XTOL expiration date on unmixed chemicals

[Gibran]

Just curious as to how important the expiration date is which is printed on the dry XTOL chemical packets. Which chemicals expire in their dry form as packaged by Kodak or do they? I ask just in case I decide to stock some for the future. Thanks.

 

[removed account4]

hi gibran

i posted a similar question a while ago ...
it is now my understanding that the chemistry will be good
unless there is "clumping" in the packages. no 1L packages are
sold anymore ( from what i know ) and they were problematic.
(xsds-- xtol sudden death syndrome ) ... but it is easy enough to test xtol
to see if it is still good ... since it is a "binary developer" take a clipping of your favorite film -
with lights on ( so film is exposed ) stick it in the developer ... if it changes, you are all-set, the developer is still okay, if nothing happens, get rid, and mix new, your xtol is dead.

good luck!
john

 

[laser]

I don't like to disagree but....

1. Manufacturer's put on an expiration date for good reason. They have information that leads them to their recommendation. From their point of view they would like to recommend 25 years or so. But since the performance does decline with time they
recommend a limit.


2. Why would you risk for time and expense in making photographs to using chemicals that the manufacturer tells you will not deliver the best possible performance.

3. If you still want to use them chemicals carefully test them. The "stick a piece of fogged film in the developer" test is very crude. If it only has to turn fogged film dark you can probably exceed the capacity limit by a factor of 10X. It isn't going to take much developing agent to satisfy this requirement. If you must use expired developer you should test by carefully control time, temperature, and agitation. If it matches the results with in-date developer you are all set. You may come closer to matching the performace of fresh chemicals by extending the developer time or temperature.

Best of luck,

 

[Gibran]

I don't like to disagree but....

1. Manufacturer's put on an expiration date for good reason. They have information that leads them to their recommendation. From their point of view they would like to recommend 25 years or so. But since the performance does decline with time they
recommend a limit.


2. Why would you risk for time and expense in making photographs to using chemicals that the manufacturer tells you will not deliver the best possible performance.

3. If you still want to use them chemicals carefully test them. The "stick a piece of fogged film in the developer" test is very crude. If it only has to turn fogged film dark you can probably exceed the capacity limit by a factor of 10X. It isn't going to take much developing agent to satisfy this requirement. If you must use expired developer you should test by carefully control time, temperature, and agitation. If it matches the results with in-date developer you are all set. You may come closer to matching the performace of fresh chemicals by extending the developer time or temperature.

Best of luck,

Thanks for the replies thus far. It may sound a bit cynical, but one reason a manufacturer might put an expiration date on something could be for pure marketing and profit considerations. It could be to their advantage that say the chemicals don't last past a certain point(or that perception is there) and the consumer must buy more. I'm not saying this is the case with XTOL because I just don't know(which is why I asked the question) but I think your first argument is not a forgone conclusion in todays busines world.

 

[removed account4]

i used xtol last year that expired in the 90s. it was still good.
i also used xtol in the 90s, that died when i was using it --- one of reasons
i had not used it since the 90s

 

[df cardwell]

The BIG reason manufacturers put expiry date on chemicals is that
there were fewer knowledgeable photoconsumers in the '80s and '90s,
fewer knowledgeable sellers, and a woeful decline in the expertise of manufacturers representitives. The final straw was the internet, whose advent allowed consumer error to be blamed on the manufacturer and spread broadcast throughout the world.

In the old days, a store carefully rotated it's stock. It was a time consuming process, which involved getting on one's knees and (sometimes) working up a sweat. It had the benefit of teaching the bottom-rung employees a chance to learn their job, or at least become familiar with the names. Sometimes to ask the boss a question like, "Why so many kinds of developers?"

But that was another era. Easier to just put a date on the bag and C-Y-A.

• I recently was given a couple pounds of meto,l c.1975. I tested it in D72: worked fine. Mixed some D76H. Worked fine, according to the calibrated step wedge and densitometer. Now, there is NO way I soup film in that stuff if I can help it, because I am suspicious by nature. But there is no way I won't use it for paper developer.

Test, test, test.

 

[gainer]

I don't like to disagree but....

3. If you still want to use them chemicals carefully test them. The "stick a piece of fogged film in the developer" test is very crude. If it only has to turn fogged film dark you can probably exceed the capacity limit by a factor of 10X. It isn't going to take much developing agent to satisfy this requirement.
Best of luck,

Not true in my experience. If the film is black in 2 minutes in a developer that normally takes 8 minutes, it is good enough. This is not fogging, it is developing. Fogging can only be tested on unexposed film developed in darkness. The amount of developing agent in the pot is not the factor. It is the concentration. A few drops of good working strength developer in a small puddle on a piece of exposed film will make a black spot in 2 minutes. Leave the same sized puddle on a saucer to aerate for a while and see if it makes the same kind of black spot.

Certainly it is good advice to test thoroughly any unknown quantity of anything before putting it to critical use. There is no reason not to test the "old" Xtol. One should even test new developers of all kinds. Who knows when a particular batch might have been bad from the start, as some Xtol was, due to packaging defect? It's just that I have found that it is not necessary to get out all the test equipment. The rough test shows if the developer is bad, especially if it is Xtol, because it seems to die suddenly.

 

[Gerald Koch]

I recently was given a couple pounds of meto,l c.1975. I tested it in D72: worked fine. Mixed some D76H. Worked fine, according to the calibrated step wedge and densitometer. Now, there is NO way I soup film in that stuff if I can help it, because I am suspicious by nature.

I routinely use Metol that was manufactured years ago in film developer without any qualms. I purchased 5# many years ago when Kodak stopped selling chemicals. As a chemist I can tell you that Metol is a stable chemical and will last indefinately when kept closed and away from light and heat. You can tell if it is good by how it looks, mine is a pale purplish gray.

 

[srs5694]

I've got another perspective on this: If you're buying so much developer that you're running up against the expiration date on the packet, then you're probably buying too much developer. (Alternatively, the store has sent you stuff that's too close to its expiration date, in which case you should take it up with the store.) If you use very little developer, and hence a 5-liter packet of XTOL is too much, then perhaps you should consider mixing your developers from scratch in smaller quantities. You could mix up half a liter of Mytol, for instance. Some people mix their developers just before use, in precisely the quantities they intend to use, to avoid spoilage issues. Most raw chemicals will last for decades if properly stored.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

It is absolutely no good past date even if it does not clump.

This was the cause of my last and final Xtol failure. This was before packs were dated so it was not my fault.

I did a clip test and still got an underdeveloped roll. Batched was mixed with distilled water at 90 deg and one week old stored in full glass bottles and worked fine 24 hrs after mixing.

Talks with Kodak confirmed there is no way a home user can measure activity with this developer. It is a chance every time.

I`m back to D76 mixed from scratch with powders kept in full small bottles with lids tape sealed. Have not had a problem since. Mixed D76 is kept in full one time use glass bottles.

 

[laser]

A couple of ideas:

Manufacturers use an expiration date because prepared developers do go bad. A commercial developer is a lot different than a glass jar of METOL. The developer has a variety of different chemical components that react and influence one another. As the reactions take place, even in powder form, the ability to act as a developer changes. A bottle of METOL is subjected to a far less demanding environment so it will last longer.

Regarding the room light 2 minute test: This is far too coarse to be very useful. Yes, it will tell you if it is a developer or not but it will not tell you how good it is.

1. Development is not a binary process i.e. it does not go to completion. You stop it as you wish i.e. the Zone Systems. Yes, a grain develops or not, butthe number of grains that develop will increasewith development time i.e. analog.

2. I referred to fog in my previous note in the sense that fog is a non-imagewise density change. Leaving the room lights to expose the film is indeed fog.

3. Room light exposure of film is far different that what is done in the camera on at least two counts: a 1/50 sec camera exposure can create a far different latent image than a many minute room light exposure. Depending on the electron trapping of the emulsion solarization can occur. The room light exposure is many orders of magnitude more exposure. Think of it in terms of reciprocity. is 1/50th the same as 10 minutes?

4. Developing and exposing at the same time can create Sabatier Effect. Solarization and Sabatier will totally destroy any accuracy in making a density judgement.

I am still amazed that someone will apply their skill, creativity and resources to make a photograph then process it in chemical of questionable quality. If it was carefully tested and was ok I can see using it. But doing a casual test doesn't seem to be consistant with the purpose of the entire task. We measure our exposures within a 1/3 of a stop, clean our equipment to keep it dust free, measure chemical temperature to .1F etc. but then are willing to dunk a piece of film in the developer in room light to determine .

From a systems point of view it seems very inconsistant.


Best wishes.










I

 

[Gerald Koch]

A commercial developer is a lot different than a glass jar of METOL. The developer has a variety of different chemical components that react and influence one another. As the reactions take place, even in powder form, the ability to act as a developer changes. A bottle of METOL is subjected to a far less demanding environment so it will last longer.

I suppose that I am being too critical about this but, my comment about the keeping properties of Metol were just that and had nothing to do with the keeping properties of commercial developers.