTOL into the replenished XTOL bottle. Then empty the developing XTOL into the replenished XTOL bottle to the top and dump the rest.

I find the that tonality is better with replenished XTOL. I have found XTOL and replenished XTOL very consistent and forgiving.

 

[MattKing]

I agree with Sirius, although I have gravitated toward a larger container - about 1.5 litres - for my working solution.
Your "Batch Replenishing" will result in inconsistent film development, and won't give you the same tonality from roll to roll. Fresh as mixed X-Tol is more active than seasoned developer. It usually takes 4 - 6 rolls to fully season X-Tol in a replenishment regime. Once seasoned, your developing times will probably be close to the 1 + 1 times.
You probably could split your working solution into two smaller bottles for in-between developing session storage, as long as you combined the two before starting the next session.

 

[mshchem]

I've used a 2L bottle before. In the past Kodak made a starter to prepare a fresh "tank" . In theory fresh stock will be a bit more active than replenished seasoned solution. Biggest concern is keeping the stock you use to replenish in absolutely full bottles. Same is true with the "tank" bottle.

 

[mshchem]

I used to use soda bottles, which work, but aren't very cool. Berlin Packaging will sell pretty much any quantity of bottles to anyone. I buy Nalgene lab bottles to store my stock developers. Easy. 2,4,8,16,32 oz bottles (which hold 125, 250, 500, 1000mL) Buy a few of each size keep them absolutely full.

https://www.berlinpackaging.com/the...mouth-bottles-natural-leakproof-cap-312089-8/

HDPE plastic is what most photo chemistry is shipped. Keep them clean will last forever. I don't recommend the brown version, you can't tell if they are clean. You don't need amber anyway

 

[mshchem]

Whoops now Berlin Packaging has a minimum $100 minimum purchase. Not hard to for me

 

[Frank53]

Since a few months I use the following method:
Mix 5 liters of Xtol, a 2 ltiter bottle for developing, 2x 1 liter in full brown medicine bottles and 1 liter in 10x 100ml full brown medicine bottles. Depending on how many films, developer in the tank, films x 100ml in the 2 liter bottle and after development fill up the 2 liter bottle with used developer. I use 100ml per film in stead of 70ml for practical reasons.
regards,
Frank

 

[Bormental]

Guys, thank you for responding, I wish you paid a bit more attention to my questions though
My understanding of "seasoning" is this:

• If it takes 300ml to process a roll of film, you take 300ml of fresh Xtol, process that roll, and you get 300ml of fully seasoned Xtol. First of all, is this right?

Now, let's bring back "batch replenishing" again:

• The idea of "batch replenishing" was to process the first batch using fresh Xtol using stock development times, producing a fully seasoned solution. Then I'd develop the 2nd batch using the replenishment dev. time. I am totally OK with "lack of consistency" here, that is why I was asking about difference between stock and replenished Xtol? I want to know what to process in the 1st fresh batch vs the 2nd replenished batch.
  
• And that's why I was asking about development times. Say I process 2 rolls in 600ml of fresh Xtol using development time from the data sheet. Then I replace 140ml of 600ml with fresh developer, now I run my second "replenished batch" of 2 rolls. What development time should I be using?

Apologies for trying to focus the conversation on the original questions, not about "here's my Xtol routine" (there are dozens of threads on that already, I searched). Thank you.

 

[Huub]

If it takes 300ml to process a roll of film, you take 300ml of fresh Xtol, process that roll, and you get 300ml of fully seasoned Xtol. First of all, is this right?

No, that is not how it works. After one film your stock solution is only partly seasoned. It takes about 6 films to reach a fully seasoned stock solution. What you should do is to compare the times of stock solution development and replenished developement. When the time for stock development is say 8 minutes and the times for replenished development is 11 minutes, you should devide the difference times by 6, which is 30 sec in this case. Then add 30 sec for each consecutive film you will develop until you reach the replenishment times after the sixth film. Add 75 ml of fresh developer to the stock solution and then fill up the bottle with the used developer, as Sirius Glass explained.

When developing 2 films you use the same developing times as you would use when developing one film, but you add double the amount of fresh developer to the stock solution. The next batch you will need to add double the time difference - 60 sec in the above case. At the other hand: even when you make a small mistake and develop 9 minutes in stead of 9.30 minutes, you will still end up with very printable negatives. Typically it takes about 25% time difference to move about one grade in contrast.

 

[Frank53]

As you can see, all posters more or less follow Kodak instructions. I suppose they do so, because it works.
I you, for any reason do not wish to follow those instructions, you’re on your own.
That said, according to those same instructions, you can develop 5 films in 1ltr of stock developer using the same development times, so imho, the method you describe should not really make a difference, but try it and you will know.
Regards,
Frank

 

[MattKing]

If it takes 300ml to process a roll of film, you take 300ml of fresh Xtol, process that roll, and you get 300ml of fully seasoned Xtol. First of all, is this right?

