To replenish or not to replenish?

[markbarendt]

Extol doesn't require a special replenisher?

Correct

Does the seasoned developer make better negs versus 1 shot method?

Yes

The low toxicity of Xtol is a plus.

Yep.

Tough to find a downside isn't it?

 

[alanrockwood]

Touching on the issue of patents, HC110 is an old product. The basic patents on it would have expired many years ago. Anyone is free to freely copy technology based on expired patents.

There could also be some trade secrets involved in the manufacture of HC110. You are free to copy a product manufactured under a trade secret, provided you figured out the secret legitimately, such as figuring out the formula (e.g. by chemical analysis, or whatever) without stealing it from the person who holds the trade secret.

 

[Ian Grant]

Touching on the issue of patents, HC110 is an old product. The basic patents on it would have expired many years ago. Anyone is free to freely copy technology based on expired patents.

There could also be some trade secrets involved in the manufacture of HC110. You are free to copy a product manufactured under a trade secret, provided you figured out the secret legitimately, such as figuring out the formula (e.g. by chemical analysis, or whatever) without stealing it from the person who holds the trade secret.

The technology used to make HC110 isn't easy or cheap to duplicate.

Ilford make a superb equivalent Ilfotec HC & LC (essentially the same - HC is High concentrate I'll let you guess LC) which uses a slightly a different approach & formulation to give an almost directly interchangeable product which is far easier to produce.

Ian

 

[Sim2]

Dang to this thread......... Having started a recent thread about comparing X-Tol to ID11 I got two packs of X-Tol last week in preperation for running some tests.

From my thread I had been disuaded from going down the replenish route and had settled in my mind for going one-shot. Now I am veering back to using it as a replenished stock solution.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Would have been sooo much easier to decide if the consensus was definately that one way was better than the other. As with all things, it seems "horses for courses" - just have to pick a horse to ride!

Sim2.

 

[fotch]

Dang to this thread......... Having started a recent thread about comparing X-Tol to ID11 I got two packs of X-Tol last week in preperation for running some tests.

From my thread I had been disuaded from going down the replenish route and had settled in my mind for going one-shot. Now I am veering back to using it as a replenished stock solution.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Would have been sooo much easier to decide if the consensus was definately that one way was better than the other. As with all things, it seems "horses for courses" - just have to pick a horse to ride!

Sim2.

Easy. Start off with one shot, get use to it, get to know it, you will like it. Then, try the replenish system, get use to it, get to know it, see if it is worth the effort.
In either case, you will get what pleases you and know why.

Oh, and let us know also.

 

[donbga]

I store the stock in a reused wine box and the working solution in a reused 1.75 liter Margarita Mix bottle.

That tells me all I need to know ...

I agree with Bob, replenished film developers does improve quality and makes for more spotting. And I never found that replenishing saved that much money. Film is too expensive anymore to not use one shot developers for maximum quality. When you start enlarging those small negatives to poster sized prints small spots become real problems.

 

[Sim2]

Xtol is unique in that it can be replenished by itself.

Once a dev is seasoned then replenished stock has benefits similar to using stock at about 1+1 to 1+2 better sharpness and tonality but also finer smoother grain than you get with diluted stock.
Ian

This is what has swayed me back to trying a replenished stock solution rather than one-shot. Seems like all the benefits of diluted one-shot stock but with greater economy. I know the actual cost difference is nothing in the real world but to be able to choose quality and economy in the same package is sooo tempting.

Sim2.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Dang to this thread......... Having started a recent thread about comparing X-Tol to ID11 I got two packs of X-Tol last week in preperation for running some tests.

From my thread I had been disuaded from going down the replenish route and had settled in my mind for going one-shot. Now I am veering back to using it as a replenished stock solution.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Would have been sooo much easier to decide if the consensus was definately that one way was better than the other. As with all things, it seems "horses for courses" - just have to pick a horse to ride!

Sim2.

That tells me all I need to know ...

I agree with Bob, replenished film developers does improve quality and makes for more spotting. And I never found that replenishing saved that much money. Film is too expensive anymore to not use one shot developers for maximum quality. When you start enlarging those small negatives to poster sized prints small spots become real problems.

Start with full strength for the first few rolls, then replenish. You will see both ways, but replenished last a lot longer and has much better tonal quality.

Steve

 

[markbarendt]

That tells me all I need to know ...

I agree with Bob, replenished film developers does improve quality and makes for more spotting.

I don't doubt your experience but personally I have not had any problem with the stuff at the bottom of the bottle. If I only kept a 1-liter bottle of working solution I might worry.

I do on occasion run the working solution through a coffee filter into a clean bottle but most of the time just pouring the "top" liter off a bottle that has been sitting a week or two keeps the junk out of the film tank.

And I never found that replenishing saved that much money. Film is too expensive anymore to not use one shot developers for maximum quality. When you start enlarging those small negatives to poster sized prints small spots become real problems.

For me replenishment is all about quality and convenience.

Once seasoned which only took me about 10 rolls, it's stable, predictable, has all the benefits of dilution, I can do any size batch I want in any of my tanks.

I do agree that the cost of developer is pretty cheap but I have been in a situation where I wanted to develop and the new batch of Xtol had not been even ordered yet.

I just ran a few batches in my working solution without replenishment and started adding fresh again when the delivery came.

On the cost front I have to giggle when people say film is too expensive. I know there is a cash cost but so what, it's minuscule compared to going to a ball game with the guys.

