XTOL 1+1 capacity? Sanity check

radialMelt · Oct 25, 2024

Hi all,

Decided to give XTOL a try for my next batch of B&W dev. I'm inclined to go for the 1+1 dilution based on my reading. However, since I am using Patterson tanks and since Kodak (and everyone else) recommends using the 1+1 solution in a "one shot" manner it seems to be quite uneconomical.

I am using a 1L tank, which can hold 3x 35mm rolls, or 2x 120 rolls. Using 1+1 dilution, I will have 10L of working solution, meaning I can only get 20 rolls of 120 or 30 rolls of 35mm in total?

Am I thinking about this correctly? Do people use 1+1 XTOL for more than "one tank's" worth of developing?

Cheers

pentaxuser · Oct 25, 2024

I have never tried it and do not feel inclined to risk it but you could always have a go. If you do I'd used the diluted developer again on an immediate basis i.e. don't store it somewhere and then use it after several days. If that works to your satisfaction then you know it works for you. I suspect that if it does work then at best the second set of negatives will not be as well developed

I suspect you may get answers similar to mine which may not be of that much more help

The key question I think you might want to ask is for replies only from those who have tried it. That might get you more quickly to what you want to know.

There is nothing like finding out the experiences of others who have actually tried it

Best of luck in your search.

pentaxuser

retina_restoration · Oct 25, 2024

radialMelt said:
Hi all,

Decided to give XTOL a try for my next batch of B&W dev. I'm inclined to go for the 1+1 dilution based on my reading. However, since I am using Patterson tanks and since Kodak (and everyone else) recommends using the 1+1 solution in a "one shot" manner it seems to be quite uneconomical.

I am using a 1L tank, which can hold 3x 35mm rolls, or 2x 120 rolls. Using 1+1 dilution, I will have 10L of working solution, meaning I can only get 20 rolls of 120 or 30 rolls of 35mm in total?

Am I thinking about this correctly? Do people use 1+1 XTOL for more than "one tank's" worth of developing?

Cheers

The only way to get "more economy" out of Xtol is to use it as a stock solution and replenish it. Do NOT re-use a 1:1 dilution once you've run film through it! It is not reusable. For many, many developers, the 1:1 "one shot" dilution is the standard, achieving both optimal results and good economy. You don't think it's reasonable to developer thirty rolls of 35mm from a batch of Xtol? That's about 50 cents per roll. (Consider how much that roll of film cost you)

I'm assuming you've mixed a 5 liter batch of Xtol, since you spoke of having 10 liters of 1:1 to deal with. I don't know how much film you typically process, but when using Xtol, you have to be aware that it has a fairly limited shelf life, especially if your storage system allows for oxygen to come in contact with the developer. In other words, if you store your Xtol in a large container (like a gallon jug), then as you use the developer, more and more oxygen is going into the jug and this will accelerate the degradation of the developer. Many users store their 5 liters in 500ml brown glass bottles, to reduce the odds of premature oxidation of the developer. If you are not using a system that prevents oxidation of the developer, then you can expect it to have a very short shelf life (3 months or less). So, what I'm suggesting is that "economy" isn't going to matter much if you're unable to use up the 5 liters before it oxidizes and becomes useless. I recommend that you use it as it's intended to be used (single use 1:1 is ideal) and not obsess about getting the most out of it for your money. Although 5 liters of Xtol is a bit on the $$ side (currently $16 on average), it's still one of the least expensive components of your photographic workflow and trying to squeeze every dime's value out of it isn't in your best interest.

In my opinion.

If you want a developer that delivers better economy, consider something like PMK (Pyro), which is ridiculously cheap per-roll and the stock solution lasts for at least 3 years once the bottles are opened.

radialMelt · Oct 25, 2024

Thanks folks.

