Tmax-400/35mm with XTOL: Getting thinner negatives than before?

[sandermarijn]

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.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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

Mark,

It's still interesting to test pH of the solution, before and after. Just like Matt King alluded to above.

I haven't had time to process the roll you sent. Will try later this week.

 

[albada]

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

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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

 

[albada]

Mark,
Was that without pre-soak you tested pH?
- Thomas

Yes, without pre-soak.
So despite turning yellow, the developer's pH is changing only a little.

Mark Overton

 

[albada]

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

 

[sandermarijn]

Yet Palec and I have seen odd behavior.

Not really. Palec saw a difference between pre-soaked and non-pre-soaked TMY, which is explainable. You saw a difference between batches, which is truly odd.

Fine response from Kodak. It's comforting to see how they are still on the ball.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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

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.

 

[Tim Gray]

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.

They did that to Tri-X too. Sometime in the last year as far as I can tell.

 

[pentaxuser]

Bad move by Kodak and very ill advised given its similarity with old Tmax 400 and consumers' possible concerns about what it may get up to given its financial problems.

pentaxuser

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

 

[edibot42]

My rolls from the 0165 batch processed very well in Xtol, full strength. Actually really happy with it, first time with this film/developer. I agree that the black and white cartridges are lame.

 

[albada]

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

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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

I will take pictures of the developer pre- and post-development, yes.

Agreed that it's better done right than quickly. Thanks.

 

[sandermarijn]

Bad move by Kodak

Actually I always disliked the green lettering. Black looks so much more pro. Yeah, I'm sensitive to marketing .

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I will take pictures of the developer pre- and post-development, yes.

Agreed that it's better done right than quickly. Thanks.

I bit off more than I can chew. Sorry to keep everyone at suspense here. My school duties, in addition to work, just accelerated beyond control, so that I haven't been able to get into the darkroom for a few weeks now, not even to process film.

I'll get it done, please be patient with me.

- Thomas

 

[albada]

I wanted to conclude this old thread.

To re-cap, I mailed Thomas Bertilsson an unopened roll of Tmax-400 (TMY2) from a batch that consistently gave me poor results unless I gave the roll a pre-wash. The poor results were: thinner negatives, with the developer being yellow when poured out. The pre-wash fixed both.

Thomas emailed me his results. He developed my roll, and also his own roll of TMY2 from a different batch. Both produced the yellow pour-out that I got. However, both produced *normal* density. That was also Kodak's response about this: Their testing showed normal density.

Conclusion: I don't know why my neg's were thin, nor why a pre-wash restored normal density.

Mark Overton

 

[sandermarijn]

To me that's one of the attractions of film photography: no two results will ever be the same bit by bit (yeah, poor choice of words).

 

[polyglot]

Thread-resurrection!

I have an oldish batch of Xtol (around 10 months?) that's been stored in a mylar bladder. Just this week, it has started to pour out of the development tank as piss-yellow instead of clear though I haven't seen any reduction in development activity. The yellowness isn't just with TMY2 either, I got bright green from a batch of 4x5 Fomapan instead of blue.

I don't have any more film to develop at the moment but that will change in a week or two so I'll try a pre-wash to see if that changes anything.

 

[davedm]

Update to an old thread.

So After reading this and other related threads, it seems that it's related to developer exhaustion (by contamination, oxidation due to poor /prolonged storage) and if your developed pours out yellow / different, it's time to toss it.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

Before following Gerald's otherwise excellent advice, consider one further factor.

A package of X-Tol is about $10.00 USD at B&H.

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.

Environmentally it is relatively benign, so it doesn't hurt to discard it appropriately.

If you like it, don't hesitate to use it. The cost involved in discarding a portion of it is small.

And this is from someone who uses HC-110!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

In addition to what Matt said, if you are inclined you can roll your own ascorbate developer. Ascorbic acid is very reasonable in health food stores. You can get formulas on the net for Xtol, FX-55, DS-10, DS-12, etc.

 

[Rudeofus]

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.

What you describe here is an accurate description of the past and current market for photographic developers: "it's really cheap if you process a roll or two per week". It makes a lot of business sense, since people processing just a roll a month or even less will not translate into much revenue anyway. Photography appears to be one of these crafts which really only make economic sense if they are practiced heavily.

All that sounds very reasonable, but Mark wanted to create such a developer anyway: a long lasting, non-toxic, liquid concentrate with Xtol like performance, which allows him to conveniently develop a roll per month, or just a few rolls per year. Combine this with a fixer that has excellent working solution shelf life (TF-5, I'm looking at you here), and you have a decent process chemistry combo for a very casual film user.