Using and replenishing XTOL

[weebz]

For the last 7 years XTOL has been my go to developer for pretty much everything and I've always used it as a one-shot, 1:1. I have been considering trying to go the route of using it as stock and replenishing, but I have a few questions.

1. I have heard people talk fondly of 'seasoned' XTOL, but I've never got a great answer as far as why that is better than using it diluted 1:1. So, what's the big plus of using stock XTOL and replenishing?

2. When do you start replenishing? Do you start after the very first roll or do you allow it to 'season' before beginning to replenish?

3. As far as the replenisher goes, does one just use stock XTOL? From my understanding you just make up a batch and spilt it, use one as the working solution and the other as the replenisher.

4. As far as storing the working solution, do you need to store it a container that has room for the replenisher you will add down the road? I've never understood this part of replenishment, if I'm adding 70ml for every roll I process wouldn't I basically be overflowing my container the first time I replenished if I'm storing the working solution in a container with little to no head room?

5. What do you do when you run out of replenisher? Is that when the solution gets dumped? If I say make a 5L batch and split it 50/50 for working solution and replenisher(assuming that is the correct thing to do, see question 3) once that that 2.5L replenisher is used up do I start over or do I just get more XTOL and keep replenishing? If that is the case, is there a point where the working solution needs to be dumped?

Thanks in advance and if you have any other tips or pointers for using XTOL this let me know!

 

[markbarendt]

For the last 7 years XTOL has been my go to developer for pretty much everything and I've always used it as a one-shot, 1:1. I have been considering trying to go the route of using it as stock and replenishing, but I have a few questions.

1. I have heard people talk fondly of 'seasoned' XTOL, but I've never got a great answer as far as why that is better than using it diluted 1:1. So, what's the big plus of using stock XTOL and replenishing?

Economy, 70ml/roll. It also once replenished provides same visual advantages of 1:1. convenience, in that you can develop say a single sheet in a full liter of developer and not toss the liter.

2. When do you start replenishing? Do you start after the very first roll or do you allow it to 'season' before beginning to replenish?

I topped up just what was lost for the first few rolls then started the 70 ml per roll.

3. As far as the replenisher goes, does one just use stock XTOL? From my understanding you just make up a batch and spilt it, use one as the working solution and the other as the replenisher.

Yep

4. As far as storing the working solution, do you need to store it a container that has room for the replenisher you will add down the road? I've never understood this part of replenishment, if I'm adding 70ml for every roll I process wouldn't I basically be overflowing my container the first time I replenished if I'm storing the working solution in a container with little to no head room?

I used a 1.5 liter glass bottle. Pour the 70ml of fresh or more if you are doing multiple rolls into the working solution bottle before pouring the developer in the tank back in. Doing it this way whatever old solution won't fit is discarded.

5. What do you do when you run out of replenisher? Is that when the solution gets dumped? If I say make a 5L batch and split it 50/50 for working solution and replenisher(assuming that is the correct thing to do, see question 3) once that that 2.5L replenisher is used up do I start over or do I just get more XTOL and keep replenishing? If that is the case, is there a point where the working solution needs to be dumped?

Thanks in advance and if you have any other tips or pointers for using XTOL this let me know!

When you run out of fresh Xtol just make more, the replenished working solution can be reused indefinitely.

 

[MattKing]

In addition to Mark's points, I would add the following:
1. Using X-Tol in a replenishment regime permits you to always be working at room temperature. No worry about adjusting the developer or other temperatures. Just use everything at whatever the room temperature is, adjusting the developing time accordingly. I also re-use my fixer, so I only need to make sure that my stop and HCA and wash are at or near room temperature.
3. It is a good idea to store the replenisher in some way that minimizes the amount of air and replenisher contact. Several smaller bottles, mylar bags, marbles, heavier than air sprays on top, all can assist.
5. It can be useful to filter your working solution from time to time, but absent some evidence of contamination, you can just continue to mix new replenisher as you use it up. As it doesn't give a clear indication of failure, it is a good idea to either discard unused replenisher after six months, or perform clip tests on it regularly after that period of time.