For clarity, I have not diluted the entire batch and will definitely not be doing that. I am familiar enough with chemical storage to know that's a bad idea Dilution as needed. I just wanted to confirm that people in my situation are "only" getting 20 rolls of 120 out of the entire batch. That's about $1/roll (Canadian). Still cheaper than the lab though....

And in general I do tend to agree with accepting a little more wastage in favour of consistency. I will accept the aforementioned economy. Cheers!

pentaxuser · Oct 25, 2024

Mind you it might be nice to know if anyone has tried re-using Xtol 1+1 and if so, what results they got

pentaxuser

Chuck_P · Oct 25, 2024

Maybe look at it from the standpoint of how wasteful it would be in terms of your film. You would not be getting the most it has to offer you in the final result, best to use it just one shot....so it's called one shot for pretty good reason.

radialMelt · Oct 25, 2024

Chuck_P said:
Maybe look at it from the standpoint of how wasteful it would be in terms of your film. You would not be getting the most it has to offer you in the final result, best to use it just one shot....so it's called one shot for pretty good reason.

I am aware of the merits of one-shot processing. My go to developer until now has been Ilfotec HC which I have used exclusively in a one-shot manner for years.

My questioning was more about reconciling the reported economy of XTOL with my 1+1 application math. Just wanted to make sure I'm not missing something.

koraks · Oct 25, 2024

Your math looks OK.

I think the reasoning behind XTOL 1+1 recommended as one shot is because you're effectively cutting the sulfite content in half. This means that the ascorbate will oxidize quite readily. I don't know how well a 1+1 solution of XTOL keeps; I'd consider it a liability. I'd dilute it right before use.

radialMelt said:
Do people use 1+1 XTOL for more than "one tank's" worth of developing?

I only use instant Mytol and I generally use it one shot; if I use it 1+1 (which isn't very often), I definitely only use it once, while fresh, then discard.

Andrew O'Neill · Oct 25, 2024

If you want even more economy, try using it at 1+2, or even 1+3.

retina_restoration · Oct 25, 2024

radialMelt said:
Thanks folks.

For clarity, I have not diluted the entire batch and will definitely not be doing that. I am familiar enough with chemical storage to know that's a bad idea Dilution as needed. I just wanted to confirm that people in my situation are "only" getting 20 rolls of 120 out of the entire batch. That's about $1/roll (Canadian). Still cheaper than the lab though....

And in general I do tend to agree with accepting a little more wastage in favour of consistency. I will accept the aforementioned economy. Cheers!

Yes, I realized you had not diluted the entire five liters! I was just quoting what you said about the capacity of the full ten liters, once diluted.
As developers go, you don't get a lot cheaper than $1 per roll of 120. However, you can save a LOT of money by assembling developers at home from their components. Even Mytol (A DIY Xtol clone) is very cheap to make at home (but doesn't have the shelf life: make it fresh as needed) and something like D-76 is easily half the price if you DIY. Chesper still is D-23, with only three ingredients. Home made D-23 would likely cost you about 20 cents per roll of 120.

But back to Xtol: you don't get much better than Xtol in terms of its performance-to-cost ratio. A dollar per roll is still absurdly cheap, compared to farming it out to a lab.

Chuck_P · Oct 25, 2024

radialMelt said:
I am aware of the merits of one-shot processing. My go to developer until now has been Ilfotec HC which I have used exclusively in a one-shot manner for years.

My questioning was more about reconciling the reported economy of XTOL with my 1+1 application math. Just wanted to make sure I'm not missing something.

radialMelt · Oct 25, 2024

Thanks everyone! I appreciate the quick and informative replies.

mikestr · Oct 25, 2024

"As developers go, you don't get a lot cheaper than $10 per roll of 120. "

This must be a typo. You must mean $1/roll, which is on the high side but reasonable. 1 litre of stock solution (or 2 liters of 1:1 solution) is needed to develop 15 rolls of film. Call it 10 rolls to be safe. The 5 liter kit will therefore process 50 rolls. The kit costs, say, $20, including postage. One roll will require $.75 for the Xtol.

