Xtol negs overdeveloped, help

[vegardjde]

By about 30% or so. I'm still relatively new to developing and haven't performed any film, development tests. I've gone off recommendations from the kodak chart and the massive dev. chart. I developed a roll of 120 tmax yesterday at 66º for 16:30. Xtol 1:3. The negs are really dense. Suggested development is 16:45 at 68º, so I'm shorter on time and two degrees colder.

Any ideas? Thanks.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodak does not recommend using XTOL at 1:3. See Reference: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf

See below:

 

[vegardjde]

30% is a guess. The exposure is fine. I shot on an overcast day and measured with my light meter, which is close enough to be reliable.

I agitated for first 30 seconds and then 5 seconds every 30 after.

I haven't printed the negs since I don't have a darkroom set up yet. I've been using an epson v700.

It's not just related to tmax. I've had the same issues with Neopan 1600 and Tri-x.

I have to knock off about two minutes from the suggested development times to get a good neg.

 

[Neal]

Dear vegardjde,

As mentioned above, the density is probably from over exposure. Looking at my old Xtol data sheet, the time you used was really quite reasonable.

Neal Wydra

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agitated for first 30 seconds and then 5 seconds every 30 after.

First time, thump the tank on a rubber pad and agitate for 5 seconds.
Then agitate for 5 seconds every 30 seconds.

You may have over agitated by starting with 30 seconds.

Steve

 

[Dave Swinnard]

Kodak initially did recommend XTOL at dilutions up to 1+3 and gave the times in their original documentation. They later changed that and dropped the 1+2 and 1+3 timings from their updated references.

I used the 1+3 dilution for many years with great success (and never had the dreaded XTOL failure even in the early days when they packaged in small quantities). Were I still using XTOL I would still be using the 1+3 dilution.

The Kodak documents J-108 (Nov. 1997 XTOL and rotary processing) and J-109 (April 1998, "normal" and rotary processing) show the extra dilutions, later editions of J-109 do not.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

If using an older exposure meter, selenium cells may deteriorate and give results that are off.

Does this happen to all your film from all your cameras? or just one body and lens combo? A slowing shutter or sticky aperture blades can cause over exposure.

Did you mix the stock solution of Xtol correctly? They are larger 5 liter bags.

Are you using a stop bath? or just a water stop? Development still continues if not using a stop bath.

If it keeps happening then just cut your dev time more.

 

[MattKing]

Negatives that look dense for scanning may very well print really well optically.

Try scanning them anyways.

 

[2F/2F]

You can do lots of things with developers that are not recommended by the manufacturer, and X-Tol at 1:3 is not far fetched at all. So I don't think that is the problem. My first thought, assuming that your exposures really are good, is that you just need to do the trials to figure out the right time to use at 1:3. You have just done trial number one. If you estimate that they are 30 percent overdeveloped, then you know what to try next time: less time. That will get you closer, and the next time closer still, and so on.

It's also possible that you just shot in very contrasty light, or that you are not judging the negatives properly when you say that they are exposed properly. If the whole neg is too thick, then the shots are overexposed. Remember that the darkest areas in the print should look almost clear on the neg. If you shot in pretty standard contrast light, and there is nothing on the neg that is truly clear or close to it, then they are probably overexposed.

Is it possible to take a picture of the negs against a window, or better yet, a light box, and post it here?

 

[brucemuir]

Have you checked the accuracy of your thermometer lately?

 

[Sirius Glass]

You can do lots of things with developers that are not recommended by the manufacturer, and X-Tol at 1:3 is not far fetched at all. So I don't think that is the problem. My first thought, assuming that your exposures really are good, is that you just need to do the trials to figure out the right time to use at 1:3. You have just done trial number one. If you estimate that they are 30 percent overdeveloped, then you know what to try next time: less time. That will get you closer, and the next time closer still, and so on.

Quite true, but a problem with diluting to a level of, for example 1:3, is that there is the possibility of not having enough active developer to properly develop especially if small volumes are being used.

Personally, I used XTOL stock for several years and then I saw that people here were using XTOL replenished. I tried the XTOL replenished and liked it even better.