No. Seasoning involves reaching a steady state regarding both chemical capacity and development byproducts like bromides. Developing a roll of film uses up chemical capacity and adds byproducts. The replenishment process does two things - by discarding 70 ml of used developer you reduce but do not eliminate the byproducts, and by adding 70 ml of replenisher you add chemical capacity. One round of that procedure won't leave enough byproducts in place for there to be a steady state.

I was asking about difference between stock and replenished Xtol?

As I posted before, the difference in development times between stock X-Tol and replenished X-Tol will be approximately found by comparing the data sheet times for stock and 1+1 - but that is assuming a fully seasoned working solution.
I guess you could try constantly changing your developing times until you reach a steady state - a gradually increasing time until your working solution has had at least six rolls run through it and then a constant time thereafter (for that batch) - but that wouldn't deal with the change in tonality.
I guess it depends on how much consistency and how much stability you want in your process.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree with Sirius, although I have gravitated toward a larger container - about 1.5 litres - for my working solution.
Your "Batch Replenishing" will result in inconsistent film development, and won't give you the same tonality from roll to roll. Fresh as mixed X-Tol is more active than seasoned developer. It usually takes 4 - 6 rolls to fully season X-Tol in a replenishment regime. Once seasoned, your developing times will probably be close to the 1 + 1 times.
You probably could split your working solution into two smaller bottles for in-between developing session storage, as long as you combined the two before starting the next session.

When a film development time for replenished rotary processing is not published by Kodak, I use the 1:1 time.

AND use 300 ml out of a 1 liter or larger bottle.

 

[Bormental]

No. Seasoning involves reaching a steady state regarding both chemical capacity and development byproducts like bromides.

Thanks. I guess I'm confused because the Xtol datasheet offers only one way to season: using one of their starters, and the advice here is a bit incomplete. Folks above are saying "it takes about 6 rolls of film to fully season Xtol" which makes little sense without mentioning the volume. If my working solution is 600ml I'm pretty sure it will season faster vs 2L or 100L, so that "6 rolls to season" advice is tough to apply.

I have a bunch of Svema film (expired in 1983) that I can waste/expose/develop, and I still do not quite get how to season 1L of Xtol in one day?

The reason I'm pushing for this, is because I do not want to use real film for "ramping up". I want to either use 100% fresh stock, or 100% seasoned, but I will use expired film for everything in between. Thanks!

 

[Donald Qualls]

If my working solution is 600ml I'm pretty sure it will season faster vs 2L or 100L, so that "6 rolls to season" advice is tough to apply.

I have a bunch of Svema film (expired in 1983) that I can waste/expose/develop, and I still do not quite get how to season 1L of Xtol in one day?

Most such numeric statements about film capacity are based on one liter, so this is most likely saying "Starting with one liter of stock, process one or two rolls, replenish appropriately, and repeat until you've processed six rolls in your one liter stock-strength working solution."

If you want to season your Xtol in one day, then, you'd mix at least two liters (one liter for working solution, and one or more to provide replenishment), and in the working liter, develop three rolls of fully exposed junk film (which can be assumed to require a similar amount of capacity to six normally exposed rolls with images), replenish as directed, either after each roll (for single roll processing) or after each batch (in a two-reel or three-reel tank), and, as they say, Bob's your uncle. If you start with hot water, this will probably take roughly three hours (twenty-thirty minutes to mix, two hours or so to cool to 20C, and less than an hour to process the three fully fogged rolls) -- of which you can spend a couple hours doing something else while you wait for the fresh stock solution to cool.

 

[MattKing]

As the Xtol data sheet says, in relation to large tank replenished development and Table 3 developing times:
"If you choose not to preseason the fresh tank, initial development times will be about 10 percent shorter than those in the tables, but times will approach the times in the tables as the tank approaches a steady state."
Those of us who have used replenished development with smaller tanks and/or rotary development have found the information quoted above to be useful for our circumstances as well.
The starter options mentioned in the data sheet allow you to reach what is a steady state essentially immediately. If you don't proceed that way, it takes between four and six full rolls of development to get there incrementally.

I have a bunch of Svema film (expired in 1983) that I can waste/expose/develop, and I still do not quite get how to season 1L of Xtol in one day?

If you expose four to six rolls of your film to scenes with a variety of tones, then develop them one at a time, replenishing after each roll, you will be there. The first roll will have the greatest effect. Each roll developed thereafter will have less effect than the one previous - a graph of the results would reveal an asymptotic function.
If you have rolls that you have exposed and want to develop for the photos on them, but don't mind small variations in development, you could substitute one or more of them for the last rolls in the four to six roll seasoning batch.

