XTOL: develop two rolls at a time in 1+1

[madNbad]

Ok. The HC-110 is gone. The Rodinal is gone. I have three one liter bags of the Film Photography Project FPP-76 left and when they're gone, I'll make the change. If it disappears in the next year, at least I'll have had a chance to try it. My only question is, will Xtol allow me to develop two rolls in a single tank at a 1+1 dilution?

 

[Saganich]

Judging from the chart of massive developing the answer is yes.

 

[pentaxuser]

It takes 100ml of Xtol stock to develop 1 x135 film or 1x120 film so if its 2 x135 film at 1+1 you'll need a tank that holds 400ml of liquid(200ml stock plus 200ml of water ) but in reality most tanks for 120 film need 500ml of liquid to cover the reel properly

If it's 2x 120 then you'll need the same amount in theory in terms of total liquid i.e. 400ml but in reality most tanks that will take a 120 roll need nearly 500ml or more in total so if your 120 reel can only accommodate 1 x120 then 2 x120 reels might need in practice almost a 1000ml tank

A 120 reel for a Jobo 120 tank can hold 2 x120 films on the same reel so 500ml liquid at say 250ml stock and 250ml plain water will still be enough

Be guided by the Kodak minimum stock per film and then adjust for the amount of liquid needed to cover the films
I hope this helps

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

A 120 reel for a Jobo 120 tank can hold 2 x120 films on the same reel so 500ml liquid at say 250ml stock and 250ml plain water will still be enough

The same applies to Paterson or AP reels, with some care respecting agitation or by taping the end of the first film to the beginning of the second.
I don't use the tape. I just pre-rinse (for 3 minutes in my case) and limit continuous rotary agitation to the first 30 seconds, followed by normal inversion agitation thereafter (the Kodak 5 seconds every 30 seconds in my case).

 

[madNbad]

The same applies to Paterson or AP reels, with some care respecting agitation or by taping the end of the first film to the beginning of the second.
I don't use the tape. I just pre-rinse (for 3 minutes in my case) and limit continuous rotary agitation to the first 30 seconds, followed by normal inversion agitation thereafter (the Kodak 5 seconds every 30 seconds in my case).

Thanks for the title update. I use a 16oz/480ml stainless steel tank. Much of this experiment will be contingent on exposing at least two rolls a week. It’ll be a few months before I start but I wanted to have some on hand while it’s still available.

 

[pentaxuser]

The same applies to Paterson or AP reels, with some care respecting agitation or by taping the end of the first film to the beginning of the second.
I don't use the tape. I just pre-rinse (for 3 minutes in my case) and limit continuous rotary agitation to the first 30 seconds, followed by normal inversion agitation thereafter (the Kodak 5 seconds every 30 seconds in my case).

What's the link Matt between not using the tape and your process that you describe or are the two quite separate? If they are unconnected then what do you do to ensure that the second film does not overlap the first

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[madNbad]

What's the link Matt between not using the tape and your process that you describe or are the two quite separate? If they are unconnected then what do you do to ensure that the second film does not overlap the first

Thanks

pentaxuser

I’m only developing 135 but I could see the point of taping two rolls of 120 to avoid having one slide under the other when loading onto a single reel.

 

[MattKing]

What's the link Matt between not using the tape and your process that you describe or are the two quite separate? If they are unconnected then what do you do to ensure that the second film does not overlap the first

Thanks

pentaxuser

I don't use continuous rotary agitation during almost all of the development stage. If I did, I'd have to struggle with taping the two together, because otherwise the films move and overlap.
I do use continuous rotary agitation throughout all the other steps without problems. I assume that the problems occur in the development stage because that is when the film is most slippery.

 

[madNbad]

Just to add, the packages are marked “Made in the USA Sino Promise, Rochester New York”.

 

[Bill Burk]

Edit: What I wrote in this post is nonsense in light of one simple fact… We’re talking about XTOL where the recommended stock solution per roll of 35mm film/120/sheet 8x10 is 100 ml.

[Begin the nonsense]

I think there’s far too much attention paid to the question of whether you have enough stock per square inch.

The recommended amount is enough that developer won’t be exhausted and development byproducts don’t impact the developing image. It’s an amount chosen to give a predictable recommended time.

But I believe the specified amount is a generous amount. I say you can deal with the impacts of exhaustion and byproducts by giving more development time (on the order of 10-15% more time) and agitating effectively (Kodak agitation).

If this stock solution per square inch were a significant problem to worry about, my time/contrast datapoints would be scattered widely depending on whether I had three 24-exposure rolls and a six-inch test strip, versus four full 36 exposure rolls in a 32 ounce tank. In fact the scatter is tight and times are consistently reliable.

But to make it work for you the way it works for me is to let go of the times they gave you and develop to results instead. Develop as long as it takes to make negatives that work for you, not for the times in the chart.

Sensitometric test strips are one way to do this. If you don’t have a Stouffer scale (that you can get for six dollars), you could do “bracketed” exposures of a favorite test scene like the side of your home including your Weber kettle barbecue.

[End the nonsense]

 

[pentaxuser]

I don't use continuous rotary agitation during almost all of the development stage. If I did, I'd have to struggle with taping the two together, because otherwise the films move and overlap.
I do use continuous rotary agitation throughout all the other steps without problems. I assume that the problems occur in the development stage because that is when the film is most slippery.

