Replenishing Xtol

[Bormental]

I found this:
https://www.freestylephoto.biz/1672109-Ilford-FP4-Plus-125-ISO-35mm-x-100-ft.-Process-Control-Strips

And it's a 100ft roll for $100... Not quite what I imagined. I'll stick to 70ml every two weeks no matter what routine for now.

 

[138S]

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.

Yes... of course, ilford control strips are the most refined way,

but the advantage of the drop test is that you do it lights open in 5 or 6 min while you prepare the pottery for the development , even you may throw a single drop and throwing the film end in the fixer after 6 min when the alarm sounds.

If density resulting from the drop has changed substantially then better is dumping developer instead making corrections.

The drop test can be a bit inconsistent from solarization... but at least it tells if developer is active, this prevented me to ruin film two times, IIRC.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The very least a drop test will tell you is whether your developer has suddenly died (as XTOL occasionally did fifteen or more years ago). That alone is worth the (very low) price of admission.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I found this:
https://www.freestylephoto.biz/1672109-Ilford-FP4-Plus-125-ISO-35mm-x-100-ft.-Process-Control-Strips

And it's a 100ft roll for $100... Not quite what I imagined. I'll stick to 70ml every two weeks no matter what routine for now.

it seems expensive, but thats 100 feet of very specifically and carefully exposed film that you can use to monitor your process. You’re not just buying 100 feet of film there.

that being said, you can also make your own process control strips by simply taking a roll of the cheapest film you can find and exposing a grey exposure card onto it a bunch of times then always run it at exactly the same process time and compare the densities over time to see what your bottle is doing.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

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.

Generally, when you dilute developers, the highlights don't develop as fast and the shadows tend to develop more. I use XTOL replenished by the roll. I have no experience batch replenishing. The developer will get weaker until you replenish. I would just use the standard 70 mls per 80sq inches (a roll) of film. My experience at this rate, it slightly loses strength over many rolls and I have to add more that 70mls. I can't really over replenish because the replenisher is working strength developer. I like the look of replenished developers. I think it's the bromide, the byproduct that gives replenished developers a slightly mellower look than fresh developer.

 

[MattKing]

I can't really over replenish because the replenisher is working strength developer.

Actually, you can. Not because you are adding extra chemical capacity, but because you are taking away more of those byproduct bromides than you might want.
It is important to remember that replenishment involves bot adding solution and discarding solution.

 

[138S]

Generally, when you dilute developers, the highlights don't develop as fast and the shadows tend to develop more.

This is only noticeable with low agitation, with regular agitation developer is refreshed before selective exhaustion in the emulsion (where we have highlights) plays an effect.

Anyway development "compensation" in the highlights is more produced from bromide by-product presence (acting as a restrainer) than from developer agent exhaustion in the emulsion.

 

[Bormental]

This is only noticeable with low agitation, with regular agitation developer is refreshed before selective exhaustion in the emulsion (where we have highlights) plays an effect.

Anyway development "compensation" in the highlights is more produced from bromide by-product presence (acting as a restrainer) than from developer agent exhaustion in the emulsion.

138S, I have tried for months to get acceptable results from HP5+ using Xtol 1+1 but the contrast just wasn't there regardless of time. Moreover, the midtones were all compressed into a narrow range of grey values (making people's faces flat & gray). Switching to stock Xtol produced dramatic difference without any changes in agitation.

Arguably, it depends on a film, but the compensating effect of diluting is hard not to notice.

 

[138S]

138S, I have tried for months to get acceptable results from HP5+ using Xtol 1+1 but the contrast just wasn't there regardless of time. Moreover, the midtones were all compressed into a narrow range of grey values (making people's faces flat & gray). Switching to stock Xtol produced dramatic difference without any changes in agitation.
Arguably, it depends on a film, but the compensating effect of diluting is hard not to notice.

It is not my experience... I use Xtol stock, 1:1 and 1:2, and I get the same if development time is well adjusted for the dilution.

This is a shot that was really challenging to me, https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28693688313/ the shot was preparated for weeks with some 120 format bracketings, and I got total control with 1:1 dilution.

You may find sensitometric calibrations around: you can get the same by adjusting preocessing time.

With diluted developer there is an effect, solvent effect is lower and you have slightly more grain and perhaps slightly more sharpness, you may notice it a bit in a x8 enlargement, but not a big deal.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

This is a shot that was really challenging to me, https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28693688313/ the shot was preparated for weeks with some 120 format bracketings, and I got total control with 1:1 dilution.

[/QUOTE]
You mean you didn't get runaway blocked highlights?

 

[138S]

You mean you didn't get runaway blocked highlights?[/QUOTE]

Well, I made a N-3 or N-4 with reduced agitation development, a single agitation in the midtime. Perhaps the careless digital edition blocked some highlights but the negative has highlight detail everywhere. Still darkroom printing that negative was quite challenging to me, I only got satisfactory results when (HLM) masking.

Think that the clock was at +7, or +8 stops if counting the LIRF (reciprocity failure) compensation made for the shadows.

 

[Bormental]

It is not my experience... I use Xtol stock, 1:1 and 1:2, and I get the same if development time is well adjusted for the dilution.