 

[miha]

Is the speed comparable to 1:1?

 

[Ian Grant]

It will be comparable. Perhaps slightly lower, but likely immaterial in practice.

Keep in mind when it comes to working characteristics, replenishing represents a compromise, not an improvement (as some would have you believe). It is not the same as using a developer one-shot 1+1 etc.

Have to disagree Replenishment can lead to improvements, it has the advantages of using it FS which is finer grain but with increased sharpness and better tonality. That's from experience of various developers used replenshined both in my own darkrooms and commercially and many years of using replenished Xtol.

It's no a compromise at all these developers were designed for replenishment, the compromise is using these developer dilute - something that started with D76.

Ian

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

To further answer question 1: When film is processed there are byproducts such as bromide which alter the chemical composition of the developer, and that is what yields what @Ian Grant suggests in finer grain, greater sharpness, and a tonality that is different ('more pleasing' is subjective and there are no absolutes regarding subjective matters).

Start with at least about 2 liter working solution, and after processing about 6-8 rolls you can start replenishing by adding fresh Xtol stock (70-80ml / roll) back to the working solution bottle prior to pouring back what you are currently using for developing. Whatever doesn't fit from the volume used for processing is what is discarded.
Continue in perpetuity unless you contaminate the developer somehow; if you keep everything clean you should be able to keep going in essence forever.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Replenishment works only if you process film often. It does not work as well for the occasional user. Additionally the working solution should be fairly large two liters or greater. The larger the volume the greater the consistency between uses.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Replenishment works only if you process film often. It does not work as well for the occasional user. Additionally the working solution should be fairly large two liters or greater. The larger the volume the greater the consistency between uses.

I am an occasional user and I have found the replenishing works well.

I use one liter as my working solution and replenish with one of the other one liter bottles of the original batch. When the batch of XTOL runs out, I mix a new batch and continue with the same working solution. I have used the same working solution for three or four years without discarding it.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

An argument can be made for an MQ developer like D-76 being used as a replenished system. Here the formation of the hydroquinone monosulphonate ion with use (a weak developing agent in itself) contributes to the look so often claimed. However such an advantage does not exist for ascorbate based developers. The oxidation products of ascorbic acid have no developer activity. In addition Dimezone is resistant to bromide unlike Metol which can benefit from the restraining effects of bromide increase in replenished developer. Remember that D-76 initially contains no bromide. One reason that fresh batches were "seasoned" with old scrap film to add bromide ion.

If you process film consistently, say at least once every week, then replenishment makes economic sense. However, I personally see no other benefits for using Xtol in this manner.

 

[John Wiegerink]

An argument can be made for an MQ developer like D-76 being used as a replenished system. Here the formation of the hydroquinone monosulphonate ion with use (a weak developing agent in itself) contributes to the look so often claimed. However such an advantage does not exist for ascorbate based developers. The oxidation products of ascorbic acid have no developer activity. In addition Dimezone is resistant to bromide unlike Metol which can benefit from the restraining effects of bromide increase in replenished developer. Remember that D-76 initially contains no bromide. One reason that fresh batches were "seasoned" with old scrap film to add bromide ion.

If you process film consistently, say at least once every week, then replenishment makes economic sense. However, I personally see no other benefits for using Xtol in this manner.

There is one benefit Gerry that you overlook. That is I can use as much developer as I want for a given session. I have a Yankee 4X5 tank and gave up using it until I switched to using Xtol-R. It was far to expensive to use if I was going to dump developer down the drain after each session. Now I just add my allotted replenisher amount to my stock and top-off with spent developer. I'm happy and it works just fine.

 

[Ian Grant]

Replenishment works only if you process film often. It does not work as well for the occasional user. Additionally the working solution should be fairly large two liters or greater. The larger the volume the greater the consistency between uses.

