Xtol Replenished developer

[Hal Reiser]

A couple of months ago I began working with a Xtol replenished system and my experience with development times seems to be contrary to most of what I have read about this system. I'm finding consistantly that with all the films I've tested the development times for good density negatives that print between grades 2-3 on Ilford MGWT are around 40-45% higher than Kodak's published times. The films I have tested are;

VP 120 Rated EI 80 w/#8 yellow filter
PX 120 Rated EI 80 " " "
TX 120 Rated EI 320 no filter
TMY 120 Rated EI 320 " "

These exposure ratings are consistent with the ones I've used with these films when I processed them in D-76 1:1

The Xtol stock solution was mixed in Jan 2010 with the working solution stored in 1 64 oz glass bottle and the balance of the stock solution stored in 32oz glass bottles. The stock solution bottles are capped with vac-u-vin stoppers and pumped out as the solution volume is reduced in the bottle. Before I began developing film I started seasoning the working solution by developing two fully exposed rolls of old film. Up to this point I have put approximately 15 rolls through the working solution. After each roll I add the Kodak recomended 70ml of stock solution to the working solution before returning the used developer back into the working solution bottle. Unfortunately my shooting runs in fits and starts so consequently between February and June the developer sat unused though I added 70 mil of fresh stock solution to the working solution a couple of times during this period.

Development is done with small stainless steel tanks which are kept in a water bath to maintain temperature. Processing temperature is 68 degrees with a 30 second stop and Clearfix fixer also maintained at 68. Initial agitation is continuous inversions for the first 15 seconds then 5 inversions every 30 seconds thereafter.

To illustrate this the Kodak published time for Plus-x in Xtol straight at 68 degrees is 6 minutes. My images on my intial test roll at that temperature and time were incredibly thin including the ones which were overexposed by 2 stops or more. Even so there appeared to be good shadow detail so I'm fairly confident that my exposures were sufficient. Additional tesing established a time of 9 minutes 45 seconds. The times for the other films are similar but I haven't locked them down yet

Even with these longer development times I am really like the tonality and lack of grain in the negatives I'm getting.

I'm just curious as to whether anyone else has experienced these kinds of times as well or perhaps I'm having a problem with the Xtol. Any comments would be most welcome

Hal

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Hal,

It seems you're using your developer fairly infrequently. If you don't develop anything for about two weeks, replenish anyway. Your long developing times could be a sign of decreased activity due to a lack of replenishment. It could also be that you are not replenishing enough solution. I replenish at a rate of 90ml / roll using a 2liter working solution. And if I don't process film for two weeks or more, I replenish 90ml anyway, without processing film.

You will loose some speed with Xtol as replenished. I got acceptable negatives at box speed, but better at EI 250-320.

Yes, the negs are gorgeous, are they not?

- Thomas

 

[Hal Reiser]

Thomas,
Yes the negs are gorgeous I really am pleased with the results. I'll try upping the replenishment and see if that helps.

Thanks
Hal

 

[jmcd]

I want to try out Xtol replenished, but I am unsure how to get started, especially with regard to the working solution. (Also, in the Kodak instructions it mentions starting with a Kodak Developer Starting Solution. But perhaps this is for a machine processor?)

I would like my working solution to be diluted 1:1, to start. Could I start with a 1-1/2 liter bottle of working solution of Xtol 1:1, develop, and add 90ml of fresh Xtol stock replenisher per 80-square-film-inches to the working solution? [edit: No! See Thomas just below. Start with full strength!]

Thanks,

John

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

John,

You work with Xtol undiluted when you replenish. After the developer is seasoned, you have developer activity that is similar to between 1+1 and 1+2.
You start with stock Xtol. I recommend using a storage container that is slightly larger than the volume of your largest tank. This is your working solution. Mine is 2 liters. After about ten rolls the developer was seasoned and stabilized.
When you replenish, you pour out from the working solution bottle what you need to process your film. While developing, you pour 70-100ml of fresh stock Xtol per roll (120, 36exp, 8x10sheet equivalent surface area) back into the storage container.
After you're done developing, you pour back as much as you can of the volume you used to process, and when the bottle is full, you discard the rest.
You keep going like this indefinitely.

- Thomas

I want to try out Xtol replenished, but I am unsure how to get started, especially with regard to the working solution. (Also, in the Kodak instructions it mentions starting with a Kodak Developer Starting Solution. But perhaps this is for a machine processor?)

I would like my working solution to be diluted 1:1, to start. Could I start with a 1-1/2 liter bottle of working solution of Xtol 1:1, develop, and add 90ml of fresh Xtol stock replenisher per 80-square-film-inches to the working solution?

Thanks,

John

 

[jmcd]

Thank you, Thomas. That explanation is clear to me. And, the seasoned developer sounds like just the strength I wish to end up with.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The beauty of it is that you don't need a special replenisher. It's all just stock Xtol. The economy of it is really good also. A 5L Xtol kit yields between 50-70 rolls of film. A bag of Xtol is about ten bucks. That works out to about 14-20cents per roll of film.

Thank you, Thomas. That explanation is clear to me. And, the seasoned developer sounds like just the strength I wish to end up with.

 

[df cardwell]

Good job, Thomas

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Says he who taught me the virtues of replenishment.

Good job, Thomas

 

[brucemuir]

So once you have a SEASONED bottle of working solution you would use the starting times published for 1+1?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That sounds about right, Bruce. But in the end, it takes some trial and error to find your time.

I shoot almost only Tmax 400 film and process it, exposed at a normal EI of 250-320, for 12 minutes with agitation for the first full 30seconds, then 10s every two minutes, at 70*F/21*C. 10s gives me three full inversions, and each inversion I hear the reels slide against the wall of the tank. I would call it fairly gentle agitation, but vigorous enough to have even flow across the film plane.
Negs come out very nice and clean.

If I'm shooting a full roll of film in high contrast lighting, I shoot at EI 200 and process for 10 minutes with agitation every 3.

If I'm shooting a full roll in flat lighting, I expose at EI400-800 and process for 12minutes, but with agitation for 10s every minute.

It all depends on the lighting conditions. 90% of my negs print well on Grade 2-2.5 using Ilford MGIV matte paper and Ethol LPD developer at 1:2 (replenished). I use a condenser enlarger.

 

[brucemuir]

Got it, thanks.

Looks like a good strategy to vary agitation to contrast desired.

I think I'm heading this way as well after some prelim testing.

Thanks.

 

[jmcd]

I am guessing that replenishment should be proportional—is this correct? For instance, if you processed 6 sheets of 4x5 (120 square inches), and your normal replenishment amount is 80ml per roll (80 square inches), would you replenish with 120ml of stock (80ml times 1.5)?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Correct.
Qty 4 - 4x5 negs = Qty 1 - 8x10
Qty 6 - 4x5 negs = Qty 1.5 - 8x10 equivalent
1.5 x 80ml = 120ml

The actual volume you use to replenish with has to be established by - you! Kodak recommends 70-100ml per 8x10 equivalent film area. My personal rate is 90ml. I find it keeps my process stable and gives me the results I want over and over again. I could replenish 100ml too; you can't really over-replenish Xtol (within reason), but less gives me less activity over time, probably due to local water pH, contaminants, etc (Yes, I use tap water; I just boil it first and then bring to mixing temp).

 

[Ian Grant]

The beauty of it is that you don't need a special replenisher. It's all just stock Xtol. The economy of it is really good also. A 5L Xtol kit yields between 50-70 rolls of film. A bag of Xtol is about ten bucks. That works out to about 14-20cents per roll of film.

I used Xtol replenished for commercial & bulk work up to 5x4 from it's release until a last batch of 30 films Spring 2009, I never replenished at anything close to Kodak's suggested figure and always got extremely consistent results. Xtol uses a bleed replenishment system where some is drawn off and then a specified amount added, (as top up replenishment system is jut that top up what's been used in volume), and a bleed system can be over cautious.

My own regime was halfway been the two, based on what I'd been doing since the late 1960's with a variety of successive developers, I'd top up & every so often bleed some off & top up. I'd routinely be processing batches of 10-20 films and I'd guess processed well over 100 rolls per 5 litre with no shift in contrast/density/speed etc.

I'd do the blled & top up when the Xtol hadn't been used for a while. Xtol wasn't my main developer - for personal work I used Rodinal with APX100 & Tmax 100, Xtol was my preferred developer for Tmax 400.

Ian.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Ian,

Do you think you were able to do this because you processed on a more consistent basis, at a pro lab rate? I don't run more than maybe five rolls per week on average, while I bet you had a lot more going through your soup.
I see a distinct shift in activity if I don't do the 90ml per roll.

- Thomas

 

[Ian Grant]

Thomas, my rate was rather inconsistent in recent years I'd maybe run a roll or two through Xtol a week then 20 or more, then none for a month then 10 and so on. I always ran a single roll first if I had a large batch and maybe replenished more if needs be but in all honesty I think it was remarkably consistent.

My film usage hasn't been that high in the last decade as I had to switch to alternative capture for 99% of my commercial work, about 8 years ago, but as film usage went down the Xtol still held up OK.

Ian

 

[markbarendt]

My norm has been to replenish at 70ml/roll, the working solution is stored in a clear 1.75 liter bottle and the stock in a recycled boxed wine container.

I've had no issues whatsoever even when the working solution had rested for a month or more.

One thing that I observed when I first started replenishing, during the time I was seasoning my developer, was that the changes during the seasoning period, where I was just topping up, weren't dramatic. In fact there was never even a hint of a point where I felt chemistry exhaustion was going to cause a failure let alone push/pull me a grade off.

Where I did have problems, they were generally (okay almost always) attributable to me; like switching thermometers and expecting the same results, silly me, only calibrated thermometers can be substituted. :rolleyes:

 

[jmcd]

Do you think 1.25 liters of working solution is enough to maintain a stable system?

 

[Sirius Glass]

That sounds about right, Bruce. But in the end, it takes some trial and error to find your time.

I shoot almost only Tmax 400 film and process it, exposed at a normal EI of 250-320, for 12 minutes with agitation for the first full 30seconds, then 10s every two minutes, at 70*F/21*C.

It is good that you have something that works for you. I use XTOL full strength and replenish after every roll. I follow the Box Speed and the time and temperature by the publications and it works every time. The contrast and density are spot on and I did not waste my time proving that I know better than the manufacturer(s).

YMMV

Steve

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It is good that you have something that works for you. I use XTOL full strength and replenish after every roll. I follow the Box Speed and the time and temperature by the publications and it works every time. The contrast and density are spot on and I did not waste my time proving that I know better than the manufacturer(s).

YMMV

Steve

Yep. Indeed our mileage varies. I tried the manufacturer's speed and developing times, and it did not work out for me, so I tested until I found something that printed well.

And, you're making the point I try to make so often, that only one person can tell if your negs are good enough - the person that prints them.

- Thomas

 

[Sirius Glass]

And, you're making the point I try to make so often, that only one person can tell if your negs are good enough - the person that prints them.

Yes

 

[markbarendt]

Do you think 1.25 liters of working solution is enough to maintain a stable system?

Sure, that should be fine.

There are three reasons I went 1.75 liter.

1-Larger quantities are theoretically more stable/consistent.

2-I have a variety of tanks and sometimes use several tanks at once. For example, from one weekend I might shoot a roll of 120 and 2 sheets of 4x5. The tank for the 120 takes about 500ml the tank for the 4x5 takes about 1.1 so bare minimum I need 1.6 liters

3-I had the bottle, recycled a Margarita mix bottle.

 

[palec]

Thank you all for sharing information from own experience. I've just started with ripening of xtol stock and plan to maintain it while I will like the results.

 

[Hal Reiser]

Yes it is amazing how different folks will get different results with the same materials. I ended up with times that are almost double Kodak's recomended to get results to my satisfaction where as SG's system works with the suggested. If you are able to come away with something that works for you then that's what counts.