A new order of Tmax-400/35mm arrived from B&H today, and it's also from batch 0166. As before, it pours out yellow. Below, I attached photos of XTOL that's fresh (left) and used (right) so you'll know what this yellow colouration looks like. The two photos are with and without flash:
View attachment 49138 - View attachment 49139
HOWEVER, edge-marking density and image-density look higher than before. I compared it to a prior roll by holding it over the light-table. It's drying, so I haven't run it through the densitometer, but to my eye, the densities are acceptable and would not cause complaints.
And no word from Kodak.
EDIT:
The roll is now dry, and I measured it on the densitometer. Here are the graphs of a failing roll, a roll with pre-wash, and the latest roll:
View attachment 49141
On the right-side of the graph, the pre-washed and latest rolls have the same densities, and both are above the failing roll (red line).
An interesting observation: The pre-washed roll has slightly higher speed, because its toe is higher. I suspect this is also true in Palec's tests, where the thin areas were noticeably denser in his pictures.
Mark Overton
Your Xtol-after-TMY2 seems more strongly coloured than what I recall seeing, but then of course the eyes are quick to adapt if you don't do a side-by-side as in your pictures. BTW, are these pictures from a pre-soaked roll? Perhaps interesting to compare a poor-out of pre-soaked and not-pre-soaked TMY2.
Yes, this latest brick seems to produce slightly stronger colouration than before. But the yellow or yellow-orange is always obvious. The next time I dev a roll with pre-soak, I'll take comparative pictures, but I can say that my pre-soaked dev came out very nearly clear. Delta 400 and/or Neopan 400 came out even more clear than fresh XTOL, with no yellow at all. BTW, all my developers use distilled water.
Thomas:
I haven't checked the pH before and after for XTOL, but I have several times for my home-brews. Their chemistry is similar to XTOL, so XTOL probably behaves the same way. For home-brews (which also pour out yellow), the pH drops an insignificant amount, only 0.03 or 0.05.
Mark Overton
Mark,
Was that without pre-soak you tested pH?
- Thomas
Yet Palec and I have seen odd behavior.
Here's Kodak's response:
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your patience while I investigated your concern.
I checked with Kodak Manufacturing and found that:-
Batch 0166 was manufactured within specifications.
When reviewed against previous and subsequent batches the performance (in particular the contrast position) were all very similar
No manufacturing changes have been made that could provide the effect seen by you
No other reports have been received describing an issue of this kind
Given that batch 0166 has typical production contrast, then perhaps something has changed on the your end? You mention Kodak Xtol Developer, then say something about your "home-brew developer." Are you using a dilution other than what we have tested? The technical datasheet for Kodak Professional T-Max 400 Film, F-4043, shows starting point development times for full strength and 1:1 Xtol. If you can get back to us with specific information on the steps you are using, the dilution of Xtol and times, we might be able to better understand what you may be running into. Also, are you mixing the complete packet of Xtol, or are you splitting the powder to mix up smaller quantities?
We look forward to hearing from you.
Their response is reasonable. Yet Palec and I have seen odd behavior. I'm curious what Thomas Bertilsson will see when he develops the roll I sent him. Also, given that my new brick is behaving better, I'm wondering if there was a hiccup during production.
Mark Overton
This means Kodak is faster than I in responding...I sincerely hope to be able to shoot and process that roll tomorrow, contact on Sunday, and send it back next week.
- Thomas
View attachment 49515View attachment 49516
This is getting weirder by the minute. Seems Kodak changed the cartridge design, using only black ink, probably to save cash.
The black ink one is from the 2014 expiration one that Mark sent me, and the other one is expiration 2013. First I thought they had mistakenly packaged old TMY in the packet.
I've now exposed both the roll Mark sent, and a new roll I bought, incidentally from the same 0166 batch.
Next step is to process both, and they're loaded into separate single reel tanks, waiting for me to have a moment to process them.
Sorry this is taking so long. I've run into some personal things that need my attention.
Could you take pictures of the used developer from these rolls? And don't shoot them with B&W film.
There's no hurry -- best to do it right in your time.
Mark Overton
Bad move by Kodak
I will take pictures of the developer pre- and post-development, yes.
Agreed that it's better done right than quickly. Thanks.
Ascorbate developers undergo two very different oxidation events. The one that has received the most attention is Fenton oxidation. This is sudden and catastrophic. What the OP seems to be experiencing is the normal aerial oxidation of a developer. This is evidenced by the yellow color. It is best to follow Kodak's recommendation for Xtol's life. Dump the developer and get a new package. If your volume of film is not sufficient to exhaust a developer like Xtol in the given time period then switch to something else like HC-110 which has a proverbial long life.
If you use it in a replenishment regime, and use it up entirely in 6 months, that $10.00 will develop about 60 rolls of film, at a per roll cost of about $0.16.
If instead you are not able to use it all up in 6 months, and have to discard it after 25 rolls (one per week), your per roll cost is still only about $0.40.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?