Self-Replenishing developers

[relistan]

As you didn't bother to open my link, here is a quote from there:

I replied to him before I saw your reply. And then I was actually reading that thread youLinked while you were replying indignantly. Chill out man.

 

[radiant]

I replied to him before I saw your reply. And then I was actually reading that thread youLinked while you were replying indignantly. Chill out man.

Sorry! I feel like this forum is sometimes like writing to ghosts. It feels frustrating that when I take effort finding the thread & post, the post is completely ignored like I don't exists.

 

[relistan]

Sorry! I feel like this forum is sometimes like writing to ghosts. It feels frustrating that when I take effort finding the thread & post, the post is completely ignored like I don't exists.

Thanks man, yeah I understand, I've had the same thing happen! Sometimes people only respond to people they know or something like that. Anyway, thanks for the link and the info.

 

[halfaman]

Right but using it one shot I get that same consistency. Replenished costs less but is there any photographic reason to do it?

I personally never replenish developers, I consider myself to be mainly a "Rodinal guy" using bottles that sometimes remain opened for years (I am a "color guy"). But the OP looks for it...

 

[Donald Qualls]

Do you mean stock solution loses it's power by time and therefore consistency is worse?

Replenisher is just stock Xtol, it will expire. By calling it replenisher it doesn't change it's expiration time

Using stock strength solution directly eliminates one signifcant source of error: dilution. If I get crossed up in my head (happens more easily the older I get, likely the same for others) and mix Xtol 1+2 as I would Dektol for printing, but develop with the 1+1 or 1+3 time, I've irretrievably harmed my negatives (images won't be completely lost, but they'll be harder to get good prints from). With replenished, in my experience (after using about a liter of replenisher in a two liter tank solution), there's no need to adjust times, I can just keep using the stock solution times, and never have to look for any other times on less familiar films.

Also, Xtol stock solution keeps very well if it's secluded from air. In a no-bubbles PET bottle, you can reasonably expect to double (or more) the shelf life of six months Kodak claims. I've stopped squeezing air out of the PET bottles when they're not longer brim full -- the plastic will eventually fail where it creases, leading to leaks -- but blanketing the bottle with butane lighter fuel has the same effect.

 

[MattKing]

As you didn't bother to open my link, here is a quote from there:

"Better economy, subtly different tonality and speed, slightly better sharpness, less environmental impact, markedly advantageous workflow with large format (much less waste with many tanks), ease of use with varying ambient temperatures.
As the developer ripens - reaches a steady state balance of byproduct build-up and activity - it gives me a result I prefer. And I really like the workflow. "

(posted by MattKing)

What an excellent post!

 

[Sirius Glass]

What an excellent post!

 

[radiant]

What an excellent post!

I think it has some poetry vibe!

 

[radiant]

Now that I have three bags of old style Xtol, I thought maybe I should use it.

I was thinking of trying replenishing because I develop 5x7" negatives in Paterson. Does the 100ml per film mean also 100ml per sheet? What if I overdevelop for double time, do I have to take that into account in replenishing volume?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Does the 100ml per film mean also 100ml per sheet? What if I overdevelop for double time, do I have to take that into account in replenishing volume?

The standard replenishment is 70ml per "8x10 or equivalent" -- that's a 135-36, 120, four 4x5, two 5x7, or a single 8x10, near enough. And no, longer development doesn't change that amount (though in theory, more exposed or less exposed film might, Kodak's documentation doesn't call for any changes for that, either).

As I understand it, the reason this works the way it does (no adjustments to replenishment based on film type, exposure level, or length of development) is because self-replenishment with Xtol "over-replenishes" compared to other replenishment systems like, for instance, Flexicolor. I use the LORR (LOw Replenishment Rate) color developer and replenishment is typically less than half what Xtol would call out for the same amount of film; in addition, more is called for with ISO 400 or faster film than with slower films. But Xtol stays much closer to the state of unseasoned stock solution; fully seasoned Xtol in steady stated of replenishment is about the same activity as stock solution reused without replenishment for four rolls in a liter, and will stay that way through multiple 5L packs of replenisher (if everything else cooperates).