One can learn a lot on APUG and the advice is worth everything you pay for it!

On the other hand ...

... when I started going to this website I only shot 35mm C41 color. Then I wanted to shoot black & white, so I bought a Nikon F100. Well then I thought that a larger negative would be better ==> BANG!!! I got not one, but two Hasselblads, one is a 903 SWC and the other is a 503 CX and four lenses. I set up a color and black & white darkroom in my Los Angeles home. Last summer I figured that it might be a good idea if I got two 4"x5" cameras. Add a Graflex Model D and a Pacemaker Speed Graphic. So now I have a Jobo CPP2 processor so that I can develop both color and black & white film on the East Coast. I have a black & white darkroom available in Maryland, but I am thinking ... if I had a color enlarger available ...

Warning!! Joining APUG can lead to Sirius GAS Pains!!










[Ok, now would be a good time to wipe your morning coffee off your computer monitor.]​

 

[jeffreyg]

Just a thought. I can't speak for XTOL since I don't use it. You might try taking two test rolls (or one and develop half in each) develop according to mfg's recommendations - one in XTOL and one in another developer say D76 or ID11. If the results are not good it most likely is your camera equipment as mentioned above.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[removed account4]

contact printing your film may give you a nice surprise. nice dense negatives print so much better than thin ones
maybe you will see the results and try to get dense negatives every time you process your film.

if not, you can always mix up some farmers reducer and reduce some of the density of your film,
after you reduce it you have to fix it as well.

i used to use xtol quite a bit in the 90s and later into the early 2000s but i was never able to get dense negatives
as you seem to have. i used some of the crazy dilutions that were recommended on the old publications ...
i over processed my film by 50-70% with no luck, and no matter the films i used
they lacked the zip i now get with other developers.

good luck!
john

 

[vegardjde]

I think Bruce has the right answer. I feel kind of dumb.

I checked one thermometer a month ago and it seemed to be accurate so that is the one I've been using. I checked it again today and something weird happened. In normal tap water, this thermometer (weston) registered the same temperature -- or close to -- as two other thermometers. But when I put it in distilled water, the temperature read: 66! Other two read 75º.

I started thinking about it last night and figured there is no way that room temperature water in Florida is 66 degrees. It hasn't been that cold here in five months. I've been mixing the xtol in distilled water and then storing both the xtol stock and extra distilled water in my kitchen. The thermostat in my house is set to 78 and the kitchen gets warmer than that.

I used two other thermometers to check the temperature and they both read around 75º. So my 16 minutes should have been 10 minutes. I'll try to develop another roll this week.

I also have been using a water bath instead of a stop bath. I'll give the stop bath a try.

I'll also try changing my agitation, too.

Thanks for the replies.

 

[Jim Noel]

How do you know your meter is "close enough to be reliable"? Has it been checked against a standard light source?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm very glad you got it figured out.

But, for the hell of it, try printing the negatives anyway. You may be surprised! John has a great point above that denser negatives often print really nicely, and with TMax film you have a very long and straight tone curve to move your gray values up and down. Even over-exposed AND over-developed may print very well, and many photographers do this routinely because they like the results better.

- Thomas

I think Bruce has the right answer. I feel kind of dumb.

I checked one thermometer a month ago and it seemed to be accurate so that is the one I've been using. I checked it again today and something weird happened. In normal tap water, this thermometer (weston) registered the same temperature -- or close to -- as two other thermometers. But when I put it in distilled water, the temperature read: 66! Other two read 75º.

I started thinking about it last night and figured there is no way that room temperature water in Florida is 66 degrees. It hasn't been that cold here in five months. I've been mixing the xtol in distilled water and then storing both the xtol stock and extra distilled water in my kitchen. The thermostat in my house is set to 78 and the kitchen gets warmer than that.

I used two other thermometers to check the temperature and they both read around 75º. So my 16 minutes should have been 10 minutes. I'll try to develop another roll this week.

I also have been using a water bath instead of a stop bath. I'll give the stop bath a try.

I'll also try changing my agitation, too.

Thanks for the replies.

 

[vegardjde]

I just ran another roll through and it looks much, much better. Thanks for all the help.