Xtol dilutions

[Vonder]

I had a disappointing experience developing Tmax400 in Xtol 1+3 this weekend, so I sought the advice of the almighty internet and came across a couple of interesting comments. One assertion was that you need 100ml of stock Xtol to develop a roll of 35mm film, but no film length was specified. Does anyone know if this blanket statement is true? And if so, why? I mean, does Xtol bind with silver and become unusable, sort of like the lock and key enzyme model? I had always thought that if you used a higher dilution of Xtol you could compensate by developing longer.

I also read that Kodak doesn't support any Xtol dilutions greater than 1:1, because of problems with greater dilutions. Again, anyone know the truth of this?

 

[Ian Grant]

1+3 with most powder devs like ID-11 (D76), Perceptol (Microdol-X) and Xtol leads to a high degree of compensation as the developer exhausts, So your're right in a way.

Personally I found 1+2 was far better but never officially advocated, and then I had a customer ask for his FP4 to be processed in ID-11 @ 1+2 at a givren dev time, his negatives were the highest quality I've ever printed from 35mm for any customer. (That was about 20 yeras ago - you don't want to know what camera or lenses).

Ian

 

[Anon Ymous]

100ml is what Kodak recommends as a minimum per 80 square inches of film. That's 1 36exp 135 film, or 1 120 film, or 4 4x5 sheets, etc... There's always a minimum amount of developer needed to develop a film, so further dilution will require longer development times, but also a minimum amount of developer. Any manufacturer's figure can be expected to be pessimistic, but it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Now, where did you find the time for 1+3? How old was that source? TMax400 has changed rather recently, and development times can be (and probably are) different.

 

[Lee L]

Originally Xtol data sheets included up to 1:3 dilutions and times. The only form extant that seems to be around is the older German language version of J-109.

http://www.kodak.fr/AT/plugins/acrobat/de/professional/xtolEntwickler.pdf

Lee

 

[tkamiya]

Here's what page 2 of the latest note for XTOL, J-109 says.

"We recommend always starting with at least 100mL (3.5 fluidounces) of full-strength developer to prepare the diluted solution for each 135-36 or 120 roll (or equilavant of 80 square inches [516 square centimeters]).

Also, if you look at page 4 of F-4043 for Tmax-400 film, it says "We do not recommend using more dilute solutiosn of these developers than indicated in the table..." as a side note for XTOL (1:1). See table on left top.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Originally Xtol data sheets included up to 1:3 dilutions and times. The only form extant that seems to be around is the older German language version of J-109.

http://www.kodak.fr/AT/plugins/acrobat/de/professional/xtolEntwickler.pdf

Lee

There's also the April 1998 version online.

 

[Lee L]

There's also the April 1998 version online.

Thanks. These should be in an APUG FAQ somewhere prominent, as the same questions and others that could be answered by these older versions of J-109 seem to come up on APUG every few weeks.

Lee

 

[Tim Gray]

I keep all of these on my website, along with other stuff, just for future reference.

 

[MattKing]

I keep all of these on my Dead Link Removed, along with other stuff, just for future reference.

Tim:

Your link doesn't work .

Great website, by the way!

Matt

 

[markbarendt]

I had a disappointing experience developing Tmax400 in Xtol 1+3 this weekend, so I sought the advice of the almighty internet and came across a couple of interesting comments. One assertion was that you need 100ml of stock Xtol to develop a roll of 35mm film, but no film length was specified. Does anyone know if this blanket statement is true? And if so, why? I mean, does Xtol bind with silver and become unusable, sort of like the lock and key enzyme model? I had always thought that if you used a higher dilution of Xtol you could compensate by developing longer.

I also read that Kodak doesn't support any Xtol dilutions greater than 1:1, because of problems with greater dilutions. Again, anyone know the truth of this?

Another great way to use Xtol is replenished, 70ml for 36 frames is the replenishment rate. I can use 1.2 liters of my working solution to fill my 4x5 tank for 1 sheet and replenish it with just 18ml of fresh stock.

 

[rwboyer]

1+3 with most powder devs like ID-11 (D76), Perceptol (Microdol-X) and Xtol leads to a high degree of compensation as the developer exhausts, So your're right in a way.

Personally I found 1+2 was far better but never officially advocated, and then I had a customer ask for his FP4 to be processed in ID-11 @ 1+2 at a givren dev time, his negatives were the highest quality I've ever printed from 35mm for any customer. (That was about 20 yeras ago - you don't want to know what camera or lenses).

Ian

Just a note on all this - I did extensive work with XTOL in the late 90's and there are a couple of things that I need to clarify although I don't use XTOL any more.

First (and I am sure that there will be about 10,000 people that will want to argue this to death but trust me here - at least the benefit of the doubt) 1:3 IS 1+2 NOT 1+3. Ever since the internet has become popular a lot of folks started interchanging these things like they are the same thing - they are not and if you do not know who is doing the talking they may be giving you one when they are actually sharing data about the other.

My findings after extensive controlled testing is that the minimum developer amount is extremely film and exposure dependent. If you don't have enough when using it diluted XTOL will fail with a bang - not gently but plain old fail. Example= what may be perfectly fine for TMX and your exposure procedures for that film may not be okay for TMZ that is dense. The edge is quite abrupt, as in all development stops. This can be extremely frustrating if you think you have your process down pat based on one film and then it happens to work for a calibration roll or so of another and then boom it fails due to a difference in density of the scenes you happen to shoot on that new film. This has only happened to me with the 1:3 (1+2) dilution based on the nature of how many rolls and my processing setup at the time. I was sure I was safe using less than the 100ml based on 100's of rolls of other films and a successful calibration of the new film.

100ml is probably pessimistic but safe. Until you really really understand the minimum for your film/exposure techniques I would not use less. This upset me so much I actually did find the minimum for my films and exposures based on quantitate results of exposing every single frame at the highest density I target and backing off the 100ml and measuring the failure. This was my worst case.

Sorry for all the words. The only reason I comment is that XTOL is the worst case I have ever experienced in terms of the developer becoming completely exhausted so abruptly when it worked on film of the same type exactly as expected in another case.

RB

 

[Venchka]

I developed a few sheets of NEW Tmax 400 (TMY-2 edge marking) in my usual 1:3 Xtol dilution, 100ml Xtol + 300 ml water, and like the results. But then I develop all of my film, 135-120-4x5, in Xtol 1:3.

You are totally correct. According to Kodak, if I dilute Kodak Xtol 1:3 and place Kodak film in the solution, the world will tilt off it's axis and fly out of orbit. My negatives will also be rubbish. Something like this..........

I'm glad I can't read.

According to Mr. Boyer, I am using Xtol at the rate of 1:4. Go figure.

 

[Venchka]

Mr. Boyer,

In Kodak's old literature, they list times for the following: 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3. Please explain the proper way to achieve each of these dilutions. In terms of ml of Xtol and ml of water.

Thanks!

 

[rwboyer]

I developed a few sheets of NEW Tmax 400 (TMY-2 edge marking) in my usual 1:3 Xtol dilution, 100ml Xtol + 300 ml water, and like the results. But then I develop all of my film, 135-120-4x5, in Xtol 1:3.

You are totally correct. According to Kodak, if I dilute Kodak Xtol 1:3 and place Kodak film in the solution, the world will tilt off it's axis and fly out of orbit. My negatives will also be rubbish. Something like this..........

I'm glad I can't read.

According to Mr. Boyer, I am using Xtol at the rate of 1:4. Go figure.

I am not trying to change the world in terms of the way people communicate and I am not offering an opinion on dilution's. Whatever is working for you is working. I just wanted to warn the OP that a lot of people interpret 1:3 in different ways - 1+3 is hard to misinterpret. I have talked to many many folks that have written 1:3 or something like that a lot of them mean 1 part dev to 3 parts water a lot of them mean 3 total parts 1 part being developer.

I did not invent this and think that X+Y is a much better way of communicating. The warning is make sure you know what the person actually means when listing times/temps for a dilution.

Your post is actually a great point of reference I really can't tell if you really are mixing 1 part dev with 3 parts water or 4 parts water depending on my interpretation of your sarcasm.

RB

 

[tkamiya]

What....?

The way I understand this, Kodak literature publishes time/temp matrix for full strength and 1:1 dilution. I understood this to mean the full strength without any added water and 1:1 to mean 1 part developer and 1 part water.

Extending this understanding, 1:2 would mean 1 part developer, 2 parts water and 1:3 would mean 1 part developer and 3 part water.

According to what is being said above, this is no longer true. If "1:3 IS 1+2 NOT 1+3", then what would 1:1 dilution mean?

I am not trying to argue. I use XTOL and it is important to me I am doing this correctly.

Thank you.

 

[rwboyer]

What....?

The way I understand this, Kodak literature publishes time/temp matrix for full strength and 1:1 dilution. I understood this to mean the full strength without any added water and 1 part developer and 1 part water.

Extending this understanding, 1:2 would mean 1 part developer, 2 parts water and 1:3 would mean 1 part developer and 3 part water.

According to what is being said above, this is no longer true. If "1:3 IS 1+2 NOT 1+3", then what would 1:1 dilution mean?

I am not trying to argue. I use XTOL and it is important to me I am doing this correctly.

Thank you.

If I remember correctly kodak tells you exactly what it means in their documentation. I was just making a note of what other people mean is not so clear sometimes when they write 1:X vs 1+X. If OP was getting time/temp numbers off of the internet I was cautioning him to make sure he understands what a particular author of those time/temps is talking about.

My experience has been when people write 1:X they can mean one of two different things - when people write 1+3 it is usually safe to assume then mean one part PLUS 3 parts. That's it. I did not mean to imply that Kodak's documentation was wrong, etc.

RB

 

[tkamiya]

Then, you are basically saying, (paraphrasing) "when one see a ratio, such as 1:1 or 1:2, first examine and understand what these ratio represent. Do not assume they are always full strength solution : water, but it could also mean full strength : total volume?"

 

[Tim Gray]

Tim:

Your link doesn't work .

Great website, by the way!

Matt

Whoops. Stray / in there at the end. Fixed now.

http://125px.com/techdocs/kodak.html

 

[rwboyer]

Then, you are basically saying, (paraphrasing) "when one see a ratio, such as 1:1 or 1:2, first examine and understand what these ratio represent. Do not assume they are always full strength solution : water, but it could also mean full strength : total volume?"

Yes that was my point in the dilution thing depending on where that person is from/educated/planet X:Y can mean X PLUS Y or X IN Y. I actually prefer the notation X+Y it is much more clear.

My point about XTOL abruptness when it exhausts is actually more on point unless it has changed in the last 8-10 years. I would imagine the situation is worse with 1+3 vs my preferred standard dilution of 1+2.

RB

 

[MattKing]

Whoops. Stray / in there at the end. Fixed now.

Dead Link Removed

Tim:

Not fixed yet.

Don't you mean:

//125px.com/techdocs/kodak.html

rather than your:

//125px.dev/techdocs/kodak.html



Matt

 

[Lee L]

First (and I am sure that there will be about 10,000 people that will want to argue this to death but trust me here - at least the benefit of the doubt) 1:3 IS 1+2 NOT 1+3.
RB

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

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.

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

Lee

 

[Vonder]

Thanks for all the replies and comments. I used 75ml of Xtol to 225ml water, developed for 15.5 minutes. The negatives are thin, not to the point of being unscannable or unprintable, but certainly not up to my Acros shots I develop in the same dilution. I know Kodak's times for pushing Tmax are way off, so I used the Massive Dev chart for my source material and used the 120 time instead of 35mm. The negatives strike me as "murky" or muddy. The Xtol is pretty old in my development chronology, about 6 months old.

My OM2n has a roll of Tmax400 in it right now, so maybe I'll cut back the dilution this time, using 150ml of both Xtol and water.

 

[Lee L]

And just so that it shows as a link somewhere in this thread on APUG:

http://125px.com/techdocs/kodak.html

Thanks for posting it.

Lee

 

[Arvee]

My 2002 Kodak B/W Darkroom Dataguide, Sixth Edition, which was still suggesting Xtol developer dilutions noted the following information, from pp. 10:

"When using full-strenght solution, use at least 150ml of developer per roll. With 1:1 dilution, use 200ml per roll; with 1:2 dilution, use 250ml per roll; with 1:3 dilution, use 350ml per roll."

"Per roll" is assumed to be 80 sq. in.

-F.

 

[Tim Gray]

Tim:

Not fixed yet.

Doh. Not my day. Sorry for linking to my local version and polluting this thread