 

[Bormental]

Donald, Matt: this is perfect, thank you.

 

[Bormental]

Wanted to post an update for future researchers. So... the goal was to go from zero to fully seasoned state as quickly as possible without using real film to ramp up.

1. Mixed up 5L of fresh Xtol using distilled water.
2. Allocated 1L amber glass bottle to be my "working" bottle. I wish I had a bigger one, but for now 1L will do.
3. Developed one 24exp roll of HP5+ in full-strength Xtol, always wanted to see how it will look like.
4. Poured all of it back into the working bottle.
   
5. Developed two fully exposed (100% black, I even loaded them in daylight without a bag) 24xp junk rolls using 600ml from the working bottle.
   
6. Added 250ml of fresh Xtol to the working bottle.
7. Topped it off with 350ml from the tank where two junk films were developed.

At this point I had 1L of somewhat-seasoned Xtol which had three 24exp rolls developed in it, one real and two 100% black junk rolls. It was unclear how stable it was though.

Then I took a 36exp roll of Foma 100 with less important working shots and developed them for 8 minutes (I came up with this time by looking at the delta between full-strength and replenished rotary times in Kodak datasheet, then I applied this delta, averaged across multiple films, to small-tank full-strength time for Foma 100).

It came out nicely! I haven't scanned anything yet, but I like what I see holding wet film in my hands.

Then, I added 70ml of fresh Xtol to my working bottle, topped it off with the used developer from the Paterson tank, i.e. followed Kodak's recommended replenishment amount.

Then I loaded the second 36exp roll of Foma 100 and also developed it at the same temperature for the same 8 minutes. The goal was to see if my working bottle is stable. The result came out identical to the previous roll. At this point I assume I have a stable fully seasoned 1L of Xtol. Phew... Looks like I'll have about 3-4 rolls of Ultrafine Extreme (my working film) ready to be developed by Sunday, so hopefully I'll see the magic with my own eyes.

Thank you, everyone.

 

[Bormental]

Below is the final update for future Xtol-R researchers: I have developed 6 rolls in replenished Xtol. Fomapan 100, Ultrafine Extreme 400 and Fomapan 400, two rolls each. Ultrafine 400 and Foma 100 films look better in Xtol-R vs 1+1. I am getting stock Xtol quality (with a tiny improvement in sharpness) for a quarter of the price. That's lovely. I did not, however, observe any noticeable improvement in "tonality" as so many Xtol-R mafia people boast about

The biggest inconvenience of replenished Xtol for me was determining the development times. I was taking the ratio of replenished vs 1+1 times for rotary processing from Kodak's data sheet and applying it to my usual small-tank 1+1 time. This method produced slightly underdeveloped look for my first rolls, but adding 30 seconds made it perfect for Foma 100 and Ultrafine 400.

But this method did not work for Foma 400 at all, the first roll was grossly underdeveloped and adding a minute only improved things slightly. Now I am looking at 14:30 to 15 minutes for my next Foma 400 roll and starting to think about bumping the temperature. Another option is to stick to full-strength Xtol for such films (I strongly suspect that HP5+ also will be a problem).

Some samples are below.

Foma 400 (2nd roll)

Foma 400 (2nd roll)

Ultrafine 400

Just a random thought: I suspect that "replenished Xtol" is unique to an individual. Some follow Kodak's recommended 70ml replenishment amount per 36-exp roll, others add more. Some of us develop more frequently, others let their developer to sit idle for more (which requires more replenisher between sessions). Perhaps that is why MDC does not list Xtol-R times perhaps because they are not easily reproducible?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Wanted to post an update for future researchers. So... the goal was to go from zero to fully seasoned state as quickly as possible without using real film to ramp up.

1. Mixed up 5L of fresh Xtol using distilled water.
2. Allocated 1L amber glass bottle to be my "working" bottle. I wish I had a bigger one, but for now 1L will do.
3. Developed one 24exp roll of HP5+ in full-strength Xtol, always wanted to see how it will look like.
4. Poured all of it back into the working bottle.
   
5. Developed two fully exposed (100% black, I even loaded them in daylight without a bag) 24xp junk rolls using 600ml from the working bottle.
   
6. Added 250ml of fresh Xtol to the working bottle.
7. Topped it off with 350ml from the tank where two junk films were developed.

At this point I had 1L of somewhat-seasoned Xtol which had three 24exp rolls developed in it, one real and two 100% black junk rolls. It was unclear how stable it was though.

Then I took a 36exp roll of Foma 100 with less important working shots and developed them for 8 minutes (I came up with this time by looking at the delta between full-strength and replenished rotary times in Kodak datasheet, then I applied this delta, averaged across multiple films, to small-tank full-strength time for Foma 100).

It came out nicely! I haven't scanned anything yet, but I like what I see holding wet film in my hands.

Then, I added 70ml of fresh Xtol to my working bottle, topped it off with the used developer from the Paterson tank, i.e. followed Kodak's recommended replenishment amount.

Then I loaded the second 36exp roll of Foma 100 and also developed it at the same temperature for the same 8 minutes. The goal was to see if my working bottle is stable. The result came out identical to the previous roll. At this point I assume I have a stable fully seasoned 1L of Xtol. Phew... Looks like I'll have about 3-4 rolls of Ultrafine Extreme (my working film) ready to be developed by Sunday, so hopefully I'll see the magic with my own eyes.

Thank you, everyone.

I would add that the 70ml is for 80 square inches, I.e. 1 roll of 135-36, or 1 roll of 120. If you’re shooting 24 exposure rolls, you need to put less replenished per roll. 24 exposure rolls work out to ~54-56 ml per roll. If you calculate ml per exposure, it’s ~2nl, but that doesn’t really take into account any tongue or tail. 135-36 is ~5ft long, 135-24 is ~3.5 feet.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Just a random thought: I suspect that "replenished Xtol" is unique to an individual. Some follow Kodak's recommended 70ml replenishment amount per 36-exp roll, others add more. Some of us develop more frequently, others let their developer to sit idle for more (which requires more replenisher between sessions). Perhaps that is why MDC does not list Xtol-R times perhaps because they are not easily reproducible?

It’s plenty reproducible. The reason why you see variations among individuals is due to their own personal preference. Some people run a standard time and change the replenishment to get the contrast they want at a given time, some people are simply not following Kodak’s recommendations and are happy with what they’re getting, even though what they’re getting doesn’t match up with what you’d get if you did.

the fact of the matter is if you follow Kodak’s recommendations, their times in J-109 for Kodak films tends to be spot on for the contrast index. It’s very consistent and reliable.

 

[138S]

1. What difference in image quality can I expect to see, as compared to stock Xtol?

No difference in quality, some difference in consistence, an slight underdevelopment usually does not harm. Problem is the exhaustion depends on the dense the negatives you process...

What adjustments to development time should I make? Xtol data sheet does not suggest different times, instead it offers separate table for "Replenished Xtol in large tanks" (as opposed to small tanks).

What I had been doing: replenish 100 or 120ml per roll and not changing time much.

What do you think about "batch replenishing" (see below)

Perfect, the way to go.

 

[Bormental]

It’s plenty reproducible.

But what about time between sessions? Someone suggested (and you agreed) to add 70ml of fresh developer every two weeks if you do not develop any film. Doesn't this automatically mean that if I do, I need to add 140ml?

In other words, replenishing 70ml per film is going to work differently if you're doing a film per day vs a film every two weeks or once a month, no?

(asking because I am on once-every-two-weeks schedule and I figured I should be adding more than 70ml to compensate for 14 days of idle time)

 

[Adrian Bacon]

But what about time between sessions? Someone suggested (and you agreed) to add 70ml of fresh developer every two weeks if you do not develop any film. Doesn't this automatically mean that if I do, I need to add 140ml?

In other words, replenishing 70ml per film is going to work differently if you're doing a film per day vs a film every two weeks or once a month, no?

(asking because I am on once-every-two-weeks schedule and I figured I should be adding more than 70ml to compensate for 14 days of idle time)

if you’re doing film every two weeks, I’d just run the film and replenish as normal. I’d only add the 70ml every two weeks if I was going to let it sit with no film going through it for longer than 2 weeks. Basically, at the two week mark, if you don’t have any film to run, put 70ml in, otherwise just run the film as normal.

 

[138S]

One recommendation: Check developer strength.

You may make drop tests: Lights open let fall a drop of developer every minute on a film end, one drop at the side of the other, then fix. Make a drop test when developer is fresh and conserve it as a reference.

Over time, or over replensiment iterations, you may make a new drop test and comparing to the original one, comparing the effect of the drops that each has developed the film for a certain different time. Development is less intense that in the tank because lack of agitation, but the drop test is a good reference to see if developer strength has changed, or it's in shape. Many things can happen...

 

[Adrian Bacon]

One recommendation: Check developer strength.

You may make drop tests: Lights open let fall a drop of developer every minute on a film end, one drop at the side of the other, then fix. Make a drop test when developer is fresh and conserve it as a reference.

Over time, or over replensiment iterations, you may make a new drop test and comparing to the original one, comparing the effect of the drops that each has developed the film for a certain different time. Development is less intense that in the tank because lack of agitation, but the drop test is a good reference to see if developer strength has changed, or it's in shape. Many things can happen...

Its actually a lot simpler and consistent to run a roll that has a correctly exposed grey card on it as a “control strip”. You can even buy Ilford bw control strips for the purpose.