Xtol: mixing part B before part A

I accidentally pour all the part B of Xtol into 4 liters water before adding part A. Tried to dissolve it completely. Now i think i have 3 options:
- Add part A and give it a good shake to dissolve it.
- Add part A to another 4 l water, dissolve it. Then mix them together with 2 l more to get 10 l of 1+1 solution.
- Dump it.

Anyone has experience?

No experience, but out of the three options given I would personally prefer option 3 (dump). Option 2 is generally not a good idea, as the higher dilution will accelerate oxidization of the developer. This is why Kodak advises against storing dilute developer. You could try option 1 and process a test film to see if everything is normal. But unless Xtol is very expensive where you live, the time, hassle and risk involved would not be worth the possible gain for me.

By the way, you should resist the temptation to give Xtol a "good shake" to speed up dissolving of the powder. Always dissolve powders by stirring. Shaking means that you introduce air (oxygen) into the solution, which should be avoided for the sake of the stability and longevity of the solution. Same reason why it is preferable to not use freshly tapped tap water for mixing but rather let it sit over night so any surplus oxygen has time to escape. While Xtol is an excellent developer with great keeping characteristics, it is not "idiot proof" and takes less abuse than some other products. But as long as you follow some SOPs regarding mixing and storing, you will get a very reliable developer with excellent keeping properties.

Dear jumanji,

There is another discussion somewhere on APUG about this question but I couldn't find it. A quick disclaimer, I use Xtol 90% of the time and have never had a single issue in almost 20 years but I have never been in your situation. If it ever happened, I would add the remaining water to make 5l and stir gently (as noted by mnemosyne) until it is essentially dissolved. Raising the temperature to 30°C should help as well. My stored developer reaches that temperature on a regular basis without issue.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

An interesting question. I can find nothing in either the Kodak site or Michael Covington that gives any directions on what to do if you mix in the wrong order but equally if mixing in the wrong order is fatal then I'd expect to see some reference to this - in bold black letters with a skull and crossbones next to it

I'd try and dissolve A by stirring and even crushing the powder on the bottom of the containers. Even in the correct order a little part of A can be left undissolved but Michael Covington believes this not to be important and can be filtered. However with patience crushing and
a lot of stirring may work. Even if not all of A dissolves and needs filtering, try this and then use the concentrate to develop a film leader for the time given for that film. If the leader turns black this suggests that the Xtol is working.

You have little to lose except a bit of time and if it works then we all benefit when you tell us that mixing B before A is not the end of the world

Best of luck

pentaxuser

I originally wrote the article about XTOL not being too predictable. However, 'a good shake' with ANY developer (53 years experience here) does absolutely NO HARM. The amount of oxidation you encourage with this is minuscule and all goes into solution much easier. I always put the powder in any developer into a (now PET plastic) bottle, fill it half way, and shake vigorously. I get superb results, always. There are those who will refute this 53 years experience and warn people not to do this. That is their choice. - David Lyga

I don't know Xtol too well, but there appears to be a good chance, that part B contains the Ascorbic Acid or Ascorbate, and part A contains alkali and iron/copper ion sequestering agent. Since part B has been in solution for a while by now, there's a good chance, that absent any sequestering agent some or most of the Ascorbate has decomposed (Fenton reaction), this can happen in substantial amounts within an hour or so. Therefore I would rather lean towards dumping and starting over with a fresh kit.

Before dumping it - maybe you can try to use as a paper developer?

David Lyga said:

I originally wrote the article about XTOL not being too predictable. However, 'a good shake' with ANY developer (53 years experience here) does absolutely NO HARM. The amount of oxidation you encourage with this is minuscule and all goes into solution much easier. I always put the powder in any developer into a (now PET plastic) bottle, fill it half way, and shake vigorously. I get superb results, always. There are those who will refute this 53 years experience and warn people not to do this. That is their choice. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

Excellent point. Who think Kodak they are to refute your 53 years of experience and tell people to stir?

mnemosyne said:

Excellent point. Who think Kodak they are to refute your 53 years of experience and tell people to stir?

