Share your replenished Xtol development times

[Donald Qualls]

I am surprised Donald, but wonder if it is due to relying on the Massive Development chart.
Replenished X-Tol is considerably less active than stock X-Tol used one shot. It is close to X-Tol diluted 1+1.

So I keep hearing -- yet after fourteen rolls, my negatives haven't changed from the first tank I did with freshly mixed tank solution. I haven't changed times, still using Massive Dev Chart times for box speed in Xtol Stock. For .EDU Ultra 400 (= Fomapan 400) I give 7 minutes, corrected for temperature, with agitation continuous first minute, then five inversions in 10-11 seconds each minute. Temperature typically runs 17-19C (the darkroom captures a lot of the central air). As an additional "howzat?!", I made a minor mistake making up the Xtol to volume (only had a 4 liter mixing vessel, so had to add more water as I bottled), and wound up with 3 liters of 10% under strength replenisher, for which I have not been compensating (figuring it was too little to matter in the negatives).


.EDU Ultra 400, Xtol Stock (one of two rolls, first in the newly mixed stock solution, 6/28/2020, newly exposed that week)


.EDU Ultra 400, Xtol-R (one of two rolls in my most recent tank, 9/20/2020, exposed, best I can tell, around 2010 -- actual count, those were rolls 13 and 14)

Scans with Vuescan, "auto levels", which will smooth out some variation, but the histogram also hasn't changed.

 

[Radost]

I just tried replenishment in1L bottle. I was using the Kodak Xtol PDF times for cylinder tanks since their stock times are the same as hand tanks.
I think my negatives are just a little thiner so I added 30-45 more seconds.It was a little flatter so I increased inversions.
But I am absolutely stunned the gradient contrast and finer grain. It's better than XTOL stock. At least after 3 replenishment. and TriX. It is a little like TMAX but with the soul of TriX.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've been replenishing Xtol now for three years. It's nice. Very economical. BUT I still prefer working with stock diluted 1+1. My Xtol-R normal time is 9:30, 20C, continuous agitation in BTZS tubes. As far as Xtol-R giving a different look or it's effect on sharpness, I cannot tell. I haven't done an in depth examination yet. Maybe I should...

 

[Donald Qualls]

My Xtol-R normal time is 9:30, 20C, continuous agitation in BTZS tubes.

What film?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

What film?

HP5!

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've been replenishing Xtol now for three years. It's nice. Very economical. BUT I still prefer working with stock diluted 1+1. My Xtol-R normal time is 9:30, 20C, continuous agitation in BTZS tubes. As far as Xtol-R giving a different look or it's effect on sharpness, I cannot tell. I haven't done an in depth examination yet. Maybe I should...

Andy,
Can I ask why you prefer Xtol stock 1+1 over Xtol-R? I use Xtol-R as my main non-staining developer (until something better comes along) and think it's one of the best “all-around” B&W developers “overall”. Do you prefer 1+1 due to force of habit or for known consistency?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andy,
Can I ask why you prefer Xtol stock 1+1 over Xtol-R? I use Xtol-R as my main non-staining developer (until something better comes along) and think it's one of the best “all-around” B&W developers “overall”. Do you prefer 1+1 due to force of habit or for known consistency?

You nailed it. Force of habit, and known consistency. I just felt more comfortable using it one-shot (diluted)... but, I do plan on doing side by side comparisons eventually. I haven't ruled it out. I really appreciate Xtol-R's economy. Currently, I have too many developers (non-staining) that I love to use and want to pare it down to a couple. Chemicals are starting to take over my darkroom space!

 

[aparat]

I have preliminary times for KODAK TRI-X 400 and EASTMAN DOUBLE−X 5222 in XTOL-R in a Jobo (1540) at 20C. These are hypothetical curves for the "normal" LSLR=2.2, and they are 6.54 (EI125) and 6.8 (EI 200) minutes, respectively. That's without accounting for lens flare. Depending on your lens, if you include lens flare, you'd have to extend development time up to about 8 minutes. Given how close these two films are, I would not hesitate to develop them in the same tank, if I happened to have both at hand.