This is a safe minimum. Saving a few cents per roll by diluting 1:1 not going to motivate many, but slightly better acutance without loss of shadow speed might.

The most economical method would seem to be to use full-strength solution and replenish. I don't recommend this for small-tank development because there is insufficient solution quantity to overcome the effects of oxidation on solution stability. Large tanks used in pro labs provide enough quantity and thus "inertia" to give very stable results. Even so, they use (or should use) control strips to monitor developer strength.

For small tanks 1:1 as a one-shot is a good way to go. I mix up 5 liters and store it in 1-litre brown glass chemical bottles. A full bottle stored at room temperature will last a couple years.

mshchem · Oct 25, 2024

1 L of stock solution has capacity to develop 10 rolls of 120 or 35mm 36exp.

If you dilute XTOL you need to use it in one session.

If you make up 1 L of XTOL 1+1 you can develop 5 rolls.

You would need to develop 3 rolls, then, without delay process 2 more.

Both runs need to be in a tank that holds the entire 1L

This isn't rocket science.

Melvin J Bramley · Oct 25, 2024

Whilst I have never tried it , loading two films onto one reel is the only way to reliably extend the use of a film developer.
Using minimal amounts of developer and other cost saving methods to develop film is a fools errand!
You cannot revive a poorly developed film.
With paper you can experiment.

pentaxuser · Oct 25, 2024

So if I read the replies correctly it appears that the limiting factor may be the 100ml stock that is the minimum for one x 135 film of 36 frames or one x 120 roll hence a big tank holding 1L of 1+1 can do 3 films at once and the developer still has enough developing power to do 2 more immediately afterwards. This certainly does introduce some economy compared to doing say 5 films in a one film tank which ínevitably uses more stock to make up the amount needed to cover the film i.e even in a 250ml tank at 1+1 you have to use 125 ml of stock rather than 100ml and this 5 films take 5x 125 or 625 ml The alternative is to use only 100ml in a one film tank and dilute the developer of 100ml by slightly more using 150 ml of water

Can I ask however: Has anyone tried to use less than 100ml of stock and if so what was the result?

I'd assume for instance that 95 ml of stock is unlikely to make a noticeable difference in negative quality but this is an assumption of course and it leaves open what might be the minimum stock acceptable

If no-one has tried a reduced minimum of stock then presumably we base the minimum stock required on what Kodak tells us and presumably this in turn is based on what Kodak via testing established as the minimum before a decrease in negative quality was observed by Kodak

My point is that unless someone has tried reducing the minimum stock then we are taking on trust Kodak's word for it

pentaxuser

retina_restoration · Oct 25, 2024

mikestr said:
"As developers go, you don't get a lot cheaper than $10 per roll of 120. "

This must be a typo. You must mean $1/roll, which is on the high side but reasonable.

Sorry - yes, that was a typo. I have corrected the error.

lamerko · Oct 25, 2024

It is an ascorbate based developer. It has a dark side - it can die suddenly. Its biggest enemy is metal ions, which are contained in water and as impurities in chemicals. The more you dilute the working solution, the more you reduce the amount of chelates and increase the risk of contamination. Dilution 1:1 when used immediately before work, has a relatively low risk, but if you choose to save it for reuse, you can TOTALLY lose valuable footage.

armadsen · Oct 25, 2024

mikestr said:
"As developers go, you don't get a lot cheaper than $10 per roll of 120. "

This must be a typo. You must mean $1/roll, which is on the high side but reasonable. 1 litre of stock solution (or 2 liters of 1:1 solution) is needed to develop 15 rolls of film. Call it 10 rolls to be safe. The 5 liter kit will therefore process 50 rolls. The kit costs, say, $20, including postage. One roll will require $.75 for the Xtol.

