Xtol dilutions

[rwboyer]

Kodak would argue with you here as well. Here's their description of Xtol dilution at 1:3 from Kodak J-109.


n:n and n+n mean the same thing when talking about dilution.

Lee

Lee,

I specifically clarified that Kodak docs tell you exactly what they mean - people on the web do not when using X:Y.

RB

 

[Sirius Glass]

Another great way to use Xtol is replenished, 70ml for 36 frames is the replenishment rate.

I use XTOL undiluted and replenish with 70ml per roll of 135-36 or 120. I have never had a problem sticking to that.

Steve

 

[Pasto]

I use Xtol undiluted, and always much more than 100ml per roll. Just yesterday, I developed 2, 120 rolls of TMY-2 in 300 ml of solution. Why take chances with precious negatives. Developer is cheap.

 

[rwboyer]

I use Xtol undiluted, and always much more than 100ml per roll. Just yesterday, I developed 2, 120 rolls of TMY-2 in 300 ml of solution. Why take chances with precious negatives. Developer is cheap.

I agree - the only problem comes in when you have a constraint with the dilution you would like to use vs the total capacity that can be accommodated.
Sometimes the 1+3 gets tough depending on your development container/method. There are a lot of valid reasons to use a more dilute solution that full strength, Esp in warm climates where control can be difficult and when trying to change the characteristics of the developer to match your need at hand.

RB

 

[Lee L]

Lee,

I specifically clarified that Kodak docs tell you exactly what they mean - people on the web do not when using X:Y.

RB

Perhaps, but your post included a false and misleading statement that won't encourage the correct usage of the n:n notation, and will lead to beginners misinterpreting correctly posted information. There's sufficient evidence of that in this thread.

Lee

 

[rwboyer]

Perhaps, but your post included a false and misleading statement that won't encourage the correct usage of the n:n notation, and will lead to beginners misinterpreting correctly posted information. There's sufficient evidence of that in this thread.

Lee

Mia culpa - I give up. I didn't invent the eons old issue that even Phd Chemists have an ongoing issue with. Namely whether they are dealing with a mixing ratio or a concentration given no other information. Sorry I pointed out two possible reasons why the times he tried from someone else's info were so very very far off.

But hey - you must be absolutely correct. Nobody has ever wondered or misinterpreted a mixing ratio as a concentration when not told exactly which one it is. Heck you are right - never make sure you know. Let's get on with the disagreements on my second observation.

RB

 

[Lee L]

Mia culpa
RB

Don't blame it on Mia. She's a good kid.

Lee

 

[phenix]

To begin, Boyer you are perfectly right, and below I will repeat some of the things you already wrote, while adding some others. Thanks for your enlightening intervention.

Kodak would argue with you here as well. Here's their description of Xtol dilution at 1:3 from Kodak J-109.

Quote:
We recommend always starting with at least 100 mL (3.5 fluidounces) of full-strength developer to prepare the diluted solution for each 135-36 or 120 roll (or the equivalent of 80 square inches [516 square centimetres]). For example, with 1:3 dilution, this would produce about 400 mL (14 fluidounces) of solution.

I can’t believe what I read! So, according to Kodak, 80sqin (or 8x10in) is the surface of a 135-36 film, and is the same surface with the 120 film? I knew that it is the surface of a 135-24, or 120 film! At least, my contact proofer says so. Well, if you believe in the 135-36 = 80sqin, than you can also believe in the other two mistakes: 1:3 dilution (instead of concentration) = 1+3 dilution. First, 1:3 (the ratio) is called concentration not dilution, while 1+3 (the addition only) is called dilution, and secondly, they are not the same. The meanings are: concentration = active substance : total substance (a ratio is used to compare a part to the total, not to another part), while dilution = active substance + passive substance (or what parts you put together, the total amount being the result of the addition). Makes sense? So, 1:1 is nothing but the full strength, and 1:2 is the same with 1+1, and so one. But what to expect from the challenged who wrote this sheet for Kodak, and who considers the surface of a 135-36 film to be 80sqin and the same of a 120 film, of course that for such an ignorant concentration and dilution are synonymies, so 1:2 is the same with 1+2, and the full strength (1+0) would be... 1:0!