I was an occasional user of Xtol, and it worked well for me never an issue. I always used 2.5 litres of working stock, I found that's a good minimum I wouldn't go less than 2 litres.

I'll qualify the occasional user, I mostly used it for 120 Tmax 400, I was using Rodinal for 35mm, 120 & LF APX100 & Tmax 100, so it might sit unised a month or two then I'd process 10-20 films replenish and so on, I found the spare Xtol used as replenisher would last at least a year.

Ian

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The is one benefit Gerry that you overlook. That is I can use as much developer as I want for a given session. I have a Yankee 4X5 tank and gave up using it until I switched to using Xtol-R. It was far to expensive to use if I was going to dump developer down the drain after each session. Now I just add my allotted replenisher amount to my stock and top-off with spent developer. I'm happy and it works just fine.

True, but the ability you mention is not exclusive to replenished systems. Years ago when I was in school and had little discretionary money I made a few calculations and determined that the most economical developer was the Beutler formula. Anyone familiar with this developer knows just how dilute the working solution is. So replenishment with Xtol is more economical than use as a one-shot. However when other developers are considered this may not be the case. If anyone should find themselves in a similar situation then they need to make the necessary calculations themselves.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I was an occasional user of Xtol, and it worked well for me never an issue. I always used 2.5 litres of working stock, I found that's a good minimum I wouldn't go less than 2 litres.

I'll qualify the occasional user, I mostly used it for 120 Tmax 400, I was using Rodinal for 35mm, 120 & LF APX100 & Tmax 100, so it might sit unised a month or two then I'd process 10-20 films replenish and so on, I found the spare Xtol used as replenisher would last at least a year.

Ian

I mentioned on another thread this same experience using Microphen with replenishment. One liter of working solution resulted in inconsistent results. In addition my developing was similarly erratic. The developer might sit idle for a few weeks between uses. Of course the solution to this is to shoot more.

 

[Ian Grant]

I mentioned on another thread this same experience using Microphen with replenishment. One liter of working solution resulted in inconsistent results. In addition my developing was similarly erratic. The developer might sit idle for a few weeks between uses. Of course the solution to this is to shoot more.

Singing from the same hymn sheet I've always used 2.5 litres as my minimum but then that's the size of bottles here in Europe/ I never found the developer sitting idle for weeks or even an issue even when I moved abroad. I'd be away 3 or 4 months and come back and use my Xtol in an intense burst.

The balance/compromise is do you use Xtol or any other replenished developer economically or your throughput is so low you just use dilute which is wasteful and expensive and gives no better results.

Ian

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you process film consistently, say at least once every week, then replenishment makes economic sense. However, I personally see no other benefits for using Xtol in this manner.

You keep bringing this up, and there are reasons why you indeed can and might want to try replenished Xtol, which is incredibly stable in smaller working solutions of about 2 liters. I used it almost exclusively for about 5 years, and it never skipped a beat, in bursts of high throughput (50 rolls per week), and in times of low throughput (a roll every two weeks), it just kept on working the same.

I have let my Xtol sit for months at a time without doing anything to it, pour about two films' worth of stock Xtol replenisher into the working solution, and use it just like any other processing session. It was almost six months, Gerald. It is not true that Xtol requires high volume. In low volume it is VERY robust when stored properly. Consistency has never been an issue. I just kept shooting and printing, never having to do a lot of darkroom gymnastics because I always knew what to expect. It is no less consistent than diluted Xtol.

Besides economy, which is a real benefit, the developer does present different tonality than diluted Xtol. With finer grain, added sharpness, as well as a tonality that many find more pleasing, I see zero reasons not to try it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

True, but the ability you mention is not exclusive to replenished systems. Years ago when I was in school and had little discretionary money I made a few calculations and determined that the most economical developer was the Beutler formula. Anyone familiar with this developer knows just how dilute the working solution is. So replenishment with Xtol is more economical than use as a one-shot. However when other developers are considered this may not be the case. If anyone should find themselves in a similar situation then they need to make the necessary calculations themselves.

