XTOL replenished, JOBO... I need help!

[Dani]

I got another question, how about pushed film? Since it stays longer in the developer, should it not be put back in the working solution? Or use a different rate of replenisher?

I developed three rolls of 35mm ISO 400 pushed 2 stops in fresh stock solution and now I’m wondering what to do with it. I used a slightly higher temperature so the time was shorter but at the end it got me thinking what to do with it since it got that workout.

 

[MattKing]

I got another question, how about pushed film? Since it stays longer in the developer, should it not be put back in the working solution? Or use a different rate of replenisher?

I developed three rolls of 35mm ISO 400 pushed 2 stops in fresh stock solution and now I’m wondering what to do with it. I used a slightly higher temperature so the time was shorter but at the end it got me thinking what to do with it since it got that workout.

If you are push developing a significantly high percentage of your film, you may find that a slightly higher replenishment rate will be needed to maintain your X-Tol in a steady state. On the other hand, a lot of shots taken with film slated for push development seem to have lots of shadows, and relatively few mid-tones and highlights, which tends to have the opposite effect.
This is another example of the benefit of working with a larger quantity of working solution - it helps even out any inconsistencies.
As for the developer used for those three rolls, deal with it normally.

 

[Dani]

Wonderful! That’s very helpful, thank you!

 

[JWMster]

If the OP will allow, I'll admit to unsuccessful efforts to get replenished XTOL to work in my JOBO process. I've got the smaller JOBO, so with 120, it's a max of 6 rolls (if memory serves correctly), and with 4X5 a max of 12 on two 2509 reels. My standard fluid for the JOBO is the max safe for the motor: 600ml. Difficulty I had was aeration. While waiting delivery from US Plastics of some really excellent air tight plastic bottles, I called Omer Hecht at Catlabs - the US Jobo dealer. Discussed my difficulty, and he suggested JOBO's aeration of the chems as simply not as suited to replenishment as other agitation approaches. He didn't suggest it wasn't possible - only that it could be difficult.

And yes, I probably could have upped the replenishment chem and I think that's probably a good move. FWIW, I took the easier move and simply switched developers... to Bergger's chems. Since then I'm using one-shot Caffenol mixes, but still open minded, and yes XTOL is of renewed interest. I suspect that works well for my good friend Adrian Bacon because in his case, replenishment is based on much higher volume and he's not dealing with a X quotient of the "new" or the "old" simply sitting through a work week for much of the time as we go about our non-photography jobs. So the number of variables in determining a replenishment scheme in his case is probably lower than would prove the case for guys like me... and the real question becomes is it worth the trouble of debugging when there ARE other options? At the moment, I've got enough variables in the mix of learning 4X5 to not seek additional by choosing to pursue a replenishment scheme for my developer. Adding a 2 Fix process is one thing and comparatively simple. With INVERSION and not ROTARY agitation, I suspect low volume guys like me might find less difficulty.

But maybe I'm missing something?

 

[markbau]

It seems to me that some people are saying that replenishment procedures with XTOL somehow produce "better" negs than unreplenished XTOL, if I'm interpreting this properly I'd love to hear about this. I ran replenished lines at a pro lab years ago and there it was done for reasons of economy with control strips, but this idea that in a home lab, replenished developer is somehow superior to unreplenished developer is something I'd like to learn more about.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

It seems to me that some people are saying that replenishment procedures with XTOL somehow produce "better" negs than unreplenished XTOL, if I'm interpreting this properly I'd love to hear about this. I ran replenished lines at a pro lab years ago and there it was done for reasons of economy with control strips, but this idea that in a home lab, replenished developer is somehow superior to unreplenished developer is something I'd like to learn more about.

it is significantly better looking than unreplenished xtol. You get all the speed and acutance of xtol diluted 1+1, but the grain structure takes on this silky smooth characteristic that just looks wonderful.

I’ve been posting images on my media page of our home life during our county’s shelter in place order that were developed in replenished xtol on my JOBO if you care to look.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It seems to me that some people are saying that replenishment procedures with XTOL somehow produce "better" negs than unreplenished XTOL, if I'm interpreting this properly I'd love to hear about this. I ran replenished lines at a pro lab years ago and there it was done for reasons of economy with control strips, but this idea that in a home lab, replenished developer is somehow superior to unreplenished developer is something I'd like to learn more about.

it is significantly better looking than unreplenished xtol. You get all the speed and acutance of xtol diluted 1+1, but the grain structure takes on this silky smooth characteristic that just looks wonderful.

I’ve been posting images on my media page of our home life during our county’s shelter in place order that were developed in replenished xtol on my JOBO if you care to look.

