Why are my developers failing?

[clayne]

I'd like to add that I've recently developed around 14 rolls (in different sittings) with some 6 month old slightly yellow XTOL stored in accordion bottles. No issues with density whatsoever and I took it down to almost the last drop.

It's not the XTOL here and the OP even mentioned his home brews had the same issue.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This evening, I dev'd another roll using undiluted XTOL (6.5 min @ 21C) in a SS tank, but loaded in a dark closet instead of the changing bag.
Same result: Developer was yellow-orange when poured out, and neg's are thin.

Numbers from the densitometer:

Leader developed separately in leader-test: 2.97
Leader on the roll: 2.35

​

I'm mystified.
Maybe I'll take one suggestion to mix a PQ developer (instead of ascorbate), to see if something here is destroying ascorbate.

Mark Overton

XTOL when properly mixed is not yellow-orange, but clear. It the batch is not clear, just dump it and mix a new batch in very clean containers.

Steve

 

[Rudeofus]

Most folks would dump the Xtol and start over again, or switch to a different developer, or to a different medium altogether, and I can't blame them. Yet, if one looks at the lengthy and ongoing DS-10 thread, Mark has gotten pretty far with his experiments already and if he manages to solve this one problem, he (and we all) may learn a lot from it.

Everyone please remember how penicillin was discovered. Hint: not by throwing out that petri dish that just wouldn't grow bacteria.

 

[michael stevens]

Surely a clue should be in the fact that the Xtol goes into the tank clear but comes out yellow.

I've had Xtol discolour slightly during six months of storage but not during a few minutes processing. I've only used T-Max once—quite a while ago—but I don't remember it colouring the developer.

 

[mklw1954]

What about the container you are using to make the 5 liters? Once I used a large laundry detergent bottle (well cleaned) to make 1 gallon of fixer and it was milky; I found out something precipitates to cause this, likely due to the residue on the container walls even though it was thoroughly cleaned.

Dissolved Part A is orange but clear when Part B is dissolved.

I've developed 2 rolls of Tmax 400 with XTOL for a friend, on two different occassions, and in each case got very thin negatives, which is uncharacteristic as I've properly developer hundreds of rolls of b&w. I believe there is something wrong with the development time provided by the Tmax and XTOL data sheets. I never use Tmax films and won't develop them for anyone else since this experience.

 

[artonpaper]

I haven't read every single reply here yet, and I'm not a fan of X-tol, but I think it may be important to consider the fact that when using stainless steel tanks, it's important to use them full. Regardless of the amount of film in the tank the developer level should be to the top. If the tank is only partially full, the flow of developer through the stainless reel is said to be impeded and a less than full tank can cause a lot of aeration during agitation resulting in oxidization of the developer. Both situations can lead to less than full development. I began using stainless tanks in the mid 1960s and that was the recommended procedure, then. It's always worked for me.

Doug

 

[clayne]

Well that contradicts my own experience in that full tanks will resulted in impeded flow. How can less displacement result in more flow?

I fill them until I start to see the liquid appear in the cap opening at an angle. I do *not* fill them until the liquid is at the brim of the cap. There will not be enough displacement and you will get uneven negatives.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well that contradicts my own experience in that full tanks will resulted in impeded flow. How can less displacement result in more flow?

I fill them until I start to see the liquid appear in the cap opening at an angle. I do *not* fill them until the liquid is at the brim of the cap. There will not be enough displacement and you will get uneven negatives.

That is my experience too.

 

[albada]

Regarding how full to fill the tank: I agree that developer will move around better if the tank is not completely full. The less full it is, the farther the fluid moves during each inversion. I invert gently to avoid sloshing that would create bubbles that would oxygenate the developer more.

Surely a clue should be in the fact that the Xtol goes into the tank clear but comes out yellow.
I've had Xtol discolour slightly during six months of storage but not during a few minutes processing. I've only used T-Max once—quite a while ago—but I don't remember it colouring the developer.

Yes, that agrees with my experience -- until a few weeks ago (I am the OP). The recent yellow means something has changed and is presumably damaging the developer. I've been eliminating all the variables I can, and haven't found the cause yet. This is an odd one.

Mark Overton

 

[artonpaper]

Well that contradicts my own experience in that full tanks will resulted in impeded flow. How can less displacement result in more flow?

I fill them until I start to see the liquid appear in the cap opening at an angle. I do *not* fill them until the liquid is at the brim of the cap. There will not be enough displacement and you will get uneven negatives.