Thanks Matt. So continuous agitation is the problem for un-taped films I presume that the way to stop overlap is to wind on the first film until it "hits the buffers" so to speak at the centre of the reel My fear would be not being able to feel exactly when this occurs and flexing and slightly bending the end of the first film

What's the best way to prevent this. Is it easily "felt for"

pentaxuser

 

[dynachrome]

Taping films end to end is not the best idea. When I was in college, another photographer for the school newspaper would load two 36 exp. rolls onto one stainless steel reel. He did it by loading the films so the base side of one roll was against the base side of the other roll. I think that procedure might warrant some extension of the developing time. If you are diluting your developer 1:1 and using a 16 oz. stainless steel tank, 2 rolls would be fine because 8 oz. would be the right amount for one roll. I have a pretty large collection of tanks and reels so if I need to develop more film, I can always use a larger tank.

Where people get in trouble is when they overdilute the developer and there isn't enough developing agent for the amount of film bring developed. With a D-76 type developer at 1:1 there shouldn't be any problem.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have at times, developed two rolls of 120 film (on separate reels) in the same (Paterson) tank. 500ml of stock + 500ml water. That is more than enough stock developer. But now I prefer to us Xtol-R.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have at times, developed two rolls of 120 film (on separate reels) in the same (Paterson) tank. 500ml of stock + 500ml water. That is more than enough stock developer. But now I prefer to us Xtol-R.

I have developed up to 8 rolls of 120 film in a tank and never had a problem with either XTOL or replenished XTOL. There has to be enough developer to cover the film, as always.

 

[pentaxuser]

Taping films end to end is not the best idea. When I was in college, another photographer for the school newspaper would load two 36 exp. rolls onto one stainless steel reel. He did it by loading the films so the base side of one roll was against the base side of the other roll.

With a D-76 type developer at 1:1 there shouldn't be any problem.

Thanks,can you expand on this a little ? I mean does the second film cover the first film partially or completely? If it does then why doesn't this affect one or both films adversely in terms of developer coverage?

If on the other hand 2 x 36 frame films can fit in a 135 reel without overlapping then why does both films need to be base side together

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

What's the best way to prevent this. Is it easily "felt for"

Very easily. You push it until it clearly stops. Then you load the second until it clears the ball bearings. That leaves a nice gap.
And the problem is with continuous rotary agitation. If the continuous agitation isn't turning the reel, the film isn't likely to move within it.

 

[pentaxuser]

Very easily. You push it until it clearly stops. Then you load the second until it clears the ball bearings. That leaves a nice gap.
And the problem is with continuous rotary agitation. If the continuous agitation isn't turning the reel, the film isn't likely to move within it.

On your third sentence, I wasn't sure what the relevance of not turning the reel is to not moving the film I can't work out if this is a good thing or not. Can you expand on what you mean?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[dynachrome]

With taping, if the tape comes off, the second roll might slip. Using two 36 exposure rolls in one reel, you need to go back to back. If the two emulsion sides were touching, you would have a mess.

 

[MattKing]

On your third sentence, I wasn't sure what the relevance of not turning the reel is to not moving the film I can't work out if this is a good thing or not. Can you expand on what you mean?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Continuous inversion agitation or continuous nitrogen burst agitation or continuous up and down agitation of reels in cages in a dip and dunk line all aren't going to cause the film to move in the same direction as the channels in the reel, so aren't going to cause the film to move within those channels.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I have a SS 800ml tank in which fits two 120 reels. As I always use XTOL at 1+1 this means 200ml XTOL per roll.
To my personal experience, Hp5+/120 needs 14 min. at 20°C in this dilution.

If Kodak's XTOL disappears there is always ADOX's XT-3...

PS: the packaging of the XTOL you shows is rather strange to me, the XTOL I have is packed very differently, but mine is made in Germany...

 

[madNbad]

I would like to try XT-3 but Adox products are often unavailable in the U.S. Initial reports had availability of many items in stock by the end of November but sites like Freestyle Photo in California no longer show an expected date.
I’m not surprised the U.S. and the EU packing are different. With Kodak darkroom chemicals being made by a number of different companies and an unknown future with Sino Promise in bankruptcy.
If all else fails, I have the makings for Cafenol.

 

[john_s]

Just to add, the packages are marked “Made in the USA Sino Promise, Rochester New York”.

I noticed in your photo of the XTol packages that they are marked with different weights (270g and 244g).

 

[madNbad]

I noticed in your photo of the XTol packages that they are marked with different weights (270g and 244g).

The “A” package is 270g and the “B” package is 244g. The “B” package must have flipped to the front when I propped them up.

 

[pentaxuser]

Continuous inversion agitation or continuous nitrogen burst agitation or continuous up and down agitation of reels in cages in a dip and dunk line all aren't going to cause the film to move in the same direction as the channels in the reel, so aren't going to cause the film to move within those channels.

Thanks Matt In the case of a Jobo tank with continuous agitation isn't the central tube which passes through the middle of the rel sitting in a shallow round ditch at the bottom of the tank into which the tube is held static by ridges on the tube that are held against ridges in the ditch at the bottom of the central tube. I has assumed that in that way the film on the reel cannot move in an independent way but moves as one with the reel almost as if the film and its reel were one object Of course when the motor changes direction so does the film and then there is a very small amount of central tube movement independent of the film before the other ridge contacts the other ridge in the tank's bottom and then reel is held and moves as one with the film

In short this prevents anything but the most minimal of independent tube movement without the actual reel and so prevents actual movement of the film in the reel and would prevent, I would have thought, movement of the film in the way you describe, would it not?

However a Patterson reel and tank may not be the same so might the problem you describe apply to say Patterson and not Jobos? Just a thought on my part since Jobo tanks and reels are what I use

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Film slides and moves back and forth in the channels of the reel when:
a) the film is slippery, and
b) the reel rotates.
That happens with both single direction rotation, and bi-directional rotation.
It is almost as if it has a migratory imperative!