I won't argue with you on this topic since you can do as you wish and I can do as I wish. I have used Beutler 1+8 and it's darn good and pretty darn cheap to mix, but I like the tonality of Xtol-R slightly better. Also, I don't have to mix my Xtol as often when I use the replenish regime like I would the Beutler developer. I too am a medium to low user and it works great for me. My working volume is 1 gallon so that might make a difference. Gerald, it never accomplishes anything to rain on someones parade unless that someone is made of sugar and will melt. Most of us here don't fit in that category and besides, if it doesn't work we'll soon abandon it for something better.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I posted mine before I read what Thomas just wrote, but my feelings exactly. I don't know why and I don't really care why it works, but it just works. To Hell with science and what's right! Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you process film consistently, say at least once every week, then replenishment makes economic sense. However, I personally see no other benefits for using Xtol in this manner.

You keep bringing this up, and there are reasons why you indeed can and might want to try replenished Xtol, which is incredibly stable in smaller working solutions of about 2 liters. I used it almost exclusively for about 5 years, and it never skipped a beat, in bursts of high throughput (50 rolls per week), and in times of low throughput (a roll every two weeks), it just kept on working the same.

I have let my Xtol sit for months at a time without doing anything to it, pour about two films' worth of stock Xtol replenisher into the working solution, and use it just like any other processing session. It was almost six months, Gerald. It is not true that Xtol requires high volume. In low volume it is VERY robust when stored properly. Consistency has never been an issue. I just kept shooting and printing, never having to do a lot of darkroom gymnastics because I always knew what to expect. It is no less consistent than diluted Xtol.

Besides economy, which is a real benefit, the developer does present different tonality than diluted Xtol. With finer grain, added sharpness, as well as a tonality that many find more pleasing, I see zero reasons not to try it.

I too have let replenished XTOL sit for six months or longer without having any dire results. Based on years tracking statements about using replenished XTOL, I cannot find any justification for Jerry's claim that frequent use of replenished XTOL is a requirement.

 

[john_s]

Would I be correct to assume that all those here who keep Xtol for extended periods are mixing it in water that is purified in some way (such as distillation or deionized)? I'm interested as I'm about to do 4x5 in a Jobo 2500 series tank with inversion not rotation so re-use is appealing.
Where I live the water out of the tap is fine for every developer that I've used, but Xtol might be more susceptible to impurities I'm led to believe.

 

[1kgcoffee]

Is stock replenished solution equal in potency to fresh solution? Say I want to start using my stock in diluted one time solutions can I get away with this?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Would I be correct to assume that all those here who keep Xtol for extended periods are mixing it in water that is purified in some way (such as distillation or deionized)? I'm interested as I'm about to do 4x5 in a Jobo 2500 series tank with inversion not rotation so re-use is appealing.
Where I live the water out of the tap is fine for every developer that I've used, but Xtol might be more susceptible to impurities I'm led to believe.

I use regular tap water for my Xtol and all other developers I've used. But we're lucky here in Minnesota with excellent water quality. It varies from place to place, of course, but in the StPaul/Minneapolis area it's very good water for darkroom.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Is stock replenished solution equal in potency to fresh solution? Say I want to start using my stock in diluted one time solutions can I get away with this?

No. It has activity that is similar to 1+1.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You keep bringing this up,

Very simple, people like the OP keep bringing up the same question. It's a question that all photographers wonder about at least once.

 

[MattKing]

Is stock replenished solution equal in potency to fresh solution? Say I want to start using my stock in diluted one time solutions can I get away with this?

No. It has activity that is similar to 1+1.

For clarity, the working solution has activity that is more similar to 1 + 1, but the not yet used replenisher is itself "fresh" solution, so obviously has that potency.
Useful if you like to have stock on hand for special, one shot use in particular circumstances.

 

[markbarendt]

Is stock replenished solution equal in potency to fresh solution? Say I want to start using my stock in diluted one time solutions can I get away with this?

Here's the info from Kodak