 

[Craig]

My Xtol-R normal time is 9:30, 20C, continuous agitation in BTZS tubes.

I have done all the densitromety for HP5 and my replenished time in a jobo at 20°C is 9:30, with as aim point contrast index of 0.62.

 

[Craig]

Here is my developing chart:

 

[John Wiegerink]

You nailed it. Force of habit, and known consistency. I just felt more comfortable using it one-shot (diluted)... but, I do plan on doing side by side comparisons eventually. I haven't ruled it out. I really appreciate Xtol-R's economy. Currently, I have too many developers (non-staining) that I love to use and want to pare it down to a couple. Chemicals are starting to take over my darkroom space!

That's what I thought, Andy. Some things are just like half worn out shoes............they just feel much better than a new pair. I have problems with hoarding and a 2' X 6' cabinet full of chemicals proves it. Don't tell my wife I admitted being a hoarder. At 73, it really is time to let a few things go.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That's what I thought, Andy. Some things are just like half worn out shoes............they just feel much better than a new pair. I have problems with hoarding and a 2' X 6' cabinet full of chemicals proves it. Don't tell my wife I admitted being a hoarder. At 73, it really is time to let a few things go.

 

[npl]

Agfaphoto APX 400 10min
Fomapan 100 8min

20°c, standard "ilford" agitation in paterson tank, 35mm. The fomapan was really great, very pleased with the prints.

But I mostly used XTOL 1+1 one shot since I started some months ago. It's quick and easy to mix, look great with all the films I tried, and it's economical while using the whole 5L of chemistry in less than 6 month at my current pace.

Problem is, while it was great in spring and summer, now my tap water is very cold, so getting a ~20°c 1+1 solution is harder (it takes ages to get warm water in my sink). I'm contemplating either reusing a stock solution 15 times with times adjustment, or using a replenishement workflow again. I haven't replenished my 1L working solution in more than three months, is it better to discard it and start fresh, or can I pick up where I left it ?

 

[Craig]

. I haven't replenished my 1L working solution in more than three months, is it better to discard it and start fresh, or can I pick up where I left it ?

It should be fine, i've left it longer than that and it worked well.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If you aren't using up all of your replenisher once you have reached the six month time frame, you can:
1) do regular clip tests to ensure continued activity; and/or
2) discard the unused replenisher, and mix up 5 litres of new replenisher. The working solution is continuously revived if your replenisher is active.
Given the very reasonable price of 5 litres of X-Tol, even if you have to discard 40% of each package, it still isn't expensive. And if you use tanks that use more than the absolute minimum of solution, the cost per roll is even better.

I am surprised Donald, but wonder if it is due to relying on the Massive Development chart.
Replenished X-Tol is considerably less active than stock X-Tol used one shot. It is close to X-Tol diluted 1+1.

My replenished N time is exactly the same as my 1+1 time. I must have been lucky.

 

[aparat]

@Craig Awesome data on HP5+!

I found two more development data tables for Ultrafine Finesse 100 and CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro in XTOL-R. The CatLABS film data should be applicable to Rollei Superpan 200 and other films based on the Aviphot 200 emulsion. The Finesse 100 is a bit of a mystery. It is a surprisingly nice film, especially in XTOL-R. I have been enjoying it very much. For "normal" scenes, locate the row marked L7. To predict CI with flare, simply pick the next row - the eight-minute curve. It's not exact, but will get you in the ballpark. If you're interested in more details, let me know. I have pages and pages of data on these films .

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have never done a comparison between Xtol, Xtol 1+1 or Xtol 1+2 and Xtol-R. I'm curious to see what others find. I don't really know if it would make me switch from Xtol-R. Of course, you never know. When I really get old a feeble, I'll just switch back to ID-11 or maybe something real simple like a pre-made liquid developer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When a film is not listed for XTOL-R for rotary processing, I found that the XTOL 1+1 for traditional tanks is close enough for rotary processing for the same processing.

 

[Moose22]

Lots of comments here about starting with 1 + 1 times for rotary processing.