This math is wrong. If a 5L kit is $20 and will process 50 rolls, that's $20 / 50 rolls = $0.40 per roll. That's being conservative. I can buy XTOL locally for $17. Kodak's own data sheet says you can get 15 rolls out of a liter of stock XTOL, which is 75 rolls per 5L, for a price per roll of $17 / 75 rolls = $0.22 per roll

radialMelt · Oct 25, 2024

armadsen said:
This math is wrong. If a 5L kit is $20 and will process 50 rolls, that's $20 / 50 rolls = $0.40 per roll. That's being conservative. I can buy XTOL locally for $17. Kodak's own data sheet says you can get 15 rolls out of a liter of stock XTOL, which is 75 rolls per 5L, for a price per roll of $17 / 75 rolls = $0.22 per roll

Please read the thread. We're discussing a 5L kit (CA$20) used at 1+1 dilution in a 1L tank that can handle either 3x 135 rolls or 2x 120 rolls.

armadsen · Oct 25, 2024

radialMelt said:
Please read the thread. We're discussing a 5L kit (CA$20) used at 1+1 dilution in a 1L tank that can handle either 3x 135 rolls or 2x 120 rolls.

I did read the thread. The post I quoted simply had incorrect math. It said a $20 5L kit could process 50 rolls, for a price per roll of $0.75. The correct answer given the stated price, quantity of XTOL and rolls it will process is $0.40 per roll ($20 divided by 50 rolls).

That said if we’re limited to 3 rolls per liter of 1:1, which works out to 6 rolls per liter of stock, then the price is $20 / 30 rolls, the price is $0.67 per roll of 35mm. That’s not a function of XTOL so much as it using a 1L 3-roll developing tank. If you want to get the most economy out of XTOL, don’t use a big tank like that, or else reuse the solution for another development like mshchem suggested.

radialMelt · Oct 25, 2024

I'm currently wondering if I could get away with processing 2 consecutive tanks of 2x 120 rolls each, with a single litre of 1+1 XTOL before disposal.

armadsen · Oct 25, 2024

I think that will be fine. You may want to slightly increase development time for the second set of rolls to account for the developer being somewhat depleted, but you’d have to test to figure that out.

MattKing · Oct 25, 2024

Your "problem" arises because in order to sufficiently cover the reels in your Paterson Super System IV 1 litre tank, when used with inversion agitation, you need to put more fluid developer into the tank than the minimum amount necessary to develop two 120 films or three 135 films. Here are some potential solutions:
1) accept the economy you are able to achieve, doing things the way you describe. In other words, think of it as a characteristic, not a problem;
2) use more dilute developer - there are historical times for 1+2 and 1 + 3 dilutions, although those dilutions may have been more prone to problems with the Fenton reaction and "sudden death", so Kodak stopped recommending them;
3) I regularly load two 120 rolls on the same A/P reel (compatible with Paterson tanks), which means I can develop four such rolls in the same 1 litre of developer. That works for me well, as long as I use mainly hand inversion agitation. If I use rotary agitation, the two films on each reel move too much, and can overlap; and
4) If you use rotary agitation instead, and turn the tanks on their side, 650 ml of developer is ample, and still has excess capacity.
With respect to the very early problems with Fenton reaction, it isn't entirely clear whether that issue had anything to do the higher dilutions.

radialMelt · Oct 25, 2024

MattKing said:
Your "problem" arises because in order to sufficiently cover the reels in your Paterson Super System IV 1 litre tank....

That pretty much sums it up, Matt. Option 1 will probably be my best bet.

XTOL 1+1 capacity? Sanity check

radialMelt

pentaxuser

retina_restoration

radialMelt

pentaxuser

Chuck_P

radialMelt

koraks

Moderator

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

retina_restoration

Chuck_P

radialMelt

mikestr

mshchem

Melvin J Bramley

pentaxuser

retina_restoration

lamerko

armadsen

radialMelt

armadsen

radialMelt

armadsen

MattKing

Moderator

radialMelt

XTOL 1+1 capacity? Sanity check

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency