Replenishing Xtol

[Cholentpot]

Resurrecting this old thread since it seems like the right place for the question - Is there any particular advantage to having a larger bottle for the replenished xtol working solution?

If I’m only planning to use a 500ml developing tank, for convenience can I just use a 500ml bottle for working solution, such that I would be adding the 70ml replenishment to an empty bottle then topping off with the used developer from the tank? It seems to me this would reach equilibrium faster?

I use a 2 liter bottle. But then again I develop 5 rolls at once so it's very useful. My bottle turned grey and I panicked a little, turns out it was just stuff kicked up from the bottom. Xtol-R is some great stuff.

 

[MattKing]

Resurrecting this old thread since it seems like the right place for the question - Is there any particular advantage to having a larger bottle for the replenished xtol working solution?

If I’m only planning to use a 500ml developing tank, for convenience can I just use a 500ml bottle for working solution, such that I would be adding the 70ml replenishment to an empty bottle then topping off with the used developer from the tank? It seems to me this would reach equilibrium faster?

The larger working solution volume is important if you want decent consistency. It evens out activity variations arising from the variability of your exposed films. It also makes it practical to track how well your films are responding to the replenishment, and to make small adjustments as you go.
Yes, the smaller volume will be seasoned quicker, but it will be harder to keep at that equilibrium state.

 

[JohnGray]

I use a 2 liter bottle. But then again I develop 5 rolls at once so it's very useful. My bottle turned grey and I panicked a little, turns out it was just stuff kicked up from the bottom. Xtol-R is some great stuff.

How do you find handling the 2L bottle, is it easy enough to pour from despite the weight? I am thinking of getting a proper glass reagent bottle, but am worried that it might spill more…

 

[JohnGray]

The larger working solution volume is important if you want decent consistency. It evens out activity variations arising from the variability of your exposed films. It also makes it practical to track how well your films are responding to the replenishment, and to make small adjustments as you go.
Yes, the smaller volume will be seasoned quicker, but it will be harder to keep at that equilibrium state.

Ah, I see, thank you.
I’ve never developed any film before and am trying to figure out what to buy. I like the idea of the long shelf life and relatively lower toxicity of xtol, and the frugality of replenishment seems like a nice bonus.

What would you consider the ideal size for the working solution bottle?

 

[MattKing]

How do you find handling the 2L bottle, is it easy enough to pour from despite the weight? I am thinking of getting a proper glass reagent bottle, but am worried that it might spill more…

Ah, I see, thank you.
I’ve never developed any film before and am trying to figure out what to buy. I like the idea of the long shelf life and relatively lower toxicity of xtol, and the frugality of replenishment seems like a nice bonus.

What would you consider the ideal size for the working solution bottle?

A 2 litre bottle with a good handle or grip is easy to handle.
In my case I happen to have some good quality plastic 2 US quart bottles - just slightly smaller - so that is what I use.
As you will generally be pouring to and from your working solution bottle using an even more easily handled measuring graduate, it isn't a particular concern. Don't forget a funnel, for pouring back the used developer, also from the measuring graduate.
Do you in Australia use the one and two litre refillable "growler" bottles for draft beer? The ones with a good grip? They can be good.
I would suggest though, if you haven't developed film before, that you start out with X-Tol 1+1 used one shot. When you get comfortable with that you can easily transition to using it replenished.

 

[JohnGray]

A 2 litre bottle with a good handle or grip is easy to handle.
In my case I happen to have some good quality plastic 2 US quart bottles - just slightly smaller - so that is what I use.
As you will generally be pouring to and from your working solution bottle using an even more easily handled measuring graduate, it isn't a particular concern. Don't forget a funnel, for pouring back the used developer, also from the measuring graduate.
Do you in Australia use the one and two litre refillable "growler" bottles for draft beer? The ones with a good grip? They can be good.
I would suggest though, if you haven't developed film before, that you start out with X-Tol 1+1 used one shot. When you get comfortable with that you can easily transition to using it replenished.

We do have growler bottles! That sounds like a good idea.

I’ll take your advice about 1+1 one shot. That results in about 1/3 stop faster film speed and more noticeable grain doesn’t it?

 

[MattKing]

We do have growler bottles! That sounds like a good idea.

I’ll take your advice about 1+1 one shot. That results in about 1/3 stop faster film speed and more noticeable grain doesn’t it?

Between XTol 1+1 and replenished XTol, the differences in performance are so small that you may as well treat them as equivalent. I certainly have never observed a difference in film speed.
For other developers, that isn't necessarily the case.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

Ah, I see, thank you.
I’ve never developed any film before and am trying to figure out what to buy. I like the idea of the long shelf life and relatively lower toxicity of xtol, and the frugality of replenishment seems like a nice bonus.

What would you consider the ideal size for the working solution bottle?