This is a fun pass-time and the $12 it might cost me for 10 sheets of 4x5 HP5 or 2-rolls of 35mm Portra or 3 rolls of 120 for a weekend's worth of high value shooting can't even touch a decent meal out with the wife.

For play last week I just bought 26 rolls of 35mm C-41 B&W film from Ultrafine for under $45 delivered. 35mm Fuji Superia is available for roughly the same cost/roll all day every day, my last buy was at $0.90 each. Developed by me it puts me at about $2 a roll. Same $12 from above gets me at least 144 shots.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I went to Flickr and saw some gorgeous images souped in Xtol. I also read of some people experienced "sudden death" of the developer. Has anyone out there experienced it? I'm now have mixed feelings on the developer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I went to Flickr and saw some gorgeous images souped in Xtol. I also read of some people experienced "sudden death" of the developer. Has anyone out there experienced it? I'm now have mixed feelings on the developer.

Old problem, taken care of years ago. It has now taken on a urban legend flavor. Forget that you ever read about it.

Steve

 

[markbarendt]

I went to Flickr and saw some gorgeous images souped in Xtol. I also read of some people experienced "sudden death" of the developer. Has anyone out there experienced it? I'm now a have mixed feelings on the developer.

The sudden death issue was solved way back when and was only on one liter packs as far as I know.

My replenished stuff is a year old with no issues.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Glad to hear about the resolution of "sudden death" with Xtol. Is there a limitation on how long you could replenish it in terms how many rolls per liter or how long can you keep it around mixed as working solution. I also noticed that people use it with different dilutions. Are there advantages using it diluted? The developer is intriguing to me because I've read it renders shadow detail quite well.

 

[markbarendt]

No limit that I know of, just filter occasionally and replenish with the recommended amounts.

The replenished solution is always used full strength.

It also has the same advantages as diluted solutions.

 

[wclark5179]

I never replenish.

I find photography chemicals pretty reasonable.

Why not start with fresh each time?

Why replenish? Does it save you money? The replenisher costs money. Tried it 40 or 50 years ago and I determined it isn't for my workflow.

 

[Ian Grant]

It depends how you work.

1. Replenishment is the most cost effective and economic way of working, by a very significant factor.

2. Replenishment gives a slight increase in negative quality

3. Xtol is it's own replenisher so there's no additional costs of buying separate replenisher.

4. With a replenished developer the development cycle is faster as there's no mixing chemistry for each cycle, just warm/cool and start, replenish every few films.

5. Replenishment gives very consistent results.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why not start with fresh each time?

Because the replenished XTOL produces better results than fresh. That is why so many here use replenished XTOL. If there were no improvements, then no one would replenish.

Steve

 

[Ian Grant]

Because the replenished XTOL produces better results than fresh. That is why so many here use replenished XTOL. If there were no improvements, then no one would replenish.

Steve

It's worth adding that that's the case with other developers designed for replenishment as well, D76/ID-11 are the only others left where a replenisher is still made.

If you were to analyse the processing of all the film manufactured each year the truth would be that well over 90% is done with replenished developer. It's the norm commercially and is well understood.

D76 was designed for replenishment from the outset, and so was Xtol.

Ian

 

[BetterSense]

And, let me repeat, some of use need several liters of developer for our large sheet film tanks. One-shot isn't practical for large volumes.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The sudden death issue was solved way back when

This is true for Xtol and various other commercial ascorbate developers. It may not true if you mix your own unless you add a chelating agent for impurities in the chemicals. Look at Dead Link Removed

 

[wclark5179]

Each to s(he)'s own.

I find I have good consistency using a developer only once. Therefore, I choose not to use a replenisher. I buy D-76 in 10 gallon packs for about $34.00 from Freestyle. Divide that up & I find cost per roll is cheap! And I'm a real cheapie! Monte nicknamed me cheapie! And Monte was a real cheapskate!

 

[markbarendt]

This is true for Xtol and various other commercial ascorbate developers. It may not true if you mix your own unless you add a chelating agent for impurities in the chemicals. Look at Dead Link Removed

Interesting info.

Says Kodak on my bag so I don't worry.

 

[michaelbsc]

Let me ask if there is an answer for low volume users. I always use developer (not X-tol) as one shot. If I did try to keep developer for a few weeks between film sessions is it even possible to use replenishing as a choice?

I always thought replenished developer was for fault use.

 

[markbarendt]

Let me ask if there is an answer for low volume users. I always use developer (not X-tol) as one shot. If I did try to keep developer for a few weeks between film sessions is it even possible to use replenishing as a choice?

Absolutely!

The reason I use a wine box for the stock is that there is no introduced air.

The fresh Xtol goes in the working bottle before pouring the used Xtol back into the bottle that holds the stock, the used Xtol is added until overflowing then capped so again no air.

Because there is so little air introduced it lasts very well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Because the replenished XTOL produces better results than fresh. That is why so many here use replenished XTOL. If there were no improvements, then no one would replenish.

Steve

It's worth adding that that's the case with other developers designed for replenishment as well, D76/ID-11 are the only others left where a replenisher is still made.

If you were to analyse the processing of all the film manufactured each year the truth would be that well over 90% is done with replenished developer. It's the norm commercially and is well understood.

D76 was designed for replenishment from the outset, and so was Xtol.

Ian

Ian, I only comment on XTOL fresh and XTOL replenished because that is the chemistry that I use and the only on that I have used both fresh and replenished.

Steve