Now, for the minimum amount of stock solution one can use, it is the double of what really gets exhausted during the development. Less than that you won't have a reliable reaction. And this should be true for all developers (I've checked several and works). Now, when replenishing, no matter the dilution first used, the amount of replenisher should be the same as of the exhausted substance, so half of the minimum amount you need for developing. In numbers: minimum amount for XTOL for 80sqin of film (1 x 8x10in, 4 x 4x5in, 1 x 135-24 and not 36, 1 x 120) is 100ml stock in the dilution you want or you can get. When developing 80sqin of film, the amount of stock solution that gets exhausted is only 50ml, so if you replenish, you add some new 50ml stock (no matter the amount of stock solution and dilution you previously used). For 135-36, the numbers are: minimum stock is 150ml, and the amount of real exhausted solution (or the amount of replenishment) is 75ml. Of course, these numbers are widely dependent on the film you develop (the amount of silver), and on the scenes you did shot (again the amount of silver). Generally, this minimum covers old emulsions (rich in silver). As for replenishing, I wouldn’t recommend more than 2, maximum 3 times, as the dilution of active developer becomes more erratic after each film developed, so you won’t be able to adjust the times accordingly.

 

[Venchka]

RB,

Thanks! It's all clear now. Apparently, to a chemist, 1:3 means 1 part X in a total 3 parts. However, Kodak was explicit in their tech. bulletins stating 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 meant (Developer : Water). In the future, I shall use 1+3 which is exactly how I work. 1 part Xtol to 3 parts water. I also follow the 100ml/80 sq. in. minimum for Xtol. I liberally round up as well. Xtol is cheap. Photos are priceless.

 

[Venchka]

Kodak & Agfa say.................

Quoting Kodak:

Using Diluted Developer
Choose the appropriate development time and
temperature table for starting-point recommendations for
specific films in small tanks, tray, and rotary tubes.
You can dilute XTOL Developer 1:1 with water
(developer:water) for one-shot (single-use) processing.
Dilution at 1:1 will provide slightly greater film speed,
enhanced sharpness and shadow detail, and slightly more
grain.
Use diluted developer only once. Do not replenish or
reuse diluted developer.

Verdünnter Entwickler
KODAK XTOL Entwickler kann für die Einmalentwicklung
im Verhältnis 1:1, 1:2 oder 1:3 mit Wasser
(Entwickler : Wasser) verdünnt werden. Verdünnt bietet
der Entwickler leicht erhöhte Filmempfindlichkeit,
bessere Schärfe und ein etwas feineres Korn.

Quoting Agfa:

DEVELOPER
RODINAL 1 + 25
RODINAL 1 + 50
RODINAL 1 + 100

Both are clear as mud to me. That's exactly how I mix stock developer and water for use.

Cheers!

 

[rwboyer]

RB,

Thanks! It's all clear now. Apparently, to a chemist, 1:3 means 1 part X in a total 3 parts. However, Kodak was explicit in their tech. bulletins stating 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 meant (Developer : Water). In the future, I shall use 1+3 which is exactly how I work. 1 part Xtol to 3 parts water. I also follow the 100ml/80 sq. in. minimum for Xtol. I liberally round up as well. Xtol is cheap. Photos are priceless.

Actually chemists will usually ask if you are talking about concentration or dilution to make things really specific. Any way like I said kodak is explicit in what they mean in the docs regarding dilution. Web people usually are not.

RB

 

[f/stopblues]

Ugh, I thought I knew why my Neopan 400 in Xtol was so flat, but now my head is going to explode :confused:

That's okay, I ordered some Pyrocat yesterday

 

[Venchka]

Tmax 100 & Tmax 400 won't be flat in Xtol. Unless your definition of proper contrast is skewed toward Kodalith.

 

[rwboyer]

Ugh, I thought I knew why my Neopan 400 in Xtol was so flat, but now my head is going to explode :confused:

That's okay, I ordered some Pyrocat yesterday

I like pyrocat a lot but if you think your Neopan is flat in XTOL you are in for some very very long development times with Pyrocat at standard dilution's and lower temps - esp in tanks/trays. Good luck.

I use it all the time but I will bet you are very very surprised with your first few rolls.

RB

 

[Sirius Glass]

To begin, Boyer you are perfectly right, and below I will repeat some of the things you already wrote, while adding some others. Thanks for your enlightening intervention.



I can’t believe what I read! So, according to Kodak, 80sqin (or 8x10in) is the surface of a 135-36 film, and is the same surface with the 120 film? I knew that it is the surface of a 135-24, or 120 film! At least, my contact proofer says so. Well, if you believe in the 135-36 = 80sqin, than you can also believe in the other two mistakes: 1:3 dilution (instead of concentration) = 1+3 dilution. First, 1:3 (the ratio) is called concentration not dilution, while 1+3 (the addition only) is called dilution, and secondly, they are not the same. The meanings are: concentration = active substance : total substance (a ratio is used to compare a part to the total, not to another part), while dilution = active substance + passive substance (or what parts you put together, the total amount being the result of the addition). Makes sense? So, 1:1 is nothing but the full strength, and 1:2 is the same with 1+1, and so one. But what to expect from the challenged who wrote this sheet for Kodak, and who considers the surface of a 135-36 film to be 80sqin and the same of a 120 film, of course that for such an ignorant concentration and dilution are synonymies, so 1:2 is the same with 1+2, and the full strength (1+0) would be... 1:0!

Now, for the minimum amount of stock solution one can use, it is the double of what really gets exhausted during the development. Less than that you won't have a reliable reaction. And this should be true for all developers (I've checked several and works). Now, when replenishing, no matter the dilution first used, the amount of replenisher should be the same as of the exhausted substance, so half of the minimum amount you need for developing. In numbers: minimum amount for XTOL for 80sqin of film (1 x 8x10in, 4 x 4x5in, 1 x 135-24 and not 36, 1 x 120) is 100ml stock in the dilution you want or you can get. When developing 80sqin of film, the amount of stock solution that gets exhausted is only 50ml, so if you replenish, you add some new 50ml stock (no matter the amount of stock solution and dilution you previously used). For 135-36, the numbers are: minimum stock is 150ml, and the amount of real exhausted solution (or the amount of replenishment) is 75ml. Of course, these numbers are widely dependent on the film you develop (the amount of silver), and on the scenes you did shot (again the amount of silver). Generally, this minimum covers old emulsions (rich in silver). As for replenishing, I wouldn’t recommend more than 2, maximum 3 times, as the dilution of active developer becomes more erratic after each film developed, so you won’t be able to adjust the times accordingly.

OR bypass all that and use full strength added 70ml/roll of 135-36 or 120. That way it works, life is sweet and the results are wonderful.

Do not get deluded by dilutions!

Steve

 

[trexx]

I can’t believe what I read! So, according to Kodak, 80sqin (or 8x10in) is the surface of a 135-36 film, and is the same surface with the 120 film? I knew that it is the surface of a 135-24, or 120 film! At least, my contact proofer says so. Well, if you believe in the 135-36 = 80sqin, than you can also believe in the other two mistakes: 1:3 dilution (instead of concentration) = 1+3 dilution. .

a 135 x36 is 6201 inches. it is 35mm or 1.375 inch 1.375 x62 is 85.25 the sprocket holes make up over 8 sq. in. for about 78 sq in on a 36 exposure role of film.

So maybe Kodak was right. a 36 rol of 135 == an 8x10

TR

 

[phenix]

Right, 135-36 is 80sqin. I was very upset yesterday because of the concentration-dilution confusion in Kodak’s sheet, and I saw mistakes everywhere (temporary paranoia). I also haven’t developed 135 film in the last 2-3 years, but this is less of an excuse. Anyway, on the 80sqin issue I was stupidly wrong while Kodak was indeed right. Thanks TR for bringing to my attention this huge mistake of mine. I think the harsh words I addressed to Kodak's writer are now better suited for myself. Indeed, but only on this issue!

Finally, two more words on the other issue, concentration vs. dilution. A normal question would be: “why two measures”? I think this is because chemists prefer to use the ratio (concentration) measure for their calculations, while the end users work much easier for application purposes with the addition (dilution) measure.