John, may I suggest you to go with a one shot developer for a while until you are happy with film development. There are fantastic one shot developers like HC110 or Rodinal which last nearly forever, and also they are very economical. The reason I suggest you one shot is, XTOL has a time to be replenished, means that 1st you need to season the developer which is not a fixed way, and then keep replenishing. Moreover XTOL goes bad abruptly if you do not keep it well. Adox HC110 old syrup has a shelf life of many many years, Rodinal is the same, people reports 5-10 years old Rodinal works fine.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I'm the odd duck! I like and use a 1 Gal brown glass jug with the little finger hole handle by the pour spout. I have no problems handling that and have been using it for probably more than seven years now. I figure, like Matt says, that the larger volume evens consistency out much better than something like a 1 liter bottle. I also agree with Matt that it's a good idea to get your feet wet with Xtol 1+1, which has a potency pretty equal to Xtol-R. Now, here's one thing I'll add and that's that Xtol isn't the only answer. I use the Adox version of Xtol, which is XT-3. It is exactly the same as Xtol, but is much, much easier to mix and I actually like it just as well as Xtol, maybe even better. You can use XT-3 replenished the same way as Xtol or the same dilutions as Xtol. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

I'm the odd duck! I like and use a 1 Gal brown glass jug with the little finger hole handle by the pour spout. I have no problems handling that and have been using it for probably more than seven years now. I figure, like Matt says, that the larger volume evens consistency out much better than something like a 1 liter bottle. I also agree with Matt that it's a good idea to get your feet wet with Xtol 1+1, which has a potency pretty equal to Xtol-R. Now, here's one thing I'll add and that's that Xtol isn't the only answer. I use the Adox version of Xtol, which is XT-3. It is exactly the same as Xtol, but is much, much easier to mix and I actually like it just as well as Xtol, maybe even better. You can use XT-3 replenished the same way as Xtol or the same dilutions as Xtol. Just my 2 cents.

Yes actually I use XT3 and mix it in a 2 litre bottle like yourselves It is just the potency of XT3 is the same, it can go bad abruptly. There are well known tests to check the developer before any use. So I will leave that up to you

 

[Cholentpot]

How do you find handling the 2L bottle, is it easy enough to pour from despite the weight? I am thinking of getting a proper glass reagent bottle, but am worried that it might spill more…

Never had an issue. That being said you need to choose a bottle that's not too flimsy. Coke bottles locally work pretty well but Pepsi still uses the cylinder style bottle that isn't that great.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes actually I use XT3 and mix it in a 2 litre bottle like yourselves It is just the potency of XT3 is the same, it can go bad abruptly. There are well known tests to check the developer before any use. So I will leave that up to you

Many developers can go bad abruptly, especially if they are not handled or stored correctly. There is a recommended shelf life, by the manufacture for, all developers. If you follow that you will be pretty safe. You can extend that shelf life by correct storage, like adding inert gases and sealing well, but you're taking a gamble. Pretesting your developer is a good way to play it safe when you go past the shelf life date. I have not heard of the "sudden death" problem with XT-3 that was a problem with Xtol?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have not heard of the "sudden death" problem with XT-3 that was a problem with Xtol?

I understood the "sudden death" of Xtol had been solved some years ago, with sequestrants added to prevent the Fenton reaction (iron or copper killing the ascorbate). I have no reason to believe Adox would have left out that critical component; the big difference with their version is a non-borate buffer system (and of course their dust-free particles).

 

[John Wiegerink]

I understood the "sudden death" of Xtol had been solved some years ago, with sequestrants added to prevent the Fenton reaction (iron or copper killing the ascorbate). I have no reason to believe Adox would have left out that critical component; the big difference with their version is a non-borate buffer system (and of course their dust-free particles).

Me either Don, Adox seems very well geared toward quality. I'm pretty sure they have a sequestering agent in XT-3, but I have never check the package for ingredients.

 

[Steven Lee]

Between XTol 1+1 and replenished XTol, the differences in performance are so small that you may as well treat them as equivalent. I certainly have never observed a difference in film speed.

Agreed! I am ashamed to admit that I examined negatives developed in 1+1 and Xtol-R under a microscope. My wife still likes to share this fact at extended family gatherings

The only difference that can be seen is actually film speed. With the caveat is that everyone's Xtol+R is different, that's why there are no standards around Xtol+R development times. People replenish differently leading to different activity levels. In my case the speed drop was there, but only with certain emulsions, like Delta 3200 and Foma 400. But these two aren't great with Xtol to begin with. They need Microphen or DD-X.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The larger working solution volume is important if you want decent consistency. It evens out activity variations arising from the variability of your exposed films. It also makes it practical to track how well your films are responding to the replenishment, and to make small adjustments as you go.
Yes, the smaller volume will be seasoned quicker, but it will be harder to keep at that equilibrium state.

My tank will take a maximum of 500ml, but I keep the replenished XTOL in 1 liter bags to maintain a good consistency.

 

[Milpool]

I understood the "sudden death" of Xtol had been solved some years ago, with sequestrants added to prevent the Fenton reaction (iron or copper killing the ascorbate). I have no reason to believe Adox would have left out that critical component; the big difference with their version is a non-borate buffer system (and of course their dust-free particles).

XTOL has always contained DTPA to properly sequester iron/copper.

The Adox version also contains DTPA.

 

[JohnGray]

Never had an issue. That being said you need to choose a bottle that's not too flimsy. Coke bottles locally work pretty well but Pepsi still uses the cylinder style bottle that isn't that great.

Good to know!

 

[JohnGray]

John, may I suggest you to go with a one shot developer for a while until you are happy with film development. There are fantastic one shot developers like HC110 or Rodinal which last nearly forever, and also they are very economical. The reason I suggest you one shot is, XTOL has a time to be replenished, means that 1st you need to season the developer which is not a fixed way, and then keep replenishing. Moreover XTOL goes bad abruptly if you do not keep it well. Adox HC110 old syrup has a shelf life of many many years, Rodinal is the same, people reports 5-10 years old Rodinal works fine.

Seeing everyone is so aghast at a beginner trying replenishment, I’ll definitely start with one-shot!
I was more attracted to one shot xtol over rodinol or hc110 because of it’s safety profile - the less toxic the better in my situation, and I can always snip test. I also prefer finer grain.

 

[JohnGray]

I'm the odd duck! I like and use a 1 Gal brown glass jug with the little finger hole handle by the pour spout. I have no problems handling that and have been using it for probably more than seven years now. I figure, like Matt says, that the larger volume evens consistency out much better than something like a 1 liter bottle. I also agree with Matt that it's a good idea to get your feet wet with Xtol 1+1, which has a potency pretty equal to Xtol-R. Now, here's one thing I'll add and that's that Xtol isn't the only answer. I use the Adox version of Xtol, which is XT-3. It is exactly the same as Xtol, but is much, much easier to mix and I actually like it just as well as Xtol, maybe even better. You can use XT-3 replenished the same way as Xtol or the same dilutions as Xtol. Just my 2 cents.

I guess a 2L bottle really isn’t a worry then

I didn’t know about xt-3. That would cause some confusion around here since my wife uses a fujifilm X-T3!

Is xt-3 also mainly phenidone and ascorbic acid? What makes it easier to mix, some other reagent?

 

[JohnGray]

I understood the "sudden death" of Xtol had been solved some years ago, with sequestrants added to prevent the Fenton reaction (iron or copper killing the ascorbate). I have no reason to believe Adox would have left out that critical component; the big difference with their version is a non-borate buffer system (and of course their dust-free particles).

What difference do the non-borate buffer and dust-free particles make? Does that make xt-3 better than xtol in any way?

 

[dokko]

What difference do the non-borate buffer and dust-free particles make? Does that make xt-3 better than xtol in any way?

It's easier to mix - less dust in the air and it's dissolving faster.
sounds like a small thing but it makes handling much nicer, and combined with the inconsistencies of Kodaks suppliers I switched over exclusively to XT-3. I also like to support Adox since they really care about their products.

the results are pretty much the same. I was thinking of doing a controlled side-by-side test, but others have already done that. Here's a detailed report:

ADOX XT-3 Developer: Further and Final Test Results

Dear photrio-members, as some of you may remember, some months ago I have reported about my ADOX XT-3 test results. Since then I have done several further very detailed tests with the currently available, final XT-3 version with CAPTURA. In total I have done so much intensive/detailed tests...

www.photrio.com

 

[Milpool]

What difference do the non-borate buffer and dust-free particles make? Does that make xt-3 better than xtol in any way?

A little easier to mix (not that XTOL is difficult to mix). More “environmentally friendly” not to have borate.

The composition otherwise is virtually identical to XTOL.

The Adox product is available in 1l packets which is nice (XTOL is only available in quantities to make 5l).

 

[John Wiegerink]

It's easier to mix - less dust in the air and it's dissolving faster.
sounds like a small thing but it makes handling much nicer, and combined with the inconsistencies of Kodaks suppliers I switched over exclusively to XT-3. I also like to support Adox since they really care about their products.

the results are pretty much the same. I was thinking of doing a controlled side-by-side test, but others have already done that. Here's a detailed report:

ADOX XT-3 Developer: Further and Final Test Results

Dear photrio-members, as some of you may remember, some months ago I have reported about my ADOX XT-3 test results. Since then I have done several further very detailed tests with the currently available, final XT-3 version with CAPTURA. In total I have done so much intensive/detailed tests...

www.photrio.com

I second that +1. Those are exactly the same reasons I'm using XT-3 now. I really couldn't be happier wit XT-3 myself.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Seeing everyone is so aghast at a beginner trying replenishment, I’ll definitely start with one-shot!
I was more attracted to one shot xtol over rodinol or hc110 because of it’s safety profile - the less toxic the better in my situation, and I can always snip test. I also prefer finer grain.

I'm not against you going for a replenishment regime with Xtol or XT-3. If you want to, then go for it. It's just that for starting or getting used to either developer it's better to go 1+1 first just to be consistent. When you first use a new batch of replenished Xtol/XT-3 your results will be a little different from the same batch after 10 or so rolls since it hasn't settled down or mellowed yet. Like a good wine, it get's a little better with a little age/use. Once it has ripened your on your way to one of the best non-staining developers on the market. Also, one of the cheapest, safest, long lasting developers. Likes been said, switching over from Xtol/XT-3 is pretty much painless too. Still, the choice is yours, not mine or anyone else's for that matter.