When I learned photography that was the conventional wisdom, fill the tank full. Thousands of rolls later, still works perfectly. What you are trying to do when you agitate is preventing lamination. That being exhausted, oxygen laden, developer remaining on the surface and in the gelatin of the film. It only takes a little movement to disperse that layer and replace it with a fresh layer. Less air in the tank means mixing it with less air. My film is always perfectly evenly developed - always. I agitate very little. inverting the tank gently twice every 30 seconds. All kinds of film (some color) many, many different developers. Stainless tanks, full to the brim.

 

[albada]

Delta-400 does not make XTOL turn yellow. It pours back out water-clear, unlike all my attempts with Tmax-400. But I probably got the dev-time wrong. Below are the H&D curves for Tmax-400 (red, 6.5 min at 20C, undiluted) and Delta-400 (green, 9.5 min at 20C, diluted 1+0.5):

Both are obviously thin, ending well below 2.0, but the Delta-400 has a shorter toe.

I wonder why Delta-400 has such high fog? Anyway, I'll try Neopan 400 tomorrow or Friday.

Mark Overton

 

[Kirk Keyes]

measure the density of the steps on your step wedge and then replot your data. Plot film density vs step density, not film density vs step number... Steps aren't real units of measurement! After all, what's the slope of the straight-line portion of your H&D curve?? Can't calculate it when using units of "steps".

If you're getting 2.6-3.0 density on grossly ever exposed film (like leader) then your developer is probably working just fine. I'd say you could give your film more exposure - perhaps that's why it's thin. But we can't really tell until we figure out what the slope of your H&D curve is...

 

[Kirk Keyes]

OK - I see why you're developing in a film bag. But wouldn't it be easier to use a darkroom?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Is your Xtol clear after you mix it without any color tint at all?
Are you mixing it according to the instructions on the package? Temperature and all.
What type of container are you mixing the Xtol powder with water in? Is it for mixing developer only? Is it clean?

What is your process of developing film? Please describe the details, because the way I read it it seems as though you're using the changing bag to develop film in, and my immediate question is "Why?". A developing tank is light proof once the lid is on. I apologize for asking such mundane questions, but I don't quite understand how you go about things.

I have developed about 500 rolls of film in a replenished batch of Xtol over the last three years, and a few dozen more in Xtol 1:1 when I push process. I fill my SS tank almost to the top, but allow some room in the tank so the developer can flow freely. No oxidation problems at all, and if anywhere it would show up in a replenished developer that's being used over and over again.

Please clarify your process, and there might be something you're missing that someone here will catch.

 

[albada]

I found the problem:

A bad batch of 35mm Tmax-400 film.

I just dev'd a roll of Neopan 400 (9 min in XTOL at 20C). It's much denser, and the used XTOL poured out of the tank water-clear instead of the yellow-orange that I've been getting with Tmax-400. I also dev'd a roll of Delta 400 a couple of days ago, also with clear developer instead of yellow-orange. The density of the Delta looks fine to the eye, but due to its high fog, density above B+F is unimpressive. Here are leader-densities of the Neopan:

Test-leader density = 2.88 (from clip-test)
Roll-leader density = 2.74 (on the roll)

​

Those are reasonable numbers. Here are leader-densities I got with TMY2 (6.5 min at 20C):

Test-leader density = 2.97 (from clip-test)
Roll-leader density = 2.35 (on the roll)

​

I think Kodak is having a problem with quality-control. This thread reports consistency problems with Tri-X:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Five months ago, TMY2 dev'd in XTOL for 6.5 minutes at 20C produced perfect density, and the developer came out of the tank with only a faint hint of yellow colouration. Now, TMY2+XTOL neg's are thin, and the dev pours out yellow-orange. My home-brews act like XTOL (yellow & thin), so the problem is not with XTOL. I've systematically eliminated all other possible sources of failure (read this thread), cleaning everything, different water, different graduates+tank, etc. However, Kodak's T-grain competitors dev fine in XTOL, yet TMY2 no longer does so. My conclusion: There's a problem with 35mm TMY2 with ascorbate developers.

The codes on the boxes of Tmax-400 are: "04/2014 0166".
The 04/2014 is obviously the expiration date, and I'll guess that 0166 is the batch-number.
These were purchased over the last couple of months from Freestyle and B&H.

If you have some fairly new Tmax-400 with code 0166, could you dev a test-roll in undiluted XTOL and report on it? Also mention if it's 35mm or 120, and the amount of XTOL you used. I dev'd 36-shot rolls using 220 ml in an SS tank, and 325 ml in a Paterson -- both failed.

Mark Overton

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Wow, that's pretty interesting.

To give a visual cue to those of us that are not all that familiar with the numbers you're posting, have you made a contact print of the good and the bad, side by side? It would be interesting to see a comparison, to get a visual clue to the differences you're seeing.
If not, don't worry about it. It's mainly academic.