What about for those of using patterson tanks with inversion? Not rotarty. Are people still starting with the 1+1 time for those?

 

[MattKing]

Lots of comments here about starting with 1 + 1 times for rotary processing.

What about for those of using patterson tanks with inversion? Not rotarty. Are people still starting with the 1+1 time for those?

Yep - although I use Paterson tanks

 

[Steven Lee]

I have never done a comparison between Xtol, Xtol 1+1 or Xtol 1+2 and Xtol-R. I'm curious to see what others find. I don't really know if it would make me switch from Xtol-R.

I did and I found absolutely no difference between stock Xtol and Xtol-R. I am not saying there is no difference. I am simply saying I could not detect it

Diluting 1+1 gives slightly different grain: not "worse" or larger, just slightly better defined, arguably some may even prefer it. But again, this difference is tiny and only observable at massive magnifications, say 7x or higher.

How did I test? I set up a scene with stable light, mounted a camera on a tripod, and exposed HP5+ and Delta 100, two rolls of each, my two favorite films. Then I cut each roll into 3 strips and developed using Ilford datasheet times plus/minus 10% each strip. Examined the results under 7x and 10x loupes as well as high resolution scans. I was searching for the mythical Xtol-R magic but didn't find it by examining grain, overall visual tonality, and the scan curves. Maybe the magical properties of replenishing only become evident with rotation or with other films?

Never tried 1+2, but extrapolating from my 1+1 results I'd expect to see slightly better defined grain and higher sharpness.

 

[aparat]

I did and I found absolutely no difference between stock Xtol and Xtol-R. I am not saying there is no difference. I am simply saying I could not detect it

Though I did find a difference between XTOL and XTOL-R, I found that difference to be smaller than I'd expected, based on numerous Photrio threads on the topic. In my experience, XTOL-R requires slightly longer developing times (for the same CI), it is slightly cleaner-working, and it produces slightly shadow detail (for the same exposure). I summarized the differences in this post.

Having said that, XTOL-R can be a very stable developer with a clear economic advantage of only 70 ml per roll of a 35mm film. It does require slightly more discipline and has a bit of a learning curve. Is it worth it? To me, it is, at least for now.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Though I did find a difference between XTOL and XTOL-R, I found that difference to be smaller than I'd expected, based on numerous Photrio threads on the topic. In my experience, XTOL-R requires slightly longer developing times (for the same CI), it is slightly cleaner-working, and it produces slightly shadow detail (for the same exposure). I summarized the differences in this post.

Having said that, XTOL-R can be a very stable developer with a clear economic advantage of only 70 ml per roll of a 35mm film. It does require slightly more discipline and has a bit of a learning curve. Is it worth it? To me, it is, at least for now.

Both XTOL and XTOL-R are very forgiving developers, that is tolerant of pour in and pour out rates, resistant to staining, tolerant of pouring time differences, ... and sit sharp, fine grained, great tonality ...

 

[aparat]

Both XTOL and XTOL-R are very forgiving developers, that is tolerant of pour in and pour out rates, resistant to staining, tolerant of pouring time differences, ... and sit sharp, fine grained, great tonality ...

Thank you for the info! I think XTOL-R deserves a sticky post, don't you think? When I tried to research it, I found countless bits and pieces scattered all over Photrio, often with divided opinions on the subject.

I must say, I am becoming more and more impressed with XTOL-R, after over twenty years of almost exclusively using D76 (Kodak and home brew) and Rodinal (for Fomapan 100 exclusively). It can be beautiful with some films, like the cheap Ultrafine Finesse 100. I can't put my finger on it, but, compared to D76, it seems better suited to rotary processing. The negatives are more evenly developed, and I am not just talking about the edges of the frame. Tonality is very smooth and extended, but without running away from you in the highlights. Grain is fine, but without that mushy kind of look.

 

[Craig]

I must say, I am becoming more and more impressed with XTOL-R,

One of my favourite combinations is Delta 100 in Xtol-R. Rated at 100, it has great tonality.