Yes, for a little extra work the tonality and small grain is improved over straight XTOL.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I have also been enjoying the benefits of XTOL R. It does seem as though I go through a similar amount of stock as if I were doing 1:1, though of course it's very slightly less. I keep 5L of working solution going. I've also been noticing a grey particulate building up at the bottom of my tank so I'm going to need to clean that out. Overall I haven't seen HP5+ negatives look this good.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I have also been enjoying the benefits of XTOL R. It does seem as though I go through a similar amount of stock as if I were doing 1:1, though of course it's very slightly less. I keep 5L of working solution going. I've also been noticing a grey particulate building up at the bottom of my tank so I'm going to need to clean that out. Overall I haven't seen HP5+ negatives look this good.

How are you running film through the XTOL-R, your Jobo or deep tanks?

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

SSK-8R and Jobo equipment.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I just ran 14 rolls using my SSK. This involved 1 8x run, 1 4x run, and 1 2x run. At 1:1 that would have been 1000ml of stock solution. (Though the 2x run technically uses less than 500ml of chemistry the machine doesn’t like it if the bottle has less than 500ml in it so I just fill it to 500 for both 4x and 2x roll runs).

Anyway at 14 rolls I needed 980ml of replenisher to the extracted working solution. So, I saved 20ml technically. Not a huge economy advantage.

However, the improvements in IQ are real and it should be less affected by oxidation in a rotary process.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

However, the improvements in IQ are real and it should be less affected by oxidation in a rotary process.

I've been happy with the performance of XTOL-R, interesting though that a former poster here - possibly Gerald Koch - has stated that XTOL doesn't give the same advantages in replenishment that MQ developers may do. I must say that I've not done sufficient reading to come to an indedependent conclusion and other knowledable people here such as Ian Grant have endorsed the use of XTOL in a replenished regime. One film to note though is that I've found Pan F Plus may work better in dilute XTOL, 1+1.5 seems to be a good option.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I've been happy with the performance of XTOL-R, interesting though that a former poster here - possibly Gerald Koch - has stated that XTOL doesn't give the same advantages in replenishment that MQ developers may do. I must say that I've not done sufficient reading to come to an indedependent conclusion and other knowledable people here such as Ian Grant have endorsed the use of XTOL in a replenished regime. One film to note though is that I've found Pan F Plus may work better in dilute XTOL, 1+1.5 seems to be a good option.

I actually quite like D76 and considered running it replenished, but you just can’t beat the fact that XTol is its own replenisher. It’s just so easy.

I just ran 8 sheets of 8x10 TXP 320, looking great! Can’t wait to scan.

 

[JWMster]

Okay... rethinking this... possibly... let me ask: Are you running XTOL-R 1:1 or straight stock? It's possible one of my problems lay in 1:1 rather than straight stock.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Replished XTOL is used as it is, not 1:1.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Okay... rethinking this... possibly... let me ask: Are you running XTOL-R 1:1 or straight stock? It's possible one of my problems lay in 1:1 rather than straight stock.

replenished xtol is not diluted. That’s a really fast way to ruin it.

 

[JWMster]

Thanks. Yep 'splaining a lot of why I guess it didn't work. As Homer put it: "Doh!"

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks. Yep 'splaining a lot of why I guess it didn't work. As Homer put it: "Doh!"

 

[JWMster]

SG: Perfect!

 

[JWMster]

Just curious: Anyone using LegacyPro's version of XTOL (EcoPro Ascorbic Acid Powder) in a replenishment regimen?

 

[MattKing]

The X-Tol MSDS:
Sodium sulphite (7757-83-7), Sodium tetraborate, pentahydrate (12179-04-3), Pentetic acid,
pentasodium salt (140-01-2), 4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone (13047-13-7)
The Legacy Pro MSDS:
SODIUM SULFITE 7757-83-7 5mg/m³* 5mg/m³* 70-80
SODIUM ERYTHORBATE 16381-77-7 N.E. N.E. 15-20
SODIUM METABISULFITE 7681-57-4 N.E. 5mg/m³* 5-10
The Legacy Pro instruction sheet makes no reference to replenishment.
I wouldn't risk trying it with replenishment, but I'm naturally cautious.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

The X-Tol MSDS:
Sodium sulphite (7757-83-7), Sodium tetraborate, pentahydrate (12179-04-3), Pentetic acid,
pentasodium salt (140-01-2), 4-hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone (13047-13-7)
The Legacy Pro MSDS:
SODIUM SULFITE 7757-83-7 5mg/m³* 5mg/m³* 70-80
SODIUM ERYTHORBATE 16381-77-7 N.E. N.E. 15-20
SODIUM METABISULFITE 7681-57-4 N.E. 5mg/m³* 5-10
The Legacy Pro instruction sheet makes no reference to replenishment.
I wouldn't risk trying it with replenishment, but I'm naturally cautious.

I'm not entirely sure it's a drop in replacement for XTOL. It's similar in that it's ascorbic acid based, but I've not heard of anybody successfully running it in a replenished line.

 

[JWMster]

Yep. I think you're right. Makes sense, too.