- Thomas

I found the problem:

A bad batch of 35mm Tmax-400 film.

I just dev'd a roll of Neopan 400 (9 min in XTOL at 20C). It's much denser, and the used XTOL poured out of the tank water-clear instead of the yellow-orange that I've been getting with Tmax-400. I also dev'd a roll of Delta 400 a couple of days ago, also with clear developer instead of yellow-orange. The density of the Delta looks fine to the eye, but due to its high fog, density above B+F is unimpressive. Here are leader-densities of the Neopan:

Test-leader density = 2.88 (from clip-test)
Roll-leader density = 2.74 (on the roll)

​

Those are reasonable numbers. Here are leader-densities I got with TMY2 (6.5 min at 20C):

Test-leader density = 2.97 (from clip-test)
Roll-leader density = 2.35 (on the roll)

​

I think Kodak is having a problem with quality-control. This thread reports consistency problems with Tri-X:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Five months ago, TMY2 dev'd in XTOL for 6.5 minutes at 20C produced perfect density, and the developer came out of the tank with only a faint hint of yellow colouration. Now, TMY2+XTOL neg's are thin, and the dev pours out yellow-orange. My home-brews act like XTOL (yellow & thin), so the problem is not with XTOL. I've systematically eliminated all other possible sources of failure (read this thread), cleaning everything, different water, different graduates+tank, etc. However, Kodak's T-grain competitors dev fine in XTOL, yet TMY2 no longer does so. My conclusion: There's a problem with 35mm TMY2 with ascorbate developers.

The codes on the boxes of Tmax-400 are: "04/2014 0166".
The 04/2014 is obviously the expiration date, and I'll guess that 0166 is the batch-number.
These were purchased over the last couple of months from Freestyle and B&H.

If you have some fairly new Tmax-400 with code 0166, could you dev a test-roll in undiluted XTOL and report on it? Also mention if it's 35mm or 120, and the amount of XTOL you used. I dev'd 36-shot rolls using 220 ml in an SS tank, and 325 ml in a Paterson -- both failed.

Mark Overton

 

[Alan Johnson]

Mark,

I ran a similar test with APX100 film, developing 1/5 roll and 4/5 roll in Xtol 1+0 in a 500ml tank for 6.75m 20C.
The leaders of both the short and long parts were equal in density and there was no coloration of the Xtol after development.This is similar to the results wth Delta and Neopan.

 

[albada]

Wow, that's pretty interesting.
To give a visual cue to those of us that are not all that familiar with the numbers you're posting, have you made a contact print of the good and the bad, side by side? It would be interesting to see a comparison, to get a visual clue to the differences you're seeing.
If not, don't worry about it. It's mainly academic.
- Thomas

Thomas, I wish I had a darkroom! I had one years ago, but not here, so printing is done a la dpug. Anyway, in response to your request, I measured the densities of the Stouffer wedge off the Neopan roll. The graph below compares the TMY2 with Neopan:


Green is Neopan, and red is TMY2. It's clear that TMY2 is thin. Regarding an earlier posting: The X-axis is step-number on a Stouffer 21-step wedge, and each step of 1/2 stop (density change of .15).
ic-racer suggested boosting dev-time with TMY2, and I think I'll try that. If the yellow-orange developer isn't totally dead, more time should increase density.

Mark Overton

 

[pentaxuser]

If all other things are equal i.e. same tank, mixing containers temps etc and other films except TMY2develop OK then unless I have missed something OR there was some other change in the process which you have overlooked, it would seem that the TMY2 you have has a quality problem which is serious.

If there is a Kodak problem then you'd assume that quite a number of TMY2 films were affected so other users will be experiencing the same issue.

APUG can't cover all TMY2 users of course but you might expect someone else to report the issue.

Seems that you can do yourself and the rest of us a favour and report your findings to Kodak.

If this had been an Ilford film then after 7 pages you can bet your bottom dollar that Simon Galley would be reporting on matters.

Pity that Kodak can't be bothered to give us a contact or keep a watching brief here on APUG.

A difference in the two slopes isn't an issue by itself. It may be that Neopan has a steeper slope but key to this is whether your experience is preventing good prints from TMY2 negs and more to the point whether there is a real difference in your TMY2 negs compared to previously

You may have already covered this but maybe you can say if there is "before and after" difference.

pentaxuser

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks for that.

The curve shape is normal, so developing for more time is probably a good solution to simply increase the slope. If your developer had completely exhausted on you, you would likely be getting a shoulder since developer would exhaust in highlight densities first.

Getting such inconsistent results from Kodak film is very unusual. I wonder what a Kodak technician would say about your findings. All other things being equal, it clearly appears you have a problem with your film, especially if your density curve is inconsistent with previous results, while other films develop normally.