If it works for you, I can't argue with that. But I was quite pissed at myself for following this Internet advice and ruining half a dozen of HP5+ by tinkering with time and agitation. I almost excluded this amazing film from my arsenal by stubbornly developing it in diluted developers or DD-X (which has a similar compensating effect). Trying stock Xtol and ID-11 opened my eyes. And seeing how frequently HP5+ gets called "flat" or "grainy" in online discussions makes me believe that plenty of others got fooled as well.

Let me show an example. These two boring pics were taken using the same lens, same camera, same film, same lighting and even at the same place and time (usual dog walk). The first one is Xtol 1+1 and the second is stock.

Xtol 1+1. with heavy post-processing effort to get contrast up (notice the increased grain due to that). The photo makes an impression of having just 3 shades of grey in it. Look how flat the shadows are.

Stock Xtol. Almost no post-processing, simple level clipping. See how much more 3-dimensional it looks?

If the first photo wasn't heavily massaged, the difference would have been even more dramatic. And I have several rolls showing the same difference. Indoor shots or cloudy/rainy outdoor shots are even worse, I wish I could show some portraits but I'm not allowed to post faces on the internet.

But we're dealing with subjective matter here, I am absolutely fine with someone liking the 1st sample better, and that may explain why 1+1 is OK for many.

 

[138S]

Stock Xtol. Almost no post-processing, simple level clipping. See how much more 3-dimensional it looks?

Just increase development time with the 1:1 soup, and you should get the same than with stock dilution.

 

[Bormental]

Just increase development time with the 1:1 soup, and you should get the same than with stock dilution.

I did, several times. Increasing time with HP5+ moves the curve to the right without changing its shape much. My densest rolls this year were produced during those experiments. Truth be told, your suggestion is 100% valid with other films I use.

 

[138S]

Increasing time with HP5+ moves the curve to the right without changing its shape much.

By increasing time, the speed point moves not much, but you get a higher Contrast Index, I cannot tell why in your case this does not work like that, but in my case I can teel that I obtain the contrast I want with HP5+ and Xtol 1:1, which is my most used combination for LF.

YMMV

 

[Bormental]

I have nothing to add. Hundreds of people online complain about "flat" and "low-contrast" look of HP5+, they can't all collectively be mistaken. This low contrast reputation does not hold up, if you develop it in stock solution. Look up comparisons like this (DD-X), where the same muddy look is presented as an intrinsic trait of this emulsion. Yet, if you use a more active developer (HC-110) the muddy look disappears.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have nothing to add. Hundreds of people online complain about "flat" and "low-contrast" look of HP5+, they can't all collectively be mistaken. This low contrast reputation does not hold up, if you develop it in stock solution. Look up comparisons like this (DD-X), where the same muddy look is presented as an intrinsic trait of this emulsion. Yet, if you use a more active developer (HC-110) the muddy look disappears.

I have nothing to add. Hundreds of people online complain about "flat" and "low-contrast" look of HP5+, they can't all collectively be mistaken. This low contrast reputation does not hold up, if you develop it in stock solution. Look up comparisons like this (DD-X), where the same muddy look is presented as an intrinsic trait of this emulsion. Yet, if you use a more active developer (HC-110) the muddy look disappears.

Sounds like it is an Ilford film that does much better in Kodak developers. Maybe all Ilford films are better in Kodak developers?

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

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)

Only replenish after developing film. Period.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is not my experience... I use Xtol stock, 1:1 and 1:2, and I get the same if development time is well adjusted for the dilution.

This is a shot that was really challenging to me, https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28693688313/ the shot was preparated for weeks with some 120 format bracketings, and I got total control with 1:1 dilution.

You may find sensitometric calibrations around: you can get the same by adjusting preocessing time.

With diluted developer there is an effect, solvent effect is lower and you have slightly more grain and perhaps slightly more sharpness, you may notice it a bit in a x8 enlargement, but not a big deal.

I found the HP5+ with a Jobo processor with replenished XTOL that I needed to add one minute to the 68 degree F [20 degree C] time for 135, 120 and 4"x5".

 

[Sirius Glass]

I found this:
https://www.freestylephoto.biz/1672109-Ilford-FP4-Plus-125-ISO-35mm-x-100-ft.-Process-Control-Strips

And it's a 100ft roll for $100... Not quite what I imagined. I'll stick to 70ml every two weeks no matter what routine for now.

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The very least a drop test will tell you is whether your developer has suddenly died (as XTOL occasionally did fifteen or more years ago). That alone is worth the (very low) price of admission.

OR cut off the 35mm film leader, expose it to daylight or bright indoor lights and dip in the developer. If the film does not turn black quickly, mix a new batch of developer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Just increase development time with the 1:1 soup, and you should get the same than with stock dilution.

Actually stock or replenished XTOL works much better than soup. I recommend that people eat soup and use developers for film.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Actually stock or replenished XTOL works much better than soup. I recommend that people eat soup and use developers for film.

"Soup" is a very old term for developer. I'm showing how hold I really am.

 

[Donald Qualls]

"Soup" is a very old term for developer. I'm showing how hold I really am.

You're not the only one. In this context, I expect "soup" to include metol or phenidone, hydroquinone or ascorbate, and possibly glycin, catechols, p-aminophenol, amidol, etc. -- rather than stock, salt, spices, vegetables, and possibly noodles.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

You're not the only one. In this context, I expect "soup" to include metol or phenidone, hydroquinone or ascorbate, and possibly glycin, catechols, p-aminophenol, amidol, etc. -- rather than stock, salt, spices, vegetables, and possibly noodles.

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