Click to expand...

Kodak is no doubt giving instructions on the best way to do things. On the other hand David Lyga is simply telling us that shaking has not given him any problems and we are talking about a rescue operation here. Unless David Lyga is simply lying about his results from shaking or his results are only based on a few attempts in the time he has been processing then it would appear that shaking may not be as harmful as the conservative mindset would have us believe

I say this as an owner of just such a mindset myself.

pentaxuser

I too have used XTOL for years without problems. Of all the mistakes I have made, yours is not one of them. I think that for $10US you are safer to dump it and start over. I have made more expense mistakes than that.

I also think dumping the mixture would be best but I have not used X-tol for some time. Years ago when a local camera store was closing I bought a magnetic mixer. I found the teflon coated magnets separately. The magnetic mixer makes using powder chemicals less of a chore.

I did this once, I think I still have the orphan part A package.

Happened to me too. What i found out is that 1 L is actually enough to dissolve part A.

Huub said:

Happened to me too. What i found out is that 1 L is actually enough to dissolve part A.

Click to expand...

So, can we take it that in your case you dissolved Part B before Part A like our unfortunate poster but you were able to then dissolve Part A and it worked normally?

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

So, can we take it that in your case you dissolved Part B before Part A like our unfortunate poster but you were able to then dissolve Part A and it worked normally?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Indeed so. I had 4 L of B solution and decided to try how much water i needed to dissolve the A part, starting with one liter. That worked out pretty well and after dissolving the A part i mixed both A and B solutions to 5 L, left them for a day and started using the developer. I didn't notice any difference with the normal dissolving process.

Thanks, Huub. So that suggests that mixing B before A will still work which is good news.

pentaxuser

There is a lot of Ascorbate in Xtol, and even if you lose 2/3 it will work. Contrast and activity go down as Ascorbate decays, but the result will be nice. This "sudden death of Xtol" thing hits you, if you go from 1/10 or 1/20 of the original Ascorbate amount down to 0, which can happen very quickly and typically without prior warning.

If you now, after so many days as this discussion has lasted, mix part A into one liter or whatever, these four liters with part B had ample time to decay the Ascorbate. Nobody here can tell you reliably whether you are at 1/2 or 1/10 or 1/100 of the original Ascorbate content. You mix may last a day, a week, a month or a few years, or it may be already dead.

I would actually go with Darko's suggestion: use it as paper developer. If activity or developer speed is too low, add carbonate until speed is good, then bromide until fog is gone. If the developer turns inactive, reactivate it with 10 g/l Ascorbate, or toss it out. A lost roll of film is a drama, a lot sheet even of baryta paper is not.

Rudeofus, trying to summarise: Crucial to success or failure is the time interval between dissolving Part B and then adding Part A. If you do this straight away then no harm done?. If you leave the dissolving of part A and adding it to Part B for more than a day then the Ascorbate will have deteriorated but to an unknown extent thus the risk is there but it is impossible to say at what point along this "delay curve" that mixing Part B with Part A becomes hopeless. As a pointer and assuming the OP made the mistake only a few hours before he posted and has done nothing yet, then the mistake is roughly 36-48 hrs old now

Turning now to your second paragraph which looks like a method of restoration, can I ask if this restoration can only ever restore the Xtol to paper strength developer but restoration to film strength developer is not possible? If this is the case then can you say why restoration to film strength is not possible? Secondly I am a little unclear whether the life of the Xtol becomes permanently adversely affected if there is more than a very short interval between mixing B then adding A, say a few hours only? I am always looking to expand my knowledge

Huub, in view of Rudeofus' post I'd be interested in knowing how long the gap between mixing Part B and then mixing Part A and adding was, in you case?

Finally I take it that a film leader development test will still be a good indicator of whether B after A has worked but depending on the answer to how this affects longevity it would be sensible to do such a test each time?

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Turning now to your second paragraph which looks like a method of restoration, can I ask if this restoration can only ever restore the Xtol to paper strength developer but restoration to film strength developer is not possible?

Click to expand...

Paper developer is actually stronger (actually more active) than film developer.
The reason why one might consider using suspect developer for prints is that you don't cause as much damage if you try it and it doesn't work.

pentaxuser said:

Rudeofus, trying to summarise: Crucial to success or failure is the time interval between dissolving Part B and then adding Part A. If you do this straight away then no harm done?. If you leave the dissolving of part A and adding it to Part B for more than a day then the Ascorbate will have deteriorated but to an unknown extent thus the risk is there but it is impossible to say at what point along this "delay curve" that mixing Part B with Part A becomes hopeless. As a pointer and assuming the OP made the mistake only a few hours before he posted and has done nothing yet, then the mistake is roughly 36-48 hrs old now

Click to expand...

That's one of the difficult things: we just don't know how quickly Ascorbate deteriorates in a given aqueous solution. Decay rate depends on temperature and, of course, availability of Oxygen, but it is also a reaction catalyzed by iron and copper ions. These can come in through tap water, allegedly deionized water, or as chemical impurity from other ingredients. Ryuji Suzuki posted, that decay can be substantial in quite short time frames, less than an hour!

pentaxuser said:

Turning now to your second paragraph which looks like a method of restoration, can I ask if this restoration can only ever restore the Xtol to paper strength developer but restoration to film strength developer is not possible? If this is the case then can you say why restoration to film strength is not possible? Secondly I am a little unclear whether the life of the Xtol becomes permanently adversely affected if there is more than a very short interval between mixing B then adding A, say a few hours only? I am always looking to expand my knowledge

Click to expand...

Our expectations for film developer are much much higher than for paper developer, both in terms of reliability and in terms of consistency. Modern multigrade paper has builtin contrast, and it takes more than being a bit off with the developer to really change tonality. If developer pH goes down, you need longer to develop your prints, but who cares? You see development while it happens, and the final result will be the same. If the developer is completely shot and the print stays white or creates funny patterns, you mix a fresh batch, toss that one sheet which said "developer is toast!" and redo the print, this costs you less than US$ 10 and 10 minutes of your life. With film you lose the whole roll, and there is nothing to bring it back except for a reshoot.

That's likely the reasoning behind Darko's suggestion.

pentaxuser said:

Finally I take it that a film leader development test will still be a good indicator of whether B after A has worked but depending on the answer to how this affects longevity it would be sensible to do such a test each time?

Click to expand...

When the "sudden death of Xtol" craze boiled over, some people claimed they did a clip test to their satisfaction, yet the actual negs were completely blank. I am certainly not the one to judge or verify the credibility of these claims, but a roll of Delta 3200 is more expensive than the Xtol one tries to save here.

MattKing said:

Paper developer is actually stronger (actually more active) than film developer.
The reason why one might consider using suspect developer for prints is that you don't cause as much damage if you try it and it doesn't work.

Click to expand...

Yes Matt, I had a feeling I had seen a statement similar to you first sentence before. Maybe I had assumed wrongly that Rudeofus' meant that his suggestion in his second would work whereas it would seem from what you are saying that there is no guarantee that it would. So that's the bad news but the good news is that if it does work then the strength is not a worry. You are right about the risk to one sheet of paper being much less but of course a film leader test is the equivalent, isn't it?

So restoration along Rudeofus' lines gives full strength, if it works but still leaves the question: Does restoration restore the same longevity as would be the case if it was mixed in the right order?

If it doesn't then what is it about restoration that fails to restore normal longevity?

No doubt Rudeofus will respond as well.

Thanks

pentaxuser

Thanks for the recent contributions but I don't think I have seen an answer to the longevity question about the "restored Xtol" compared to the correctly mixed Xtol. Frankly if restoration works but the restored Xtol lasts only for a day then the benefit to cost ratio may prove so low as worthless. On the other hand if the restored Xtol were to last long enough i.e. several weeks then "break-even " may be possible and if several months then it may prove worthwhile.

If there are reasons from a chemistry aspect why restored Xtol will not last as long as correctly mixed Xtol then please give them
and if possible an estimate of the effect on longevity.

Given that my correctly mixed Xtol is now 2 years old, my conservatism has led me to leader test on the last three occasions before processing. I have yet to experience a situation in which the clip developed properly and yet the film was completely blank or even underdeveloped. I find it difficult to see how a leader comes out black but the film, developed a few minutes later, comes out blank.

If it is of any help to others my routine is clip development for the full time then fix and wash. I then check against the filament of a 100W bulb to ensure that the filament shows up as a distinct orange line. I keep the clip and then compare the next leader test to the first to see if there is any change which should reveal any exhaustion. So far it has proved to be a good test.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Thanks for the recent contributions but I don't think I have seen an answer to the longevity question about the "restored Xtol" compared to the correctly mixed Xtol. Frankly if restoration works but the restored Xtol lasts only for a day then the benefit to cost ratio may prove so low as worthless. On the other hand if the restored Xtol were to last long enough i.e. several weeks then "break-even " may be possible and if several months then it may prove worthwhile.

Click to expand...

I am quite confident, that "restored Xtol based paper developer", i.e. incorrectly mixed Xtol, to which you add carbonate, Ascorbic Acid and bromide, should have a shelf life comparable to regular Xtol. Since a powerful sequestering agent entered the scene with part A, there are no free iron/copper ions left to decompose the Ascorbic Acid added afterwards.

pentaxuser said:

Given that my correctly mixed Xtol is now 2 years old, my conservatism has led me to leader test on the last three occasions before processing. I have yet to experience a situation in which the clip developed properly and yet the film was completely blank or even underdeveloped. I find it difficult to see how a leader comes out black but the film, developed a few minutes later, comes out blank.

Click to expand...

I have never worked with Xtol, but read a lot about it when I mixed DS-10, DS-12 and some of Pat Gainer's and Mark Overton's developers. My conclusion was, that not all tap water is created equal, there are tap waters in some parts of the world which simply overpower the sequestering agent and turn Xtol into a short lived wonder. You may be lucky, and your tap water may be mostly free of iron/copper, so your Xtol may live a lot longer than other people's Xtol.

pentaxuser said:

Huub, in view of Rudeofus' post I'd be interested in knowing how long the gap between mixing Part B and then mixing Part A and adding was, in you case?

Click to expand...

Perhaps 15 minutes or a bit more. It was something i figured out as a possible solution immediately after i made the mistake.

pentaxuser said:

Kodak is no doubt giving instructions on the best way to do things. On the other hand David Lyga is simply telling us that shaking has not given him any problems and we are talking about a rescue operation here. Unless David Lyga is simply lying about his results from shaking or his results are only based on a few attempts in the time he has been processing then it would appear that shaking may not be as harmful as the conservative mindset would have us believe

I say this as an owner of just such a mindset myself.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Nope, no 'Lyga Lie'. The photo literature is replete with misguided stuff or stuff that does not have to be religiously followed. I guess when Kodak first recommended stirring the only real bottles were glass and they might have thought that the glass would break by hitting something! Shake and shake and think nothing of it. Another is the obsession with washing double thick fiber based paper for two hours! That is utter waste and a thorough wash for 20 minutes after soaking in water with sulfite or carbonate is sufficient. In fact, it has been proven that removing ALL fixer is detrimental; a tiny bit left in adds to the paper's protection. Thus, no more hypo ELIMINATOR (with peroxide) that was once marketed by Kodak. - David Lyga