I echo pentaxuser's plead to report this to the place you purchased it, or better yet, to Kodak directly.

Thanks for replying to my request.

- Thomas

Thomas, I wish I had a darkroom! I had one years ago, but not here, so printing is done a la dpug. Anyway, in response to your request, I measured the densities of the Stouffer wedge off the Neopan roll. The graph below compares the TMY2 with Neopan:

Green is Neopan, and red is TMY2. It's clear that TMY2 is thin. Regarding an earlier posting: The X-axis is step-number on a Stouffer 21-step wedge, and each step of 1/2 stop (density change of .15).
ic-racer suggested boosting dev-time with TMY2, and I think I'll try that. If the yellow-orange developer isn't totally dead, more time should increase density.

Mark Overton

 

[albada]

Pre-soak TMY2

Another major discovery:
If you pre-soak the Tmax-400, the problem with yellow developer and thin negatives goes away!
The developer pours out clear. And the neg's are denser. Here are the H&D diagrams with and without a pre-soak (X-axis is now log lux-sec):



The pre-soaked TMY2 is still less dense than the Neopan (did I over-develop it?), but the densities look normal now, and the leader-density is 2.75, which is fine. The leader was 2.35 before. The TMY2 now looks healthy instead of sickly.

When I did this test, my hunch was that (1) some chemical was added or boosted in TMY2 which harms ascorbate developers such as XTOL, and that (2) a pre-soak would remove this chemical. My pre-soak consisted of three fillings, soaking for two-minutes each, agitating twice/minute. That's probably overkill, but we don't care. The water after the first soak poured out discolored, so something was removed from the film.

This solves a problem I've been fighting for over a month. It sure is nice to see TMY2+XTOL behaving correctly again!
Again, the box-code on the 35mm Tmax-400 is "04/2014 0166".
And I need to contact Kodak about this...

Mark Overton

 

[clayne]

There's nothing about the yellow color being a big deal though. It's common for different films to leech dyes and other color into the developer. It's also common for used XTOL to come out yellow. It's not necessarily guaranteed to be clear at all.

Additionally presoaking is well known to alter development times.

I don't see a smoking gun here.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There's nothing about the yellow color being a big deal though. It's common for different films to leech dyes and other color into the developer. It's also common for used XTOL to come out yellow. It's not necessarily guaranteed to be clear at all.

Additionally presoaking is well known to alter development times.

I don't see a smoking gun here.

Presoak or not, I've never had Xtol pick up color post development other than with Foma 120 films. Never had it happen with TMY, TMY-2, or even TMX in either 135 or 120 format.

Which films have you had it happen with?

 

[albada]

Presoak or not, I've never had Xtol pick up color post development other than with Foma 120 films. Never had it happen with TMY, TMY-2, or even TMX in either 135 or 120 format.
Which films have you had it happen with?

Five months ago, 35mm TMY2 in XTOL came out clear, and the published dev-times produced normal density. Starting a few weeks ago TMY2+XTOL consistently comes out yellow, yielding thin negatives. So something changed with TMY2. I've also tried Neopan-400, Delta-400 and Tri-X -- clear developer with all of them. This yellow+thin problem is only happening with recent TMY2.

There's nothing about the yellow color being a big deal though. It's common for different films to leech dyes and other color into the developer. It's also common for used XTOL to come out yellow. It's not necessarily guaranteed to be clear at all.
Additionally presoaking is well known to alter development times.
I don't see a smoking gun here.

There are a several problems:

(1) Wrong dev-times: Published times are incorrect with this batch of TMY2. Dev-times must be boosted.

(2) Unpredictability: If you're using longer dev-times and you starting using a good batch of TMY2, then your neg's will be too dense. If you're using normal times and you encounter this bad batch, your neg's will be thin. Results are unpredictable because you don't know the correct dev-time.

(3) Dependency on volume: I discovered that the shorter published times will work if there is plenty of developer available. If you set your times based on 36 shots in an SS tank, and then dev a short roll in a Paterson, you'll have over twice as much developer per frame, and density will rise. The dev-time is dependent on the ratio of developer-volume to film-area. This ratio has always had a small effect, but now it has a large effect.

Also note that the consensus-opinion is that presoaking reduces density slightly. But in this case, presoaking increases density by nearly 2x. So something else is happening aside from the normal effect of presoaking.

I sent a note to Kodak's customer support via their web-site. We'll see what they say.

Mark Overton

 

[lawrenceimpey]

Any updates on this?

Does anyone knows any more about this? I have some TMY2 with the same batch number (0166) in my freezer and I'm wondering if the problem only arises if you develop in Xtol. Any updates on the problem would be appreciated.