markbarendt
Allowing Ads
Extol doesn't require a special replenisher?
Does the seasoned developer make better negs versus 1 shot method?
The low toxicity of Xtol is a plus.
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.
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.
I store the stock in a reused wine box and the working solution in a reused 1.75 liter Margarita Mix bottle.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 RemovedThe 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
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?
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.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
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
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?