see ADOX website
X-TOL, Microphen, or Acufine for long shelf life pushing developers?
-
A
- Thread starter Unbuiltbread
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Expired film
- Started by Richelle4c
-
Want to Buy Leica ia
- Started by Jbennett68
-
For Sale Mamiya 7 65mm and 43/50mm lens hoods. Brand new, never used, in box.
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale FS: Kodak Series 9 Gelatin Filter Frame Holder for 4" filters
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale FS: 49mm Hoya 25A Red Filter
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
Their English website page for XT-3 does say, "with improved storage capacities compared to earlier ascorbic-acid developer recipes." And, "Better keeping properties" compared to "similar working recipes like Xtol, Excel or LegacyPro Eco."
However, when we move from the general product description to specific recommendations, Adox says,
"Once mixed XT-3 should be filled in dark glass bottles filled to the top or topped up with protective gas (alternatively throw in clean glass marbles to taise the level of liquid). Prepared like this the stock solution should keep at least 6 weeks and up to 6 months depending on storage conditions and depletion of the solution."
The most recent data sheet I can find for Kodak XTOL is from Alaris, Publication J-109 dated Feb 2018. And that data sheet gives the shelf life of stock XTOL "in full, tightly closed containers" as "6 months."
So really, both manufacturers are claiming the same shelf life for the mixed stock solution -- six months -- right?
Actually, the exact wording used suggests Adox XT-3 is good "up to 6 months" (a maximum of 6 months), and Kodak just says "6 months" suggesting a minimum of 6 months?
Last edited:
It's funny, when I go to the Fotoimpex page product page for Adox XT-3 and click on this link for "PDF datasheet" it opens the Kodak Alaris Data Sheet J-109 for XTOL. In some places ADOX is saying XT-3 is "better" than XTOL, but in other places, they seem to be saying, "There is no practical difference"?
Sorry then I had misunderstood you, I thought that by electronic photography you meant hybridnah no &€ital cameras for me: no light, no pictures
The no light no pictures is a sound plan! I'm so fond of film. I've been known to go for a stop even two, but as others have said all that's really changed is contrast.
I'm a XTOL fan, have been since it debuted. Keeps for a long time in full bottles. It's all about proper laboratory practices. Pure water, full bottles, properly maintained replenished solutions.
Adox makes fabulous chemistry.
Store the developer in StopLossBagsTM using their funnel for filling he bags. www.StopLossBags.com. I have stored XTOL and replenished XTOL for years with problems. Always test the developer with a a strip of film.
There's no practical difference regarding how the film is developped.
It's a better product because it come as 1L package (5L too), for now it's reliable and consistent (unlike Kodak chemistries..), and the captura thing is on paper better for our lungs.
When I couldn't get mylar wine bags here anymore I had a member from Aus. send me some from there. Then I found these and have been using them ever since with great results and ease of use. They are from a company called AstraPouch.
I'm sure you meant to type "I have stored XTOL and replenished XTOL for years without problems." Just for the long-term record.
Yes, I left out the word "out".
I'm assuming the OP is using a hybrid process if they like their results from a 5 stop push.
Anyone who hasn't liked their results from a 5-stop push (most or all of us?) is going to have completely different criteria for what they want out of their image. Without the poster sharing the results that they like, we are dancing in the dark.
Anyone who hasn't liked their results from a 5-stop push (most or all of us?) is going to have completely different criteria for what they want out of their image. Without the poster sharing the results that they like, we are dancing in the dark.
With modern emulsions, Xtol and (even better) DD-X are your best choices for push processing. Microphen and Acufine aren’t worth messing around with anymore, especially for roll film
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
Either mix your own from scratch, like PC-512 (really long shelf life). It pushes really well, HP5, Kentmere 400 (that I've tested). Or use XTol-R, as Matt recommended.
Without wishing to deliberately cause a row of create animosity it seems no-one has really answered runwithsizzers post about XT-3 having extra longevity compared to Xtol
Might I conclude from what from has been said that in fact there is no difference once either has been processed into a liquíd stock ?
pentaxuser
Might I conclude from what from has been said that in fact there is no difference once either has been processed into a liquíd stock ?
pentaxuser
I did and followed what ADOX says on their website about it and I don’t see why it should be doubted as has been done here. My main reason to prefer it above the Kodak version though is that there’s no fine dust when making the liquid
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |